Town Clerk, Ledyard NY
Dear Ms. Belforti,
There are legislators in the state of New York. From what I hear from my perch in Kansas City, they can be a pretty odd bunch at times. Still, they *are* legislators, and after they argue and bicker and horsetrade, in the end they manage to pass legislation every now and then.
You are not a member of the legislature.
There is also a governor in New York. He argues and bickers and horsetrades with the legislators, trying to shape the proposals into something he’d like. In the end, he takes whatever legislation is passed by the legislature, and either signs it into law or not.
You are not the governor.
There are also judges in New York. When people argue and bicker with one another over the meaning or application or constitutionality of a law, they often end up arguing and bickering in front of a judge. Sometimes there are juries who listen in. In the end, the judges and juries pass judgement on the laws and their application.
You are not one of them.
You are a town clerk. It’s a fine and noble position, and people in your town depend on you to do your job. They don’t depend on you to write legislation, approve legislation, or rule on its constitutionality. Other people have those jobs, not you.
Your job is to be the town clerk. When two people present themselves to obtain a marriage license, your job is to insure that they meet the requirements of the state of New York before you issue it to them. Is one of them too young? Your reply is simple: “No license for you. Come back when you’re older.” Is one of them presently married to someone else? Again, your answer is clear: “Sorry, but it’s one license at a time per customer. Come back when the old one is void.” Is one of them drunk? “Sorry, but we can’t serve you if you’ve had too much to drink. Come back when you’re sober.”
And if they meet the requirements, your answer is equally clear: “Sign here . . . pay your fees . . . and here’s your license.”
There’s no “but I don’t think they’ll stay married” exception that allows you to refuse a license because you think the union will not last. There’s no “but I don’t like interracial marriages because it confuses the kids” exception that allows you to refuse a license based on your perception of what’s best for children the couple may or may not have down the road. There’s no “but he/she is just a golddigger after your money” exception that allows you to override the wishes of the couple because you believe that one of them is taking advantage of the other.
And there’s no “but I don’t like same-sex couples” exclusion that allows you to override the law of the state of New York. There just isn’t.
If that’s a problem for you, then I suggest you find another line of work that lets you practice your prejudices. Either that, or move to somewhere else that approves of your prejudice and become a county clerk there.
Ms. Belforti, you are entitled to your religious beliefs, just as I am entitled to mine. But your beliefs do not entitle you as an agent of the state of New York to set aside and ignore the laws you don’t like that have been passed by the state legislature, signed by the governor, and not been overturned by the judges of the state of New York.
Katie Carmichael and Deirdre DiBiaggio came to you two weeks ago to obtain a license for which they meet all the requirements, and you refused to grant it. For that you should be sanctioned, and if you persist, you should be removed from office and replaced with someone who will faithfully execute the laws of the state of New York.
It’s been two weeks, and the clock is still ticking. You can argue with the law and bicker with the law, but you cannot do it on the county’s time and at this couple’s expense. To borrow from a certain pastor, “Marriage delayed is marriage denied,” and marriages like these have been delayed far too long already.
Sincerely,
Rev. Peterr




27 Comments

Thank you, Reverend. :-)
What an excellent letter!
Highly rec’d, Reverend!
Thank you for the letter, and the direct argument to follow the laws of the State.
Recommended.
Forgot the “PS”, something about the horse she rode in on. Though, just maybe, the “Rev.” part counsels against that. Otherwise, perfect.
Well put. Some people……………….
I agree. Not very “pastorly”, but otherwise appropriate.
Heh.
What a perfect example of what we are dealing with when bigots get involved. It seems to me that she has broken the law the same as if I refused to obey a traffic law. Arrest her.
Rose Marie Belforti can do her job, or she can resign in protest. Not sure why she thinks she has the option of violating people’s rights by not doing her job.
Of course, as pointed out in the excellent letter above, the town has the option of just firing her bigoted ass.
Otherwise, the couple has the option of suing the town, no?
Why detract from a fine thread with a garbage comment?
FDL is doing really important things, lets encourage a comments that move us forward. Levity is great but it’s better to have some humor in it.
From the link in the post:
Holy sh*t. This Rose Marie Belforti is a one-person Taliban regime lording it over who can and cannot be a marriage license in her town!
Well written, Peterr.
Now, isn’t it the job of the police to enforce the law?
No, I think the “by appointment” is her way of trying to duck the media and/or other same-sex couples who would otherwise walk in the door and make her life uncomfortable. This way she can lock the doors, peer through the peep-hole, and let in the couples she knows won’t cause problems for her.
This is pathetic.
That’s what I’m waiting for. The town police, the state police, or (in the absence of NY law enforcement) the Department of Justice Civil Rights could even get involved.
She’s probably waiting for it as well.
When I read these two sentences together, I interpreted it as her wanting to interview applicants to see if they met her religious criteria for marriage (potential for divorce, etc).
But your view of it makes more sense.
Doesn’t seem unreasonable for me to request a civil standby from local police to ensure the law is enforced.
Heh! Back when I was a Personnelman in the Navy, I heard about a Disbursing Clerk (DK, he was an E2, so that made him a DKSA) who was given the appropriate paperwork to issue a double payment to a married couple. They were both military members and were both entitled to a payment (Over housing, I think).
The payment was not made. The couple looked into this and found out that the DK had a problem with paying what he felt was an inappropriate payment and just plain refused to make it.
Fortunately, the Navy expressed the same attitude that our good Reverend does in this piece, ordered the DK to make the payment whether he gol durn jolly well felt like it or not and was promptly put on groundskeeping duties for the next month.
I agree that a clerk for the State of New York does not have the option of selectively obeying the law. Do yer job or git out!
Wow! Belforti has cited “religious” reasons to prevent her from doing her job……
I wonder how many of us would be shown the door by our respective employers’ if we were to try pulling that one?
Jesus wept.
John 11:35
Or perhaps an escort from the city attorney (or whatever attorney the city has on standby as their legal counsel).
Well written Peterr and I sure hope this clerk gets the boot where the sun doesn’t shine and can’t find a new job for her blatant bigoted actions. she is certainly bringing down on herself!!
Amen to that!
Gorgeous, Peterr! Just gorgeous.
Thank you.
Can I use this as boilerplate for the next time the whole pharmacist/healthcare provider “conscience controversy” arises? I particularly like the part about finding another line of work if one’s prejudices (uh, religous beliefs) preclude following the _LAWS_ that govern one’s profession.
FunnyDiva
Only one thing to say, Reverend: You make me proud.
Super post, Peterr.
I will add (and I’ve toned this down to meet site standards): Jail her until she resigns or agrees to perform her job duties. Looking forward to Rose Maries’s Letter from Ledyard Gaol! Ha, not.
Jail *her*
[fixed for you -- Peterr]
Very well done argument, Peterr.