Those who follow the gay rights movement, especially as it pertains to Religious Right opposition, know all too well that anti-gay wingnuts will go completely Sarah Bernhardt at any perceived slight to the cultural supremacy they still believe they hold. Therefore, when a nondiscrimination law passes and suddenly a wedding photographer who happens to be a wingnut decides she doesn’t want to follow the law, the wingnut is held up as some sort of champion for tradishnul values/a trampled victim. Aside from the fact that it’s a completely disingenuous strategy, it’s sort of gross, as gay teens still attempt and complete suicide at far-too-alarming rates and even now, with a majority of Americans supporting marriage equality, anti-gay hate crimes are still on the rise. Meanwhile the incidences of Christian Fundamentalists being bullied, beaten, maimed or killed for being Christian Fundamentalists in this country are still pretty much zero. So the Religious Right touts these stories, bitching and moaning to the very moon about how we on the side of fairness and equality are the real haters and they’re the real victims.
A New York town clerk has decided to quit her job, rather than sign marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples:
Laura Fotusky submitted a letter of resignation to the town board in Barker, a small town north of Binghamton, on Monday, saying her religious beliefs prevented her from marrying gay couples.
Okay, fine. If she doesn’t like it, get a new job. Here’s part of her letter:
There was no protection provided in the legislation for Town Clerks who are unable to sign these marriage licenses due to personal religious convictions, even though our US Constitution supports freedom of religion.”
“I believe that there is a higher law than the law of the land. It is the law of God in the Bible. In Acts 5:29, it states, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’”
“The Bible clearly teaches that God created marriage between male and female as a divine gift that preserves families and cultures. Since I love and follow Him, I cannot put my signature on something that is against God. Deuteronomy 10:12 says, ‘…What does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and soul, and to observe the Lord’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good.’”
“I would be compromising my moral conscience if I participated in the licensing procedure.
Unfortunately, Laura’s interpretation of the Bible isn’t a legal document in the state of New York. Also, freedom of religion doesn’t include the right to do inferior work in one’s state career due to one’s religious beliefs. I always say this, but it bears repeating again: discriminating against minorities in secular careers actually isn’t part of the free practice of anyone’s religion! Despite what the Religious Right says, we actually don’t care whether or not their churches are willing to perform same-sex marriage. Why? Because those churches are where they actually DO practice their religion. That is actually part of their Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, and as such, should be protected. But this is civil marriage we’re talking about. Duh…
Oh, but watch. The usual suspects will add this one to their litany of sob stories about how it’s just so gosh darn hard to be a Fundamentalist Christian in the United States.
Apparently she had no problem signing marriage licenses for people who were remarrying after a divorce, also prohibited by the bible. But this did not force her to put her name on something “against gawd”? Since she picks and chooses which parts of the bible to uphold and which to ignore, this move on her part is not based on religious belief, but on anti-gay animus. Plain and simple. So when she is held up as the poster-child victim of the religious wingnuts, lets remind them of this.
I have a philosophical question about this situation. If instead of being the clerk of Barker, New York, Laura Fucktusky had been Barker’s dog catcher, and if she saw a male dog she was supposed to be catching joyously humping another male dog, would she have quit in a pique, because having to catch an obviously gay dog was an affront to her alleged “moral conscience”?
This woman has declared that she would not do her job, and freely admits that her religious beliefs prevent her from serving the public and following the law of New York equally. If this woman had said that she wouldn’t sign the license of two Jews because they rejected Jesus, or a divorced man marrying a divorced woman because she is catholic, or another Christian because they had had premarital sex, she would rightfully be called a religious bigot by just about everyone. We have laws against that at every level of government. But let it be about gay people, and suddenly, she can’t do her job, she is being victimized by the uberpowerful homosexual minority, and some people manage to find an exception to what they would otherwise condemn.
After all, this is about keeping the queers down, and morality, and god’s clear words. How can we find bigotry in that? It’s just her sincere religious belief.
You wanna know about God’s word? Render unto to Caesar…
You really wanna know about god’s word? “God’s Word” is what religious people turn to justify the most egregious acts against others, when the simpler, more human standards of logic, fact, experience, compassion, respect, love, decency, and basic good manners—especially so in this case– cannot be applied.
That being said, I can respect her for quitting. She may be a religious bigot, but at least she is one with principles. Unlike a good portion of the rest of the professional religious anti-gay industry.
@Scott Rose–LOL, I really did LOL when I read your post. I guess if Fucktusky saw a dog humping someone’s leg, she would think they were guilty of bestiality. ps…Judy Gold was on OutQ radio today talking about the bachmanns–it was p**s your pants funny.
“There was no protection provided in the legislation for Town Clerks who are unable to sign these marriage licenses due to personal religious convictions, even though our US Constitution supports freedom of religion.”
Actually there is, and she took full advantage of it, by deciding to leave a job she didn’t want to do.
She had a choice, to do what her conscience tells her, or to do what the law proscribes. What she is protesting about is that there wasn’t a provision for her to do what her conscience tells her without actually suffering any consequences.
Another pitiful Kee-ristian bigot. I read the text of her resignation…this was planned and she intends to get every bit of mileage out of it possible. She has contacted a number of wingnut groups and this is unlikely to be the last we have heard of this b***h.
I believe Ms. Forutsky’s argument is flawed. She says “The Bible clearly teaches that God created marriage between male and female as a divine gift that preserves families and cultures.” If that is true, then why was it that marriage was NOT a sacrament in the Church until the eleventh century? Prior to that, the Christian Church always left marriage up to civil authorities. Also, I do not recall there being any type of wedding ceremony in the creation of Adam and Eve. According to Genesis, God created Eve from Adam’s rib and gave her to him (Note: this implies that she was his possession). He did not perform any type of ritual or pronounce them “Husband & Wife.” I may not be a biblical scholar, but marriage does not really appear in the Bible until much later after Creation. In fact, it looks like mankind created the institution of marriage without God’s input. It’s great that Ms. Forutsky is following her religious convictions. However, if she truly believes that God’s law supersedes Man’s law, then she has not business working in a governmental agency ever. I wish her luck in finding a better job in the private sector.
866. I think that was the time period where weddings couldn’t be performed inside a church because they were considered to be of the flesh and therefore too vulgar to be allowed in a holy place.