Faith

New York Town Clerk Quits Over Gay Marriage Legalization

New York Town Clerk Quits Over Gay Marriage Legalization

Town Clerk Laura Fotusky

BARKER, N.Y. (The Blaze/AP) — A town clerk in upstate New York was faced with a difficult decision. Should she choose God — or her job? She opted for the former and says she’s resigning over her religious opposition to gay marriage.

Laura Fotusky submitted a letter of resignation to the town board in Barker on Monday, saying her religious beliefs prevent her from signing a marriage certificate for a gay couple, as she’d be required to do as a municipal clerk. The letter was published on the website of the Christian lobbying group New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. The Ithaca Journal has more:

In New York, municipal clerks issue and sign marriage licenses — sometimes, they may even perform the ceremony — and that’s where Fotusky found herself in conflict. New York’s new definition of a marriage includes same-sex couples and she doesn’t believe that is what God wants.

“I believe that God designed marriage as a divine institution to protect our families and our culture and our society, and so it goes against his plan,” she said Tuesday outside Town of Barker Hall in Castle Creek. “He was the designer. It was his plan. It’s his way to provide for the human family, and so I believe that it’s up to God if he wants to redefine marriage.”

While some like New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms believe that there should be exemptions in the new state law for public employees who do not embrace same-sex marriage, others disagree. Following his signing of the law, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said:

“The law is the law. When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get pick and choose which laws. You don’t get to say, ‘I like this law, I’ll enforce this law. I don’t like this law, I won’t enforce this law.‘ You can’t do that. So if you can’t enforce the law, then you shouldn’t be in that position.”

The 56-year-old Republican has served since 2007. She says she’ll step down on July 21, three days before New York’s law allowing same-sex marriage takes effect. She claims that her decision comes as a result of personal conviction on the matter. In an interview with Politico, Fotusky said:

“I would be compromising my moral conscience by participating in licensing same-sex couples. I had to choose between my job and my god.”

According to Slate, part of her letter reads:

“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.”

While Fotusky is the first clerk to officially resign over the matter, this incident comes on the heels of Volney Town Clerk Barbara MacEwen’s statements last month that she opposed gay marriage on religious grounds but would follow the law.

Comments (236)

1 2 3 ... 5
  • DeepSouthernMan
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:11am

    I wish more men had the cojones of this lady. Stand by your convictions, do that which is morally right.

    Report Post »  
    • ChiefGeorge
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:23am

      Me too! But they are afraid of the names the Left will throw at them. We are programmed to go along with this and it has been placed into our minds through films since around the early 60s to now. That if your an intolerant person you then are the most vile among us all. Its more than just a name. Ask yourself this question. How did I come to believe or fear their wrath?

      Report Post » ChiefGeorge  
    • texasfarmer
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:32am

      She must have seen the gay pride parade and the perverts wearing the jock-straps.
      And they wonder why we hold gays in such low esteem.

      Report Post » texasfarmer  
    • Ari Ben TZion
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:29pm

      @DeepSouthernMan

      Men in the United States are missing in action which is precisely the reason that we’re in the mess we’re in.

      Report Post » Ari Ben TZion  
    • stacie01872
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:30pm

      Cuomo apparently didn’t get the memo from obama. It would seem that we can indeed follow only the laws that we agree with. Obama does it all the time.

      Report Post »  
    • biohazard23
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:53pm

      @stacie01872, you got that right. Apparently neither Obummer nor Holder sent out the memo in time.

      Report Post » biohazard23  
    • BOUGHT YOUR SILO YET?
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:55pm

      What amazing courage! In today’s employment market what she did REALLY shows her conviction. I pray that God blesses her abundantly for her decision so that her cup runs over. If gays and lesbians want to declare their love for one person let it be in a civil union- not the institution for which God designed and established for Adam and Eve and their heterosexual descendants.

      Report Post » BOUGHT YOUR SILO YET?  
    • anniebsings
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 2:33pm

      took the words out of my mouth – there seem to be many conservative women who have larger ones lately . . . . ha, the feminization of the American male – guess it worked!

      Report Post »  
    • jblaze
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 3:12pm

      Very rare courage today! Thanks Laura for standing up for God.

      She obviously has studied the Bible to have discerned the truth about God, marriage and family and the truth of sodomy as the cause and effect of the destruction of the human family.

      Report Post » jblaze  
    • justafollower
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 4:36pm

      Awesome. Good to see the moral fortitude of state workers! I’d almost rather see her sue the state saying her first amendment rights have been violated for mandating that she violate the dictates of her religion.

      Report Post » justafollower  
    • avenger
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 5:47pm

      Way to go !the libs are destroying every bit of decency that made this country great.

      Report Post »  
    • fliteking
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 7:00pm

      So true, male men are groomed to be wallflowers from Kindergarten forward, and apparently it has worked.

      Kudos to this women for standing up and staking ground.

      Report Post » fliteking  
    • Armed Patriot
      Posted on July 14, 2011 at 5:58am

      Following his signing of the law, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said, “The law is the law. When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get pick and choose which laws. You don’t get to say, ‘I like this law, I’ll enforce this law. I don’t like this law, I won’t enforce this law.‘ You can’t do that. So if you can’t enforce the law, then you shouldn’t be in that position.”

      REALLY,? Does that include the “sanctuary city” policy of New York City”?

      Report Post » Armed Patriot  
  • royzer
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:07am

    They can try to make homosexuality as normal and acceptable as they want but the word of God does not change.

    Report Post » royzer  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:12am

      Exactly! Secular marriage =/= religious marriage. As soon as folks understand this, the sooner we can move past this silly argument and focus on the important issues.

      Report Post »  
    • 604karen
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:14am

      Good for her. I commend her for her decision. we all need to stand for what we think is right.

      Report Post » 604karen  
    • Baron_Doom
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:18am

      Neither does logic which goes against the entire premise of homosexual marriage in general. If you use pure logic, you come to the conclusion that homosexuals cannot produce offspring which is what marriage was intended to preserve from a legal standpoint. Marriage, contrary to popular belief, is not a right. No one is guaranteed the right to get married. If marriage was a right, any man could force any woman to marry him, and vice versa. That’s simply not logical.

      Report Post » Baron_Doom  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:30am

      @locked…this is the important issue…I would say get a clue, but you sound like a democrat and are unable to. this is at the core of what kind of country we will be…free or living with a gay sharia law..where anyone who disagrees is a criminal.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Baron_Doom
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:47am

      @Locked, this is not about secular vs. religious marriage. They are one and the same. Marriage, by natural definition, is one man and one woman who join together with the intention of procreating and raising a family of offspring as nature intended.

      Report Post » Baron_Doom  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:49am

      @Joe

      I‘m afraid you’re wrong on almost all accounts:
      1. “but you sound like a democrat”
      Never been one, never will be one, but nice try at trolling. Batting 0/1 so far.

      2. “this is at the core of what kind of country we will be”
      Doubtful. NY is, what, the fifth state to have gay marriage? Why is this the make-or-break?

      3. “…free or living with a gay sharia law..”
      Fun fact: Sharia law forbids gay marriage. I know, weird, right?

      4. “where anyone who disagrees is a criminal.”
      Was this woman arrested? Ah, no. Are we being arrested for our views? Nope. Are churches forced to marry people? No, never have, never will. Are public servants told to do their jobs? Yes. Oh, the horror!

      Sorry for the sarcasm in a lot of this, but you seem to be a troll, and I like to have fun with those :) My point is simple: if you need a government to tell you God’s will, move to the Vatican. The US allows us to preach, pray, and hold ceremony as we wish, but we must abide by the same rules that apply to all the people in our country.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:57am

      @Baron
      “this is not about secular vs. religious marriage. They are one and the same.”

      No, they are not, but you’ve fallen into the trap of thinking they are. If you have a wedding, exchange rings, and say the words, are you married according to government? No. If you go to the town clerk, sign the papers, and are declared man and wife (or man and man, cousin and cousin, whatever), are you married in God’s eyes? No. They are separate.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:06pm

      locked:
      1) if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a democrat.

      2) you really are clueless then, no surprise there. we’ll either have religious liberty and freedom of speech, or with gay marriage, we won’t…its that plain and simple…so tell me if gay marriage doesn’t impact religous liberty and freedom of speech, then why did NY have to put exemptions in to the law?

      3) get a clue, when the gays get their way, we’ll have a gay sharia law…that restricts all other expression except those the gays approve of…

      4) we’re not being arrested yet…but we will be, as in Canada, for ‘hate crimes’ when we say something the gays disagree with…you sound like a typical ignorant liberal. why don’t you ask the catholic charities in MA if their religious liberty has been taken away…or that doctor in CA who didn’t want to artificially inseminate a lesbian…the CA supreme court told him his religious liberty and freedom of speech don’t matter when it comes to the rights of the gays.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:11pm

      @locked…talk about sounding like a troll…your uninformed and juvenile comments prove who the troll is, and I enjoy making you look stupid…not that you need any help…

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • KPEdwards
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:22pm

      @JOE1234

      “why did NY have to put exemptions in to the law?”

      Because people like putting in redundant and unnecessary (see what I did there) wording to make them feel better about themselves.

      Report Post »  
    • furnatic
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:28pm

      Too bad you can’t claim God hates gay people. After all, if I remember right, God loves all his creations, no matter how flawed you may see them as.
      I personally support gay marriage, but I do respect those who do not. As to the reasons behind the resignations, I think the reasons are rather dumb, BUT, if I were confronted with a job that required me to write, say, arrest warrents for people because they were gay, I’d resign too. So i do respect them for resigning to stand up for their beliefs, as much as I see the reasons as dumb.
      FYI, I am a Christian.

      Report Post » furnatic  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:29pm

      @Kpedwards….LOL sure they do…thats why the catholics said the following:

      The Catholic Bishops of New York reacted to the bill’s passage in a June 24 statement.

      They said the legislature undermines marriage and the family, and also warned of attempts to enact “government sanctions” against churches and religious organizations that preach the truth about marriage.

      Read more: http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=3504#ixzz1S0HRaEcf

      you have proven your opinion is unnecessary and redundant…as well as divorced from reality….

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • KPEdwards
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:41pm

      @JOE1234

      If the crux of your argument is “LOL sure they do” and “[warnings] of attempts to enact “government sanctions” against churches and religious organizations that preach the truth about marriage” you really haven’t a leg to stand on. Can you point to just one such attempt? Let alone one that would be legally grounded without the wording in the bill. Also, the article you sent is really about the ramifications of this law on society – which is a perfectly rational thing to debate. No where does he say the Catholic church is going to be forced into gay-marrying people (if you’ll excuse making that into a verb).

      Oh and also, you might want to look up words (like unnecessary and redundant) before using them, and particularly before you use them incorrectly.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:47pm

      @kpedwards….you don’t read very well do you now? I mentioned the catholic charities in MA and a doctor in CA who had his rights taken away from him…because he wouldn’t bow down to the gays..

      I think redundant and unnecessary describe your opinion to a T…as well as incorrect illogic and uninformed.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • BOUGHT YOUR SILO YET?
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:05pm

      @Baron_Doom,

      I disagree- the secular world can have all the immoral laws it wants. A civil union is a man made union, while a marriage is a God-made union.

      Report Post » BOUGHT YOUR SILO YET?  
    • Baron_Doom
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:06pm

      @Locked, actually, God doesn’t care how a couple gets married, just as long as they get married before they start engaging in activity that could produce offspring. God commands us to follow the Law so long as the Law doesn’t break His commandments. Have you even read the Bible? Several of your posts are indicative that you haven’t.

      Report Post » Baron_Doom  
    • KPEdwards
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:20pm

      @JOE1234

      I would say I read fairly well (I was talking about your supposed proof within that article you linked). I believe it is that you don’t seem to be able to follow a logical thread. I’m going to guess you were referring to the adoption services (it’s hard to tell when you use intentionally vague language) – which this law has no effect on in NY – when you mentioned the catholic charities. As for the CA doctor, again – it was that the doctor couldn’t discriminate in who he gave medical care to.

      To be fair, that does take away his right to not serve gays – in the sense that he has the right to do whatever he feels like (notice when we have anti-assault laws, we take away someone’s right to express his will physically – which just about everyone would agree is the correct thing to do).

      Now, if you look at those things you’ll notice they are completely unrelated to the discussion about this bill and marriage in general. So yeah, I have yet to see one argument from you.

      Again, you really should look up just what redundant and unnecessary mean. I feel the joke of using them together in order to point out how people usually are unintentionally repetitious was lost on you.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:25pm

      @Kpedwards…oh the doctor couldn‘t ’discriminate‘ but its fine for the gays to discriminate against the christians isn’t it now? what a lame excuse….opposing gay marriage isn‘t ’disrimination’ its religious liberty…anyone who calls a christian disagreenig with gay marriage ‘discrimination’ is a fascist.

      I‘m not surprised that you don’t see the relevence of those 2 cases to the law in NY and gay marriage in general…it would take intelligence to do so.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • KPEdwards
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 2:04pm

      @JOE1234

      You see, again we have the mental leaps in logic in your statements. Disagreeing with gay marriage is completely fine – go ahead. However, when a doctor is refusing to give medical care to someone based on anything outside of what is relevant to the procedure – that is when you start to get into discrimination territory.

      Now, onto your claim that gays are discriminating against Christians. How exactly are they being discriminated against (again it is extremely hard to tell when you use intentionally vague language)?

      Ah, so we have come down to insulting intelligence. To expand on why those cases are irrelevant to this law, let me explain. First, both cases are about raising children and not marriage. The doctor case has nothing to do with marriage. I don’t know if the couple was married or not, and frankly it doesn’t effect the crux of the issue. Lastly, in NY adoption is not limited to only married couples.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 2:18pm

      kpedwards: so what you are saying is that a christian, or anyone else, should be compelled to do something against their religion. so there is no freedom of religion to people like you. but of course we all know you would never complain about the muslims….and we all know why. why should a business owner be forced to do something he disagrees with? ever hear of freedom?

      you really don’t understand the case of the catholic charities in MA…they are discriminated against by the state because of their religion….since their religion doesn’t allow for gay adoptions…so their religious liberty is taken away…isn’t that discrimination?

      as far as why those cases are relevent to gay marriage…you really are clueless…we already see discrimination against christians because they refuse to bow down to gays…with gay marriage it will be far worse…I would say get a clue and do some research..even the NY times admits this….

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/10/us/10beliefs.html

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • dsfitts
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 2:34pm

      @Locked – legislating something does not make it right. there is good and evil in this world. there is right and wrong, gay marriage (they should not even call it marriage) is wrong and we will pay for it for sure. God is not mocked.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 2:52pm

      @DSfitts

      “legislating something does not make it right.”
      Who said it does? I certainly didn’t.

      “there is good and evil in this world. there is right and wrong”
      No argument. There’s a lot of black and white in the world, and a whole lot more gray.

      “gay marriage (they should not even call it marriage) is wrong”
      Here, (right here, in parentheses) is the central issue. Bam: it’s not a valid marriage in the eyes of God. But we as Christians do NOT have a monopoly on the word “marriage,” and if the secular state government wants to call their ceremony marriage, they are completely allowed to. Because it is NOT a Christian marriage, it’s a secular one. See? Not so hard.

      “and we will pay for it for sure.”
      I doubt it. Unless you personally are getting married to another man (or if you’re an outie, a woman).

      “God is not mocked.”
      Amen.

      Report Post »  
    • KPEdwards
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 3:19pm

      @JOE1234

      Well if these actions are against the law, then yes. If someones religion believes in racial discrimination then, that person is not allowed to refuse African Americans. To be clear, I don’t know of any such religion.

      Please construct a better straw man argument than this Muslim one. It is completely out of nowhere. I have not specifically mentioned Christianity in my points. So, you’re leap to it is just a distraction.

      I do understand the case. The charities believe that a homosexual couple is not able to raise a child properly, and that’s fine. However, the state found that sexual preference was not an indicator of how well a couple could be parents. Therefore, since the charity was running an adoption service open to the public and partially funded by the state in the form of tax breaks, it needed to be compliant with the law. If you are defining liberty as being able to refuse a legal service that you offer to others for illegal reason, then yes they are losing liberties.

      You have yet to explain how these cases are relevant to the discussion of gay marriage. All you’ve done is state the claim that they are related, and that it’s obvious. Humor me – explain the connection.

      Also, the article you referenced is an article about other people voicing opinion against gay marriage. It’s not a NYT stance. They are just bringing the points that others were making into the conversation. You know, like journalists do.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 3:22pm

      @Joe

      Meanings change all the time. Sodomy, as it was in the Bible, meant anything not involving sex between a man and a woman. Oral or anal, even with your spouse? Sodomy. That’s still the definition in medical dictionaries and the US military rules and regs (yes, you can get kicked out for getting a BJ. Obviously doesn’t happen often, but it is against the rules).

      Marriage as an idea existed apart from Christianity, and while it usually meant man-woman, it wasn’t always like that. Even the ancient Hebrews believed in polygamy, but still called it marriage (the first wife and their children received the lion’s share of inheritance though). Other cultures also practiced polygamy; others were fine with same-sex unions and marriages.

      The US is a secular state and can label whatever they want as marriage. If it‘s not God’s definition, so be it. I chose to follow Christ – I don’t need the government to mandate I do as the Bible tells me to.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 3:34pm

      @kpedwards…so in other words christianity will be against the law…and people like you have no problem with it…do you think the NOI should be forced to allow white people to join? hmmmm? or the KKK black people?

      the mention of muslims is not a distraction…we all know the fascist gays and their allies will never go after the muslims…have you seen the state of MA go after them like they did the catholics? they won’t.

      you just keep proving what a fascist you are quote ‘If you are defining liberty as being able to refuse a legal service that you offer to others for illegal reason, then yes they are losing liberties.’

      so you have no problem outlawing a christian’s faith…and calling it discrmination…and no you would never do that to the muslims..and yes we all know why.

      as far as how those cases are related to gay marriage…you really are clueless…those are just a taste of what will happen to christians when gay marriage becomes the law of the land…as that article in the NY times made clear….its gettting to the point of casting pearls before swine…

      that article was quoting several prominent LIBERAL LAWYERS on what gay marriage will mean to religious liberty…its not just an ‘opinion’ please. even they acknowledge that gay marriage will severely impact religious liberty…you’re pathetically ignorant.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 3:36pm

      @locked, no meanings don’t change all the time…marriage has always been between a man and a woman..even in the times of the OT…sorry.

      if you were a christian, you would be concerned about the loss of liberty gay marriage entails..instead of spouting meaingless phrases about ‘marraige in the eyes of God’

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • KPEdwards
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 4:02pm

      Where do you get Christianity will be against the law? It is amazing the mental leaps you’ve made. And yes, I think those groups should not bar people joining based on the color of their skin. If there is a black person who agrees with the KKK, I don‘t see why he shouldn’t be allowed to join.

      Please stop acting like a fool, the Muslim thing was a distraction and you know it. I made no mention of Islam or Muslims. Nor do you know any of my opinions on the subject at all. Let alone you use the overly vague ‘we’ – I am talking to you, not some large collective. If anything please take responsibility for your foolish generalizations.

      Now, when I say you are losing liberties what I mean is in the sense that you are not able to do something. Similar to how you are not able to murder someone, or how you can’t run a theater and refuse to sell tickets to minorities.

      I would have a problem outlawing a religion – any religion. Would you outlaw a sect that believes in same-sex marriage? Or would taking away their liberty to marry same-sex couples be alright?

      Ah, so they were liberal lawyers … expressing legal opinions. They are opinions since nothing has been tried in the court of law yet. So, they can be compelling opinions, but they are opinions. They *think* that gay marriage will impact religious liberty, and I would disagree with them.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 6:39pm

      @KPEdwards the trend is clear…christian practices are deemed ‘discriminatory’ by fascists like you and should be outlawed…what do you think the end result of your practices are?

      as far as equating religous liberty to murder…you really are serious nut-case….get some professional help…did you starch your brown shirt today, and polish your jack-boots?

      those ‘opinions’ have been tried in a court of law…the CA supreme court…..which stated:

      Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which “imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations.”

      http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4941377&page=1

      so much for freedom which nazis like you will celebrate.

      Report Post » joe1234  
  • JUSTANOTHEROPINION
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:06am

    Who cares? If I were working at a job the changed a policy that I could not support I would quit too. So he quit, so what. Hire a new employee and then move on. I don’t see the need for the medias focus here at all.

    Report Post »  
    • MIBUGNU2
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:43am

      Very refreshing to see someone stand up to their convictions in this
      day and age .. I fully agree with Her, Marriage should be with a Man
      and a Woman..Period !! All the rest of this, is political Bullshi**…….
      Don’t care Who signs it into Law, Does NOT make it right…NO !!!
      Kudos to Laura Fotusky, THANK YOU for standing up to these **** ..

      Report Post » MIBUGNU2  
  • MainThingIsDontGetExcited
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:00am

    When I got married, marriage was between a man and a woman. This changes the premise of the union. I believe can be grounds for an annulment.

    Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:10am

      When I read the Bible, Jesus says divorce is adultery. Yet this poor soul didn’t quit her position just because she could divorce people, did she?

      Unfortunately, she can’t separate the idea of “marriage” from the state being COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than religious marriage. The state is secular folks. You can divorce, you can marry your cousin (in some states, like Tennessee), you can marry someone of a different race or religion. Now some states allow people of the same sex to marry.

      But it’s not religious marriage. This woman couldn’t tell the difference. Can you?

      Report Post »  
    • MainThingIsDontGetExcited
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:18am

      Locked, Are you saying that when the marriage is recorded, in the court house, a notation is now being made showing the marriage is either a religious or a secular marriage?

      Report Post »  
    • Baron_Doom
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:44am

      @Locked, No, Jesus did not call divorce adultery. He said the only valid case for divorce is adultery. Get your facts straight.

      Report Post » Baron_Doom  
    • KPEdwards
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:49am

      @MAINTHINGISDONTGETEXCITED

      No, they are not making those notes. Do you know why? It’s because all of the marriages being recorded at the *court house* are secular marriages. The state does not record religious marriages. If you guys want to make a stand about the institution of marriage, why not *just* get religiously married and not get it recognized by the state. Don’t go to the court house to get the paper work. Just do it with your pastor, priest, rabbi, etc and don’t claim any of the benefits of having a secular marriage.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:54am

      @Baron

      Technically he said adultery is the only grounds, and that men should not part what God has put together. Anyone who is divorced outside of unfaithfulness is an adulterer in God’s eyes.

      @Mainthing
      “Locked, Are you saying that when the marriage is recorded, in the court house, a notation is now being made showing the marriage is either a religious or a secular marriage?”

      No, I’m saying that marriage, by the standards of US government, is secular. The government can’t force a church to marry someone, and a church’s ceremony is not a legally binding marriage. Still, I doubt many Christians would call themselves married if they didn’t have the rings and say the words! There are two very distinct things happening there; are you saying you need a piece of paper from the government for God to accept you as married?

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:09pm

      locked: this is idiotic…if the state doesn‘t recognize a religious ’marriage’ ceremony…then its not a marriage…how hard is this?

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • KPEdwards
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:18pm

      @JOE1234
      So then, your piece of government paper defines your spiritual connection to another individual? You are actively arguing that the state should determine religious aspects of your life.

      Report Post »  
    • MainThingIsDontGetExcited
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:36pm

      When I got married, I had to get a license before a pastor would perform the ceremony.

      Now that a license can be issued to homosexual couples, the intent of a marriage is not what it was when I got married.

      Changing the rules after people sign onto something is not right and an annulment should be an option.

      God did not change his view of marriage, the state has changed their view and the state should provided grounds for annulment on this basis.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:39pm

      @kpedwards…laughable….so according to you if some ‘church’ sanctions polygamy…then they’re really married…how about pedophilia…if some church sanctions a pedophilic ‘marriage’ does that make it ok?

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Baron_Doom
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:19pm

      @Locked and KPEdwards, the Bible commands us to live according to the Law (that is the Law of the United States) so long as the Law does not break His commandments. Therefore, in order to married legally in the United States, you have to have a piece of paper that says so. I‘m not sure what you don’t understand about this. Yes, there is a spiritual aspect to marriage for Christians and other religions; however, according to the Law, which God commands us to follow, we must have a piece of paper from the government stating we are married in order for it to be legally valid.

      Report Post » Baron_Doom  
    • BOUGHT YOUR SILO YET?
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:21pm

      Baron_Doom,

      Again, you are not completely accurate. Infidelity IS the only case in which marriage can be absolved. But, one who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery (when she remarries). Some interpretations mean either wife or husband. Many people do not understand how powerful marriage is. It is my interpretation that God joins a man and wife so that they become one flesh. How can that flesh, then, be divided? The only way to not commit adultery after divorce, is not remarry or to be joined again with your spouse.

      Report Post » BOUGHT YOUR SILO YET?  
    • KPEdwards
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:29pm

      @JOE1234

      Yes, then they are married in the eyes of that church. However, legal society does not recognize it. In my personally opinion, it’s not anywhere near OK – in fact, it’s wrong. However, who am I to tell them what their religion should say? I as a citizen do not wish to recognize that as an appropriate relationship in any sense of the word. Most citizen would agree – hence why it is not legally acceptable.

      Report Post »  
    • BOUGHT YOUR SILO YET?
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:30pm

      Baron_Doom

      What passage from the Bible did you get that we are to abide by the law of the United States? To be clear, the law referred to is not man’s law, but God’s law. We are suppose to abide by man’s law to an extent, but not if it goes against His law- Render unto Caesar what it Caesar’s, and unto God, what is God’s.

      Report Post » BOUGHT YOUR SILO YET?  
    • KPEdwards
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:40pm

      @DOOM

      So, in your interpretation is it possible to get married completely religiously? That the church and your community (in the sense of the people and not the state) recognize the union, but that you don’t get tax breaks and access to health benefits and so forth. Can you be married in the eyes of god without being married in the eyes of the state?

      I understand your point that you are to follow the law, but it isn’t law that you need to be legally married if you are spiritually married. You don’t have to claim the benefits of a legal marriage if you get married within a church. I mean, if a pastor needed paperwork in order to perform a religious ceremony I would have a huge problem with that, and I’m an atheist. I mean in my opinion, that’s the government dictating how you are to think and act on a metaphysical/theological level.

      Report Post »  
    • Baron_Doom
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:43pm

      @Bought Your Silo Yet, according to the Law Jesus was referring to in that passage, once a man divorced a woman, he could never have her again (Deut. 24:1-3). So, he was simply pointing back to the actual Law they were trying to catch him with while at the same time verbalizing what God’s original intent was…

      “He [Jesus] said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.’”

      Report Post » Baron_Doom  
    • Baron_Doom
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:53pm

      @Bought Your Silo Yet, Romans 13:1-2 and 1 Peter 2:13-17.

      @KPEdwards, no, I said exactly the opposite. It’s not possible to get married completely religiously, especially in a country that is ruled by the letter of the Law. Only in a theocracy could you have a religious marriage that is acceptable… but again it would be according to the Law of the theocracy. The marriage must be validated according to the Law of whatever society they belong to. This is as true today as it was in Moses’ days.

      Report Post » Baron_Doom  
    • KPEdwards
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 2:23pm

      @DOOM

      Ok, I understand that you’re saying that in order for a couple to be seen as married in the eyes of God, in your case, they would also need to be married in the eyes of the state. I feel like this is just an interpretation of religion and not a fundamental aspect of it. I mean, what of certain sects that believe that gay marriage is not against God’s will, and that one needs to be married in the eyes of the state in order to be married in the eyes of God. Don’t these people have just as much right to religious liberty?

      I understand that you may not agree with their interpretation, but shouldn’t they have the right to perform marriages they view as spiritually correct? In fact, it almost could be construed as an argument that gay marriage needs to be nationally legal so that these sect are able to practice their religions. A bit of a stretch I’ll admit, but if one put enough thought into the argument (more than an internet comment section demands anyway) i wouldn’t be surprised if it was a compelling stance.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 3:16pm

      @Baron

      Sorry, I missed your response to me before. And I would like to say, I actually enjoy reading your responses, as they are more fleshed out and thoughtful than many others.

      I personally do not interpret the idea of following the Law of the land in the same way. Your response is “for a marriage to be valid, we must follow the law of the land so long as it doesn‘t go against God’s law,” is that correct? Well then, say a country outlaws Christians getting married. It is then impossible to follow the law of the land, and without marriage it would be a sin to have sex. There is of course a compromise: be abstinent forever. I’d imagine few Christians would do this however. There is the “be fruitful and multiply” imperative as well, so it’s a clash of rules now.

      I believe marriages would still occur in secret, but they would not be sanctioned by the law of the land. I think God would still find them worthy and not condemn them. Because I believe God is ultimate arbiter, not the state, even if the state‘s rules don’t directly oppose the Bible.

      Sorry for the hypothetical, but it’s the first thing that came to mind. I’ve honestly never heard “we need to get married by the secular state because God doesn’t accept a Christian marriage as being good enough.” The vows we make at a wedding are to God Himself; I don‘t feel there need to be enforced secular legal parameters to make it valid in God’s eyes.

      Report Post »  
    • KPEdwards
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 3:25pm

      @DOOM
      @LOCKED

      I just wanted to concur with locked about the discussion. I had never heard of the interpretation linking religious Law with the state law. I find it to be fascinating.

      Report Post »  
    • BOUGHT YOUR SILO YET?
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 6:59pm

      @Baron,

      Actually, Deut.24: 1-4 states that a man may divorce his wife (give it to her in writing, and send her away). And she is free to marry (free to marry, but not without committing adultery.) It is only after she has married and divorced again (or if the new husband dies) that the former husband can not take her back. If she remains unmarried, the husband can take her back. This is the power of marriage. As Jesus states in Matthew 19: 9 And, I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. The institution of marriage combines the man and woman into one flesh which can not be separated; thus, the act of adultery is committed when either of the two sleep with someone else regardless of a decree of divorce or another marriage has taken place. It does not matter if the two have divorced and remarried- they commit adultery and their new spouses commit adultery also.

      Report Post » BOUGHT YOUR SILO YET?  
  • Warphead
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:00am

    They don’t call it “sacrifice” for nothing. It is a shame that more of us don’t make a stand. That is what it will take to restore traditional values. I applaude her decession. I wish her luck and am genuinely sorry that her state, city and town has betrayed her and all those like her. Do not despair. The despots and perverse are not the norm and are quite the minority. God bless Ms Fotusky and thank you for your sacrifice for our nation.

    Report Post » Warphead  
  • GRAMPA-D-NH
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:50am

    “The law is the law. When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get pick and choose which laws. You don’t get to say, ‘I like this law, I’ll enforce this law. I don’t like this law, I won’t enforce this law.”
    ———————————————
    Unless you’re Obummer and Holder. They choose not to enforce laws like the DOMA, our borders and lack of prosecution and deportation of illegal immigrants, and in the case of Project Gunrunner and Libya, flagrant violation of the law.

    Report Post » GRAMPA-D-NH  
  • It is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY...
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:50am

    Extremist Dude, thats where your wrong!!! It deplets the morals of the country as a whole, which in turn
    deplets the country’s strength as a whole, if u cant see that then to bad for u, but it is very true…

    Report Post » It is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY...  
  • Nemo13
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:48am

    Good for her. Stand by your morals and beliefs. There is no gay marriage. The churches should sue New York for making a mockery of their religious ceremony. If the gays want to get hooked up, let them create some ghey grouping ceremony of their own, do not profane that which you do not belong.

    Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:06am

      @Nemo

      There’s your issue. Marriage by the state is not religious. This poor woman couldn’t separate the two concepts and neither, apparently, can you. The rest of us Christians with brains in our heads actually can.

      “Huh,” one might think, “Jesus was against divorce. He called it adultery, in fact! But the government allows it!? I should quit my position as a clerk, lest I be called to divorce someone!” Yet we don’t see that happen…

      This woman is punishing herself for her misunderstanding. I pray she finds peace soon.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:31am

      locked what god do you pray to? marriage is marriage there is no difference between ‘secular’ marriage and religious marriage…real marriage is the foundation of our society…as it has been since man was created.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:59am

      @Joe

      The God who created the universe, of course. Is your God dictated to you by the US government? Mine sure isn’t. So why is your marriage dictated by the US government? Mine isn’t. It’s sanctioned by God between my wife and myself. Getting a marriage license from the government is just for the benefits. See? Two separate things.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:08pm

      @locked, you may want to check the mirror, you sure sound like your god is the government..there is no difference between ‘government’ marriage, and ‘religious’ marriage…it exists only in your deluded little mind,.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:26pm

      @Joe

      Hey, if you think God is subservient to the US government, I can only tell you you’re wrong. Hope you listen before judgment.

      Report Post »  
    • Dismayed Veteran
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:31pm

      Here is the answer about how religious and secular marriage are not the same.

      I was married in a Catholic religious service. I was later divorced in a secular court. The Catholic Church considers me married. The same thing happened with my wife.

      We met and married. We were married in the Court House (secular). The Catholic Church would not conduct a service because the Church considered us married to our previous spouses. Because we had legal divorces, the state considered us single.

      At the moment we were married in the Court House, we were secularly married. We were also committing adultery by the Church. We still attend Mass but are barred from receiving the Sacraments. In particular we can not make a “good confession” because we are adulters and because of that we are not in a state grace to receive Communion. We did raise our children as Catholics and they have full membership in the Church.

      That my friends is the difference.

      Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:42pm

      @Locked…I will pray you can get a clue….stunning ignorance…you must be a democrat…LOL

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:45pm

      Dismayed Veteran: the point is if you are married in a church, you are married in the eyes of the government…just because a church considers you married doesn’t make it so…for example a polygamous marriage I am sure there is a ‘church’ out there that sanctions it…doesn’t make it legal…and it sure doesn’t make you married in the eyes of God…same for a peophilic ‘marriage’

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:52pm

      Dismayed Veteran and if there is such a difference between ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ marriage..then why do the gays push for the recognition of their marriage? since they should just be fine with a church marrying them, right?

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:53pm

      @Veteran

      My parents experienced the exact same thing.

      @Joe

      Ah, trolls. Make them stutter until they can do no more than awkwardly laugh and shuffle their feet. Again, I hope you stop believing that whatever the government mandates is what God says. Although I suppose ignorance is bliss…

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:57pm

      @Joe
      ” the point is if you are married in a church, you are married in the eyes of the government…just because a church considers you married doesn’t make it so…”

      Wrong. Seriously, read what you just wrote:
      1. If you’re married in a church, the government considers you married
      2. Just because you‘re married in a church doesn’t make it so

      When you sign the papers, the government considers you married. They don’t give a fig about your religion or where you have a ceremony, or by whom you are married (if they can’t issue a marriage license). God has different rules than the government, and they may not align.

      You… really don’t know how marriage in the US works, do you? You might want to find out more before trolling.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:27pm

      @locked I guess you definition of troll is anyone who makes you look stupid. so tell me if a chuch performs a polygamous marriage, does that make it marriage in God’s eyes?

      bet you won’t answer…

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:36pm

      @locked…I should realize who my audience is, and try to frame things in words that a 3rd grader can understand…I’m sorry….I’ll try to speak s l o w l y so you can understand…

      1) marriages performed in a church are recognized by the government…and they have always aligned in their definition of marriage…since long before our country was born.

      2) if ‘marriage’ in the church was all that mattered..then why would gays seek the approval the state? because marriage is the bedrock of society….and it has always been recognized by state and the church.

      3) if a church comes up with some ‘marriage’ that doesn’t coincide with the state…then that marriage is meaningless…whether you think your ‘god’ recognizes it or not.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 2:45pm

      @Joe

      Polygamy was valid in the old testament. As would be some forms of young marriage (God impregnated Mary when she was a young teen; most sources say around 13 or so; and she was already married to Joseph at the time). I personally don’t agree with either, but Jesus says a man and a woman, so that would be a spiritually valid marriage in my eyes.

      You lost your best. Do I win a kewpie doll?

      “1) marriages performed in a church are recognized by the government”
      False. See polygamist marriages by Mormons back in the 19th century. Many churches will not marry people without a valid, state-issued, marriage license. If they do, the state still doesn’t recognize the marriage until they fill out the paperwork. Arguing it‘s been that since before our country was born doesn’t influence much when it comes to our laws now.

      “2) if ‘marriage’ in the church was all that mattered..then why would gays seek the approval the state?”
      Because of benefits? Because of their own beliefs? Marriage in the eyes of God matters to Christians. I don’t much care why others get married in the state..

      “3) if a church comes up with some ‘marriage’ that doesn’t coincide with the state…then that marriage is meaningless…whether you think your ‘god’ recognizes it or not.”
      It might not be meaningless to them. I would agree it‘s not valid in God’s eyes, but I don‘t know if that’s what you’re saying. You’re pretty vague, and seem more filled with anger than sens

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 3:43pm

      @Joe

      Gosh, you’re funny.
      “polygamy was never valid in the OT”
      David, Abraham, Jacob, Solomon. All had multiple wives and concubines. There were specific rules for multiple marriages.

      “…and mary was NOT married to Joseph at the time…you should try reading the bible sometimes….”
      They were espoused, according to Matthew (1 18-25). Luke says betrothed. Fun fact? Jewish betrothal meant you could only end it through a divorce (through unfaithfulness, which when done in public, would lead to stoning), and the betrothed were considered married in all but cohabitation. So, either they were spouses, or they were in all but sex.

      “1) REAL marriages performed in a church are recognized by the goverment…polygamous ‘marriage’ isn’t marriage…again how hard is this?”
      Again, you’re making the state the ultimate arbiter of what a “real” marriage is for Christians. That’s pretty messed up. I say God’s definition is higher, but apparently you disagree.

      “2) where do you get this stuff about ‘marriage in the eyes of God’ at?”
      Where do you get the idea that following God‘s will doesn’t matter? I’m also not a Mormon, so keep searching. I see you put the state over God. That’s on your head man, not mine. But I’ll pray for you anyway.

      Report Post »  
    • Dismayed Veteran
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 4:18pm

      @JOE1234

      Of course my first marriage was secular. We had to have a Marriage License. So that marriage was both religious and secular. My divorce was secular meaning granted by the State not the Church. You are not married in the eyes of the government without a legal marriage license.

      Gays want secular recogntion first and foremost. This gives legal status and opens up access to insurance and other benefits available of us. I suspect some even want religious recogntion. My Church does not recognize same-sex marriages even if a legal secular marriage was performed.

      Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 7:41pm

      locked: you don’t really understand the bible very well…just because polygamy happened doesn’t mean it was endorsed by the Lord. you have a very superficial understanding of the bible, thats VERY evident by your posts.

      they weren’t married…even though you said they were..

      18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

      ‘pledged to be married’ how hard is this? why do you make such a habit of lieing?

      1) get a clue, the state is the arbiter of marriage…the state is given authority by God haven’t you ever read Romans 13? newsflash gomer, its why polygamy isn’t marriage…no matter what the ‘church’ says about it.

      2) as far as following God’s will…do you think He’s for gay marriage? do you think he’s for polygamy?? post your verses…this should be good…..as far as putting the state over God…nice lie…but God ordains the states and puts in power whom He wills…perhaps you should try reading Daniel…and Romans 13 sometimes…

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 14, 2011 at 8:43am

      @Joe
      From the King James Bible:
      “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph”
      So, yeah.

      “1) get a clue, the state is the arbiter of marriage…the state is given authority by God”
      Again, you worship the secular state. I worship God and realize that the state simply has power on earth, not in heaven. The state is NOT given authority by God, because if you say such a thing, the state cannot be wrong. In your twisted mind, gay marriage is sanctioned by God.

      “2) as far as following God’s will…do you think He’s for gay marriage? do you think he’s for polygamy?? post your verses…this should be good”
      No for gay marriage, and I never said so. Nice try slick. For polygamy? I don’t think so, although apparently God changed his mind as it was allowed in the past. Jesus himself says man and woman, and that decides it for me.

      “..as far as putting the state over God…nice lie…but God ordains the states and puts in power whom He wills”
      Ergo, Obama is willed by God, as is a Democratic majority in the Senate. Yeah… no. Men put other men in power. God lets us decide who we select. Called free will; might want to look it up.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 14, 2011 at 2:02pm

      @locked…they were ENGAGED…sorry the king james bible isn’t the word of God..its a translation…you do know the NT was written in greek, right?

      1) no surprise you have to keep lying about me, since your arguments are SO lame…yes God did empower the governments of the world…He sets them up..and He brings them down…

      Romans 13:
      1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

      2) you say: ‘although apparently God changed his mind as it was allowed in the past. ‘ what laughable BS..what god do you worship…not the God of the bible, OBVIOUSLY….

      Malachi 3:6

      For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

      uh yeah the Lord did put Obama on the throne….did you read Romans 13…and this from Daniel 2:

      “Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever;
      wisdom and power are his.
      21 He changes times and seasons;
      he deposes kings and raises up others.

      I would say get a clue, but its painfully obvious you are incapable of that.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 14, 2011 at 4:52pm

      Yawn…

      ” the king james bible isn’t the word of God”
      Wonderful. The most popular Bible of all time isn’t the Word of God. Glad you could offend pretty much every Christian with your ignorance.

      “Romans 13…”
      Was to explain why Jesus didn’t overthrow the Romans. Learn some context. It is NOT saying that government is always acting on God’s orders. In many other places, fighting against corrupt government is encouraged. Why? Because governments are not God, and are not the ultimate authority. Use your brain.

      “2) you say: ‘although apparently God changed his mind as it was allowed in the past. ‘ what laughable BS..what god do you worship…not the God of the bible, OBVIOUSLY”
      Tell me, please, where God forbade polygamy, or smote polygamists such as Abraham. There‘s actually a lot of theological debate because this is never addressed and we’ve had to decide why polygamy was fine in the OT, but marriage was defined strictly as monogamy by Jesus.

      “I would say get a clue, but its painfully obvious you are incapable of that.”
      Riiiiight (rolls eyes). When you stop worshipping state governments, come back and we’ll have a nice chat. I’ll keep praying to God; you keep praying to Obama.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 14, 2011 at 10:40pm

      YAWN…..you do know the bible was written in greek and hebrew…NOT ENGLISH, right??? duhhhhhh

      romans written about why Jesus didn’t overthrow the romans…HUH???? sheer idiocy….

      Abraham wasn’t a polygamist…you must be a mormon…you sure are a waste of time…

      Report Post » joe1234  
  • It is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY...
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:48am

    Thats where the Democrat party gets confused. Someone needs to tell them,
    Heh! Your not God!!! I know they have a big head, but come on now!!!

    Report Post » It is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY...  
  • It is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY...
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:45am

    Good for her!!! We need more people like her… You go girl !!!!!

    Report Post » It is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY...  
  • A Extremist
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:38am

    What a stupid meaningless issue. Leave them alone and let them get married. It will have no effect on anything important. Lets focus on issues that do matter, out of control government making all citizens Federal slaves.

    Making gay marriage an issue only serves to get Liberal Democrats elected and liberal democrats effect my life in a negative way. Married gays have no effect on anything.

    Report Post » A Extremist  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:12am

      Thank you for making sense!

      Report Post »  
    • TumbleBumble
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:56pm

      A EXTREMIST ~

      “Lets focus on issues that do matter, out of control government…”

      And that’s what we have here. Every state that has approved gay marriage has done so against the will of the people. It wasn’t done by the approval of the voters on any ballots but rather by their congress voting in favor of it. Even the California voters had their collective voice silenced by the courts who told them that what they wanted did not matter.

      I’d say that is about as out-of-control as a government can get.

      Report Post » TumbleBumble  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:46pm

      Well, you certainly have the data to back up your assertion. New York has never had legalized homosexual marriage before, but clearly you know exactly the outcome of this move.

      You don‘t know how it’s going to affect the state. You really can’t even point at another state, because the laws are so different from state-to-state. Even the attitudes of the citizenry can be radically different, and as such, radical cultural shifts can’t be accurately predicted to the point where an outsider like yourself can make a flippant comment.

      Having and raising a family, I can tell you it’s probably going to be confusing for children. That, of course, is the point. Confuse individuals. You don’t want them to live with certainty each day of their life. You don’t want confident individualists. You want confused morons wandering around, waiting for someone on-high to tell them what to do.

      This will not be good for New York families. It won’t be good for New York children. In the long run, the state will suffer, and in the longer run, all of us will suffer.

      Report Post » Jaycen  
  • Sound The Trumpet In Zion
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:32am

    This woman knows how God expects us to act in accordance with laws that were created within the gates of hell. She can stand tall and proud anywhere she goes. God will Bless her greatly and abundantly for her stance. God WILL Bless you Laura Fotusky and you will get a lot better job than you had for your stance.

    Report Post » Sound The Trumpet In Zion  
    • NJTMATO
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:04am

      Agreed!!!! And, extra prayers are on the way for the new job that will surely be on the horizon!!!!

      Report Post » NJTMATO  
  • 912tracy
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:29am

    Thanks for standing for you beliefs. We all need to see that we will have to stand strong .

    Report Post »  
  • Eraldo NY Tea Party
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:28am

    Here in NYC we have gays by the truck load, what we need are jobs.

    Or we start to export gays to create jobs.

    God bless.

    Report Post » Eraldo NY Tea Party  
  • Samantha3
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:27am

    If more Christians walked the talk like this lady we wouldn’t be viewed as hypocritical idiots.

    Report Post » Samantha3  
    • momprayn
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:41am

      Well Amen to that one. Yes, I’d do the same if I were her. And I also admire how she chose to word it — she didn’t make a bunch of derogatory remarks about gays — just what she believed God wanted her to do and why. Period. Too many “Christians” have mishandled this issue BIG TIME and that’s the main problem. So the gays got the erroneous message (as planned by the libs) – that Christians hate the gay – the person. No – we hate the sin & have good reasons why but respect all people with God given souls created in His image. We also hate the other sins – like adultery that heteros commit, etc. But the libs have purposely took advantage of human nature and promoted this messsage so they’d get more Dem. votes & more against Christianity….just like abortion. Old, old story and strategy that works very, very well.

      Report Post »  
  • Aequitas
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:24am

    I can see how the opinion of a small minded woman who lives in a town with a population of 600 people would be news for The Blaze. It‘s easy news and doesn’t require much to publish it, plus it promotes Glenn Beck’s bigotry. Why aren’t they reporting on that douche bag Rupert Murdoch. In fact Fox News and The Blaze have gone out of their way not too. Isn’t anyone curious?

    Report Post »  
    • Lawlcat001
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:29am

      lolololol troll somewhere else, sir. Somewhere far from here.

      None of The Blaze regulars are bigots, and we are entitled to our beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman just as you are entitled to your belief that it’s not wrong for two or three guys to do eachother in the … :D Go away.

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:31am

      Strong point, I was wondering that myself.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:31am

      why is standing up for freedom and tolerance ‘bigotry’ only in your deluded little mind is what she is doing bigotry….

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Sound The Trumpet In Zion
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:40am

      @aequitas
      “I can see how the opinion of a small minded woman who lives in a town with a population of 600 people would be news for The Blaze. It‘s easy news and doesn’t require much to publish it, plus it promotes Glenn Beck’s bigotry.”
      A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
      Well since a bigot is one who is intolerant of other’s beliefs, and we on the Blaze as well as Glenn himself says that homos can do whatever they want as long as they don’t force us to accept your beliefs. While y’all constantly try to cram your lifestyle choices down our throats and to insult and try and demean us for wanting to live our lives the way that we want do defines us as totally opposite of a bigot. From the literal meaning of what a bigot is, it describes y’all as bigots of the first class. Before you try to accuse us of being something in particular, then try reading the definition first because then it just blows up in your face (pun intended) and you are the one that gets dirty on the accusations.

      Report Post » Sound The Trumpet In Zion  
    • Bluefish49
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:42am

      Troll…it has been mentioned every morning this week on Fox and they even say “Parent Company” Typical of a Lib….you just imagine what you think you hear. P.S. Is it true Troll‘s eat snail’s and tadploes and poop little muchrooms?

      Report Post »  
    • Aequitas
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:51am

      @Joe1234
      If people truly understood the meaning and definition of the words “Freedom” and “Tolerance” you would be able to see how this is bigotry. And how if we as a people allow this to happen. Who will be the next group of people singled out? And why? A christians job isn’t to convert the world and make everyone a christian. A christian is supposed to accept people of all faiths and help them become a better person in their faith.

      Report Post »  
    • Aequitas
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:59am

      @Sound The Trumpet In Zion
      “A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs”.

      Read this definition that you posted and then read the comments posted. Then try to explain how it’s not bigotry.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:33am

      @Aequitas as far as the next group the gay fascists will single out…the christians are it…we all know the gays won’t go after the muslims…and we all know why…

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • TMACK
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:34am

      Aequitas – you could not be more wrong in your assumptions. I have a cousin and a very close friend who are gay. I love them and I love their partners and I want them to be happy, I just don’t believe Biblically they should be married. Funny enough, my cousin and my friend agree. They have both had a “union” celebration, but for them, marriage is out of the question because of their belief of Matthew 19:4–6: “And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?” So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’ ” But I guess they are bigots as well.
      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Oh and your quote that: “A christians job isn’t to convert the world and make everyone a christian. A christian is supposed to accept people of all faiths and help them become a better person in their faith.”

      Wrong.

      Jesus says in Mark 16:15 “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.”

      Have you cracked open a Bible lately?

      Report Post » TMACK  
    • Aequitas
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 11:51am

      @Tmack
      You’ve only demonstrated how a person(and there are many) can take bible passages out of context and totally distort it’s meaning. Here’s an oldie but goodie straight from the book

      James 2:8-13

      8 If you really fulfill the royal law, according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well. 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” said also, “Do not kill.” If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment.”

      James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality or prejudice

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 12:41pm

      Aequitas typical distortion of scripture…do you think we should let murderers out of prison since we shouldn’t judge?

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • AmericanSince1619
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:26pm

      Jesus says in Mark 16:15 “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.”

      Does Jesus say to condemn people? No, in fact he says just the opposite.

      James 3:11
      My friends, don’t say cruel things about others! If you do, or if you condemn others, you are condemning God’s Law. And if you condemn the Law, you put yourself above the Law and refuse to obey either it or God who gave it. God is our judge, and he can save or destroy us. What right do you have to condemn anyone?

      Matthew 12:33 A good tree produces only good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. You can tell what a tree is like by the fruit it produces. You are a bunch of evil snakes, so how can you say anything good? Your words show what is in your hearts. Good people bring good things out of their hearts, but evil people bring evil things out of their hearts. I promise you that on the day of judgment, everyone will have to account for every careless word they have spoken. On that day they will be told that they are either innocent or guilty because of the things they have said.

      “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7:21-23)

      Report Post » AmericanSince1619  
    • AmericanSince1619
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 1:52pm

      If you think salvation is only believing that Jesus died for you on the cross, and that’s all there is to it.

      You might be very disappointed at judgement.

      In addition to loving God with all you heart, soul and mind.

      Jesus commands that you you love each other as He loves you. Not that you love only those that love you, even a sinner can do that.

      Does Jesus want you to play favorites and love only some of his children, whichever ones you decide you want to love. NO! He want true transformation of your heart. He really does want you to love EVERYBODY as He does.

      You think this is easy? It isn’t, it’s hard.

      And if you think that you can skate by, cherry picking ideas willy nilly out of the Bible to suit whatever agenda you want to promote or discourage without having the New Covenant truly written on your heart. These are the ones that I think He will turn his back on, saying “I never knew you”.

      I truly hope and pray that people come to realize that the “Golden Rule” isn’t just an idea for 8 year olds in Bible school. He really means it.

      Report Post » AmericanSince1619  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 2:02pm

      AmericanSince1619 sounds like you‘re saying is what Jesus did isn’t good enough…you gotta add your works to be saved….good luck with that.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • AmericanSince1619
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 2:09pm

      And why do you do good works, because you really care and have a good heart, it naturally happens. You can’t fake that either.

      Report Post » AmericanSince1619  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 2:19pm

      AmericanSince1619 your last post is meaningless…you said:

      If you think salvation is only believing that Jesus died for you on the cross, and that’s all there is to it.

      so give us a list of what else you have to do to be saved….what kind of works, and how many of each…

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • TMACK
      Posted on July 14, 2011 at 10:02am

      How ironic that you choose James 2 to rebuke me of the very judgemental attitude you displayed in your rebuttal. Who are you to sit in judgment of me? You don’t know me, yet you assume that I am just another hate-filled Christian who sits in judgement of all people not like me. As stated earlier, I have a cousin and a dear friend who are gay. I have NEVER passed judgement on them and I give them the same respect I give everyone. I am not their judge and jury, I leave that to the Good Lord above, because one day, we will be all judged by Him. Even you Aequitas.

      Report Post » TMACK  
  • Kiwon
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:24am

    This lady deserves a lot of respect for standing by her convictions.

    Report Post »  
  • agameofthrones
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:24am

    Of course her quitting doesn’t change the law, but I give her credit for following her conscience and standing up for what she believes. And yes, they will probably give her job to someone who has no moral conscience or could care less one way or the other.

    Report Post » agameofthrones  
  • joe1234
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:23am

    the fascist gay special rights movement wants to outlaw real christianity…they don‘t mind the jim wallis type of ’christian’. of course they would never dare say anything to the muslims…and we all know why.

    Report Post » joe1234  
    • UlyssesP
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:42am

      Yeah, the ******* (those who have “submitted”) aren’t all that bad.

      Report Post » UlyssesP  
    • GRAMPA-D-NH
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:57am

      Just look to Canada. Its a hate crime for a church minister to discuss Bible verses on homosexuality. We’re trending to this in the US pretty quickly now.

      Report Post » GRAMPA-D-NH  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:22am

    Glad to hear someone is making a stand on convictions; the Lord look out after her, and may the doors to a more prosperous future open shortly for her.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • Thatsitivehadenough
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:22am

    Actually, just why should she quit? Why should she have to marry gay couples? A doctor doesn’t have to do abortions, do they? So how is this different? Couldn’t someone make a court case out of it? Take it to the Supreme Court?

    Report Post » Thatsitivehadenough  
    • JRook
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:37am

      Physicians are by and large independent contractors so they can define their practice and what procedures they will and will not do. Salaried physicians probably would not have the same discretion, but would probably not accept the job if it required them to perform a procedure they had a problem with. If they did accept the position then, as with any other employee, their religious beliefs should have no bearing on them carrying out the duties of the job. The choice she made is the right one from both sides of the issue.

      Report Post »  
  • Cuthalu
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:16am

    This is what they want, Christians to vacate from public view so they can replace them with Godless, immoral heathens. Making our situation even worse since we will be more at their mercy.

    Report Post »  
    • Thatsitivehadenough
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:20am

      You could have a point. At first I thought I’d do the same in her shoes, but, now it seems like it’s a political battle being waged on more than one level. I couldn’t help gay people marry each other. Nope.

      Report Post » Thatsitivehadenough  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:23am

      No this is good for her very few in your society have the principles and conviction she has which is why our country is breaking apart at the seams.

      Report Post »  
    • Eraldo NY Tea Party
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:26am

      We in NYC need jobs, not gays.

      gays we have by the truck load

      jobs now.

      God bless.

      Report Post » Eraldo NY Tea Party  
    • Blackhawk1
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:57am

      Eraldo NY Tea Party

      Unfortunate for you that living in NY means that liberals run the place and they are more interested in taxing people to get all they can, letting gays get married so the public union employees can get their gay spouse free healthcare and tax breaks, and could care less about creating an environment that creates jobs. NY is becoming the San Fransisco of the opposite coast. Good Luck.

      Report Post » Blackhawk1  
    • Vladia
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 6:58pm

      Soooo everybody who isn’t Christian is a Godless, immoral heathen? Interesting viewpoint.

      Report Post »  
  • I.Gaspar
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:16am

    Good for her.
    She put her money where her mouth is….something few of us actually do.

    Report Post »  
  • JRook
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:15am

    I give her credit for standing by her convictions and wish her well. I don’t support the use of the term marriage by same sex couples as the civil unions seems more in line with what they are engaged in. Having said that, the governor is right in that it is not a situation where an individual at her level has any discretion as to how a law will be interpreted or carried out.

    Report Post »  
  • tower7femacamp
    Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:10am

    maybe we should all just quit everything for a year

    Report Post » tower7femacamp  
    • HUGGINGMYBABIES
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:18am

      GOOD for her! I’d have done the same.

      Report Post » HUGGINGMYBABIES  
    • ISeeDanger.com
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:23am

      I think Obama should do the same thing.
      He can’t raise taxes enough so he should stand by his beliefs and quit.

      Report Post » ISeeDanger.com  
    • Sound The Trumpet In Zion
      Posted on July 13, 2011 at 10:44am

      @ISeeDanger.com
      Actually I think that he should stand by our beliefs and quit. Then he should go back home to whatever country he was born in and then he could openly worship his muslim religion as much as he wants to.

      Report Post » Sound The Trumpet In Zion  
1 2 3 ... 5

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love