Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

New York clerk refuses to sign gay marriage licences

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. What a scum bag; she should be impeached and thrown in jail……

    1. What do you stand for anyway? Y a scumbag?

  2. Stuart Neyton 13 Sep 2011, 5:06pm

    If she’s refusing to do her job, then the state of New York should refuse to pay her

    1. She is not hired by the state of NY, she is hired by the town board.

      1. Doesn’t change the fact she isn’t doing her job.

        1. I wasn’t referring to that, simply making a correction… for once can you get your mind out of the activist gutter?

          1. I don’t think Hamish was suggesting that your comment was not a simple correction.

            Both of your comments stand.

            Why does anyone who is an activist have to be in the gutter? Only someone who trolls (and seeks reactions) would say something so ridiculous.

            Some trolls are so insidious they require correction publically (often easily evidenced) not because of an anger or emotional response but more out of exasperation at the idiocy of comments

      2. Fair point, but the are intricacies of the US system that may not be obvious to someone in the UK, in the same way that someone in the US may not be au fait with UK processes (or may choose to ignore the facts that are given to them in some cases!).

        Regardless, that minor fact is irrelevant, if she fails to comply with state law then her position is untenable.

    2. right on, stuart

  3. William Raillant-Clark 13 Sep 2011, 5:06pm

    I wonder what life experiences she has had that led her to conclude that marriage causes bestiality.

    1. under the guise of “marriage equality” yes, it can. If a man wants to marry a cow why would YOU stop him from doing so? Under the guise of marriage “equality” he has a right to marry that cow, because the notion EQUALITY applies to ALL “equally” including those who want marry animals, objects, their relatives, movies, and themselves.

      There is not limit to marriage equality because its very statement is tremendously vague and over reaching; if you think that I say is far fetched, its because the whole argument of “equality” is far fetched on its own.

      That is why I prefer to just stick to gay marriage or straight marriage of non-related persons… grooms and brides, not “spouses.”

      1. Dave Caldwell 13 Sep 2011, 5:51pm

        What about the rights of the cow ? ;)

        1. Then I guess having a barbecue would be a violation of the cow’s “civil rights” huh?

          1. The cow can neither consent to a barbecue nor a marriage – that appears to be the point you miss when you suggest bestiality, incest etc etc

          2. But dave is making a joke that cows might have civil rights, and I joked back that they don’t…

            geez lightened up

          3. Strangely, you are not known for your humour and given the ridiculous nature of some of your comments elsewhere on these discussion boards, its understandable why one may see your comments (however bizarre) as serious

          4. what if i get the cow to sign a form expressing his consent??? then can i have my steak?? xx

      2. Robert White 13 Sep 2011, 5:56pm

        Dude… if a cow can give _informed_ consent then your point might have some… eh… point…

        But you see we require informed consent, which is why under-age people, and the profoundly incompetent cannot marry.

        So no, under “equality” (notice it doesn’t have to be capitalized) the equality doesn’t universally apply universally because quality under the law for “all persons” doesn’t confer person hood to non persons(*).

        (*)Of course republicans have a fiscal blind spot where they want to view businesses (corporations) as people, with all the rights and benefits of person-hood, so I suppose a human could marry a corporation under Right Wing Republican Logic, such as it is…

        Your hysterics do not service any purpose, including your own.

        1. my response is below… “dude”

          lol

          1. Of course it is, you’re not very bright, and counter arguments that show you up as a fool tend to make you relapse, don’t they, pepa?

            Do any reading like we asked on evolution so you don’t make the same stupid mistake in public about us all “descending from monkeys”?

          2. And this comes from a charlatan who supports gays being executed in the name of tolerance?

            And yes I have done lots of reading, and I used to believe in the theory of “evolution” then read some more and of course information can ALWAYS change, much like the meaning of marriage can ALWAYS change (from being exclusively hetero to open to both hetero and homo)

            But nobody is stopping you from believing that you are a monkey descendant, you fit quite the role though if you ask me. LOL.

          3. @Will

            Seems I must have missed something, as I can’t recall you ever having encouraged the murder of gays ….

      3. Proves yet again that Pepa thinks equality means the same and has no understanding of equality or fairness

        1. Jock S. Trap 14 Sep 2011, 10:43am

          What do you expect, we’re not exactly dealing with ‘high intelligence’ are we!! :)

        2. no STU, you do not know what equality means,

          equality means that EVERYTHING is equal to everything else, meaning are no differences and hence ALL is treated the same, including pedophiles.

          1. Not in English law it doesnt … or in the law on equality on many US states for that matter …

      4. “if you think that I say is far fetched, its because the whole argument of “equality” is far fetched on its own. ”

        A far fetch argument without facts from Pepa!

        No! Surely not.

        1. Monkey,

          Oh like if you ever presented any facts yourself… because your side never intends to… because its all about ideology not facts…

          I already stated the facts that gays don’t WANT to get married, that a promiscuous lifestyle is a more common choice for gay men and most gay men end up living lonely lives… eh but who cares we are all bunch of monkeys without a hope, right Doc?

          So next when you eek or ook something in a doctrinal manner present the evidence, but last I checked you said I was not worthy of the evidence so eh… go fellate a monkey and tell us how it went.

          1. No you stated your presumptions, not facts …

            For example, of my gays friends 8 couples are in civil partnerships, 7 would prefer marriage, and they have been in their relationships for at least 8 years all of them (and some for over 19 years). I know my experience is not unique

            Personally, if I meet the right guy I also would want to get married.

    2. Robert White 13 Sep 2011, 5:49pm

      These sorts don’t have “life experiences” they have “biblical revelations” dictated to them by their vickar-de-jours.

      Trust me, I am from the U.S.A. and I have had to deal with these people face to face. Diagnosing their stupidity is like trying to figure out if the mold in the back of your shed acted with deliberate intent.

      The only joy in dealing with these types is watching them try to figure out “why god is punishing [them]” when random bad things happen. e.g. “do you think that’s why my daughter was given [a birth defect]?” No really, that’s how these people fail-to-think.

      1. Fantastic, especially:
        No really, that’s how these people fail-to-think.

  4. Lee Edwards 13 Sep 2011, 5:09pm

    Rule of Law trumps your personal religious mythology. That bitch needs to be fired asap

  5. Take legal action against this stupid woman. She is acting illegally and she must pay the price.

  6. Marios Patrinos 13 Sep 2011, 5:13pm

    I think that the town are doing the right thing by continuing to allow same-sex marriage with a person of the right authority i.e. the deputy-clerk – no doubt that Ms. Belforti’s position as an elected official means that removal is difficult.

    The simple fact of the matter is that she cannot discharge her office, which she no doubt took an oath to do and therefore has no alternative but to resign.

    1. What a strange system.

  7. andy connelly-nimmo 13 Sep 2011, 5:16pm

    Resign? She should be fired and never employed by a public body again!

  8. Well she said that we know what a Bride is and we know what a groom is… but we don’t know what a spouse is?? come on, is she serious? I guess when I was 3 years old, I had no idea what either 3 were, but I learned, so I guess we all can learn to be tolerant of others believes… TOLERANCE people TOLERANCE is what we need to learn

    1. We know what an American is, and we know what an Italian is, but god only knows what an American Italian is.

      1. Oops, Italian American. So confusing.

  9. I know that donkeys talked in the Christian bible – so perhaps she is expecting one to trot up and make vows?
    What has this law got to do with her religion? It is about civil marriage? She is strangely confused about her job – was she properly trained?

    1. David Waite 14 Sep 2011, 7:04am

      You say “donkey” but the KJV says “Balaam’s a*s,” perhaps an ancient relative of the clerk.

      1. You can say ‘ass’ – and she certainly sounds like one in UK English, or is speaking out of one in US English.

  10. They need to fire any person who does not do their job.

  11. Robert White 13 Sep 2011, 5:42pm

    “May be forced to resign”?

    More like _should_ be forced to resign.

    The clerk is a _clerk_ not a _judge_, their job is to do the paper work not decide who gets to have their paperwork done.

  12. Robert White 13 Sep 2011, 5:44pm

    As for the “spouse” bull pucky…

    If and when someone can produce a non-human that can offer informed consent then we can have this discussion.

    Meanwhile there are several Hindu ceremonies every year where young women are married to animals (the animal representations of their gods) but I don’t see this clerk rejecting any marriage involving Hindi.

    1. The problem with this argument is that under the guise of “marriage equality” meaning NO MARRIAGE LEFT BEHIND, consent is thrown out the window, because to many gay activists, the ability to consent is NOT and has NEVER been the issue…. EQUALITY has been the issue.

      So your argument is by far at best very phony and pretentious considering that many of you vow allegiance to EQUALITY and not for the ability of adults to CONSENT.

      1. Robert White 13 Sep 2011, 5:58pm

        You are wholly incorrect. Consent has always been a requirement of marriage.

        See “do you take this (noun) to be your lawfully wedded (noun)?” from any and every marriage ceremony ever.

        That question, and the ability to answer it meaningfully and with awareness is the definition of informed consent.

        Get a clue dude.

        1. You are missing my point, dude..

          I am saying that to gay activists consent has never been a priority, EQUALITY has.. and in fact EQUALITY is the only thing that matters… so again what reasonable basis do you have for denying a man’s EQUALITY to marry a cow?

          So what if it can’t consent? Equality is equality, there is no exception to the rules…

          You say that “Consent has always been a requirement of marriage.

          So what? What’s your point? Marriage has always been between heterosexuals… but then you want to change this aspect of marriage and not the other WHY?

          WHY do you pick and choose?

          Again this arguments are way too transparent and easily defeated…. next point!

          1. “I am saying that to gay activists consent has never been a priority, EQUALITY has.. and in fact EQUALITY is the only thing that matters…”

            Where is your evidence for this? You’ve set this up so you can attack people who seek equality. You are a fool, an utter, utter fool

            “so again what reasonable basis do you have for denying a man’s EQUALITY to marry a cow?”

            The word equality in that sentence doesn’t fit grammatically. The sentence is meaningless.

          2. Consent has always been quite a big issue for me and every other gay man I’ve ever known because it’s the only thing that can stop people comparing us to pedophiles.

            Consent has and always will be a major thing in our fight for equality the classic line is “what is done by 2 CONSENTING adults in the privacy of there bedroom has nothing to do with you” used by pretty much every gay man at one time or another and always includes consent.

          3. @ Dave,

            I don’t think calling me a fool has any bearing on whether you argument is good or not… but please go on and call me other names… it sure makes your argument “more believable”

            @ Hamish

            Well consent is big with me too, that is why I don’t preach equality, but because under your logic of EQUALITY, equality trumps consent, since the notion of trumping any and ALL requirements is what is fundamental to the ‘EQUALITY’ movement.

            Hence you cannot provide any good reason to chose one requirement (gender) over another (consent) since doing so you are violating another person’s “EQUAL (as in all IS the same) RIGHTS.”

            Please provide a good reason why I cannot marry a cow? And to be honest HAMISH you are sounding like the right wing imposing all those requirements on me! Get with it man! I want my EQUALITY! Equality for all! I want to marry my computer too! Stop being a BIGOT!

          4. No consent is a prerequiisite of marriage of all types – be thay civil heterosexual couples, civil homosexual couples, religious heterosexual couples, religious homosexual couples worldwide (with the exception of arranged marriages perhaps). No where where equal marriage is in place does it reduce the importance of consent and to try and suggest so is disingenuous and dishonest.

      2. Any evidence for any of this or is it just windy behind you

          1. Again, I must clarify:

            I am for GAY marriage…

            I am not for these stupid petty arguments for marriage EQUALITY that now you even have polygamists using those same arguments too.

            That’s my concern, we need SOUND arguments and points.

          2. Not one of these is a real marriage and never could be unless the Eiffel Tower suddenly breaks it’s vow of silence to say “I Do”.

            If you want real arguments against marriage equality you are going to have to try a lot harder than this paltry effort.

            Inane reporting of peoples daft activities is just making you appear weird,well weirder.

          3. Well I personally have no problem with polygamy aslong as it is between CONSENTING adult what’s the issue

          4. Of all these (and I presume for at least some of tehm even Pepa would accept some if not all are bizarre) incidences of “marriage” how many were conducted as formal solemnized legal ceremonies by a civil registrar?

            Otherwise, whether intentional or not, this is just another red herring trying to compare something irrational that has no legal status with something that should be legal and is morally correct (ie equalisation of marriage to permit same sex partners). The issue of consent is imperative and I would be concerned for the mental health of anyone who thought a fairground ride could consent! In the same way as incest, bestiality and paedophilia are red herrings concerning the issue of marriage of same sex partners – so is the “marriage” of people to inanimate objects etc

          5. Well I personally have no problem with polygamy aslong as it is between CONSENTING adult what’s the issue

            Here IT IS!

            You just prove my point that “marriage equality” advocates are not about gay marriage, they are about radically changing the whole institution itself.

            And the fact is that all of you are freaking out because I caught you red handed, you are for lifting ALL restrictions on marriage. Because under the guise of “equality” you CANNOT and most likely will not deny a woman from marrying a tower, a roller coaster, a donkey, a dog… you have no basis to deny them that right under the equality notion.

            And Hamish are the types that are going to jinx the gay marriage movement, leading to misconception that gays support polygamists, reality check: WE DON’T… only delusional activists like Hamish and Stu and the rest of the PN jonestown cult.

          6. I personally don’t share Hamish’s views on polygamy. The fact that some people hold that view does not demonstrate that all people who seek marriage equality believe that should extend to polygamy, and the fact you contend that it does demonstrates the lack of sophistication of your debating.

      3. Robert White 13 Sep 2011, 6:01pm

        See also “signing the marriage license”… Show me a cow or a dog who can read and sign a marriage license and explain the significance of their signature to a judge and we will re-open this question.

        1. Again, you sound like a broken record, THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.

          Are gay rights campaigners fighting for the ability for those to enter into these marriages to have a “legal consent?” NO!

          You are fighting for EQUALITY, and under such failed logic you cannot deny a person’s EQUALITY to marry who ever WHAT ever they want, from roller coasters to dolphins… you are denying THEIR human “equal rights” to be happy just like you…

          And on another point your argument fails again as people with no hands or immobile limbs cannot sign these licences either, proving that under your logic they cannot consent… so now under your world view the handicapped cannot marry either as they cannot attest to their own consent. (this argument comes from the infertile couples argument, good huh?)

          1. “You are fighting for EQUALITY, and under such failed logic you cannot deny a person’s EQUALITY to marry who ever WHAT ever they want, from roller coasters to dolphins”

            You are one fcuking idiot. You simply do not understand, do you? Equality to rights. The right of two PEOPLE to marry. This is the law as it stands.

            There is something wrong with you on so many levels, Pepa, you really should see a doctor.

          2. In English law a person with such mental incapacity that they can not communicate their own consent would not be able to marry currently as they law stands – so your argument is invalid

          3. In any event in England this should be straightforward (once marriage is equalised in law) as the Equality act will apply and prevent discrimination less favourably on the grounds of protected characteristics.

            Protected characteristics are:
            Age
            Disability
            Gender Reassignment
            Pregnancy and Maternity
            Marriage and Civil Partnership
            Race
            Religion and Belief
            Sex
            Sexual Orientation

            The following section of the equality act will be of particular relevance in my view:
            http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/29

          4. “Protected characteristics are:
            Age
            Disability
            Gender Reassignment
            Pregnancy and Maternity
            Marriage and Civil Partnership
            Race
            Religion and Belief
            Sex
            Sexual Orientation”

            Stu, do you honestly believe on this yourself?

            I mean I express differen “beliefs” and you and Will
            harrass me for it. So I don’t really think that you actually mean this AT ALL. You are just laying it out to somehow counter my arguments very poorly.

            Okay, well you still have not answered my question:

            Why do you deny people their equal right to marry a sibling? an uncle? a bridge? a dog? a child?
            Isn’t ALL of these “orientations” EQUAL? If not then why do you presume equality then?

            This is where your arguments come down like the Hindenburg…

          5. @Pepa

            In one sense its irrelevant what I think about equality (although I do believe that these protected characteristics deserve equality). The reason its irrelevant is that in the England & Wales these are legal protected characteristics whether anyone “believes” in them or not. I have clearly prefaced my answer with reference to English law.

            As I said, I do believe in these protected characteristics deserving protection and transparency. As I repeatedly say to you equality does not mean being treated identically, it means not being treated worse than others or being given the same value as (dependent on the definition being chosen from law). There is a prerequisite that the individuals being treated equally have mental capacity and an ability to communicate true consent.

            I am not laying in out just to counter your arguments. I am presenting factual information that I believe in and I do not welcome your presumptions about what I do and do not believe.

            You say you …

          6. … have asked me a question. Firstly, if I have not noticed this question previously and thus not responded, I apologise.

            However, I will not answer the question in any detail because of the ridiculous and nonsensical nature of the question. I will point out that consent is imperative in all marriages and those under the age of consent and animals can not legally (and in many cases actually) consent.

            Equality has to occur to bring same value, but not negate common sense and other law. So, if one person has membership of a gym and is white and perfectly fit and can take part in all activities. It would be legitimate to challenge why a black person was not allowed to participate in all activities if they were also fully fit. If however the black person had some cardiac history or other reason why legitimately the gym was unwilling to endorse certain activities then the challenge would be less rigorous. Permitting the black guy access to some activities in the gym would be …

          7. … equality, giving him entire access could be negligent.

            Whilst it is irrelevant how two individuals marrying (provided it is legal and non fraudlent) impacts on other married couples, Scandinavian studies show that allowing same sex marriage actually boosts the prevalence and propriety of heterosexual marriage. However, equality means those who can consent are able to have access to the same value of service eg civil marriage etc regardless of protected characteristics.

  13. auntie babs 13 Sep 2011, 5:49pm

    lets play bigots bingo, gay marriage will lead to beastility – check, I have friends who are gay – check, I have religious objections check, I’m worried that there’s another agenda – check just need will lead to their children being gay for a full house here folks.

  14. douglas in canada 13 Sep 2011, 6:06pm

    I don’t know about New York, but here in Canada I assume that both spouses need to sign the marriage documents. And the agreement has to be consensual – again, I assume that the person presiding is required to ask:

    1) “are there any legal impediments?” before proceeding, and

    2) if each of the persons involved will take the other to be their legal ["lawfully wed"] spouse.

    The chance that an animal could fulfill either of these obligations makes the suggestion pretty stupid.

    My worry would be that if someone this ill-informed is in charge of marriage licenses, have those licenses been issued without mistake? She strikes me as the kind of person who shouldn’t be trusted with important documents of any kind.

    As to her “hiring”, the article clearly states that she is an elected official and I assume that she has been elected to a paid position, in which case she does have an employer: the town. And like any other employee, if you can’t do the work, you either resign or get fired.

    1. Michaelangelo 14 Sep 2011, 1:06am

      “Are there any legal impediments”

      Yes – namely that in law, throughout human civilization, both international and local, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

      It is also thus defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights – whereby the marriage is declared to be “between a man and a woman” and is the basis for “family” and the procreating of children.

      So, the legal impediment can be grounded in international law, in that whatever is happening (between two people of the same sex) might be a civil union, but is definitely (in law, the highest human law – internationally speaking) NOT marriage.

      If marriage can be redefined so radically within one small juristicion in the west, so that it now means the union of one man and one woman and / or one man and one man and / or one woman and one woman, there is nothing to stop further radical redefinitions in the future. When something ceases to be absolutely accepted, it is conceivable to see a time when anything can happen

      1. Watch out Michaelangelo the sky is falling

      2. “Yes – namely that in law”

        Yes, and the law has changed in 10 countries worldwide.

        Get over it, and pick a religion that doesn’t inhibit your higher order brain functions.

        1. You are a very tolerant monkey… I am impressed.

          NOT.

          Will is like all the other monkeys on this board… do as we say but not as we do…

      3. Ahhh the slippery slope argument heard this one before aswell be careful it tends to come round and bit you in the ass, as it can be used to make anything even breathing seem like the end of the world.

        How about this you stop breathing and I’ll stop wanting to get married!

      4. ” throughout human civilization, both international and local, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.”

        Not so: not only were same-sex marriages recorded within the Roman Empire, pre-Reconquest Spain did too. And, of course, you forget that for about a third of the world’s population even today, polygamy (for men) is permitted by law.

      5. “namely that in law, throughout human civilization, both international and local, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.”

        Yes that is very true… I support straight marriages… and I also support gay marriages… though different they are similar… and I don’t see anything wrong with recognizing gay marriage or giving gay couples legal, economical, and societal protections.

        “It is also thus defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights – whereby the marriage is declared to be “between a man and a woman” and is the basis for “family” and the procreating of children.”

        Yeah, and the UN is supposed to stop WAR… and of course we all know how “good” the UN has been on preventing WAR. I reject this argument because the UN has no business whatsoever in deciding the internal affairs of a country’s marriage laws and rights.

      6. “So, the legal impediment can be grounded in international law, in that whatever is happening (between two people of the same sex) might be a civil union, but is definitely (in law, the highest human law – internationally speaking) NOT marriage.”

        I do not know where you get this international law bit, but international law has never banned gay marriage nor has approved civil unions. International law usually covers trade, transportation, borders, military activity… but marriage? NO.

        “there is nothing to stop further radical redefinitions in the future”

        This depends on the intentions of the those who are redefining marriage, if they are doing so ONLY for the sense “being equal” to straights then yes your argument is grounded… however if we merely change the law to include gay marriages for the purpose of offering gay couples legal, economic, societal protections, then no… your argument is not appropriate because under my guise the re-definition has a stated narrow purpose.

      7. Hate bigots 19 Feb 2012, 6:51pm

        First of all marriage is nothing but purely a construct of human mind. It has been used by men of all cultures to subjugate women. Second thing is society has been conditioned into believing in marriage as divine union. If marriage were a divine union there would have been no need for divorce. And as far a procreation is concerned there are two options:
        1. Adoption
        2. Reproduction through artificial means widely available today.
        And when the world population has already crossed 7 billion mark with no signs of abating is there more room for new people to come on this planet when millions already present die in the absence of proper care and love?

        And like everything else marriage definition is also not absolute. What if tomorrow some method is devised using which non-sexual reproduction is possible?
        And I would rather suggest same-sex couples not to use the term marriage for their union because it still confines their union to straight definition of marriage.

  15. CitizenLink, aka Focus on the Family, is using Rose Belforti’s crazy doublespeak to further their radial agenda.

    1. A radial agenda sounds better than a radical agenda.

  16. This stupid bitch should look to Holland, the first country to legalise same-sex marriage 10 years ago. Not one case of bestiality has been reported, polygamous marriages haven’t occured either. Let her back up her claim with facts. She probably thinks interracial marriage is wrong too. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.

    1. Michaelangelo 14 Sep 2011, 1:12am

      Give it time.

      10 years is by no way a long enough time period to be able to judge what might happen next.

      Marriages between humans and animals have been allowed in local jurisdictions in the past (look at some of the Roman Emperors and Hindu cults), so could, conceivably be allowed in the future. If marriage can be so radically redefined that it now includes marriage between people of the same sex, what’s to stop the redefinition of “consent” or the inclusion of animals as “a spouse”? Those who look after animals already have the responsibility of consenting on their behalf – so marriage between a man and a horse might only need the owner’s consent. Ditto with children, household items and any other thing that someone deems it his / her “right” to marry – so as to be “equal” to others.

      We’re living in a mad world, and the loons have taken over the asylum!

      1. “We’re living in a mad world, and the loons have taken over the asylum!”

        Really. You;re sane, and the rest of us are mad?

        What’s wrong with that statement, form a statistical point of view, do you think?

        Religion:- for fools and fools alone.

        1. The voices in my head told me that you were all crazy for wanting to love someone.

          1. SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

            ;)

          2. I thought monkeys cannot love… oh well I guess times are changing…

            we monkeys first discovered fire and now we discovered love lol

    2. “Not one case of bestiality has been reported, polygamous marriages haven’t occured either.”

      Now this is a little naive given the fact that it was only until 2008 that they finally had to step in and ban it.

      “A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.”

      While you are at it, call her stupid monkey… heck she is descendant of one. Sticks and stones will break my …. well you get it.

  17. She has ‘policy issues’??? What the hell is she, a sovereign government or elected assembly? Why has she not been told to do the job or get out? And how many more times must our human relationships be compared to bestiality? Why are these poisonous characters so bloody indulged? And, of course, she has ‘many gay friends.’ They either don’t exist or they have no idea what she’s like.

  18. I’m confused though. If someone is tracing their genealogy wouldn’t they check their birth certificates. What would their parents marriage certificate tell them besides that they are married and when they were married. These people’s arguments always have these huge freaking flaws that they are too stupid to see. In their efforts to try and condemn gay marriage they condemn other things they don’t have a problem with. A Marriage certificate affecting genealogy what kind of BS is that

    1. Michaelangelo 14 Sep 2011, 1:13am

      Mad and nonsensical.

      Poor dab.

      1. I’m sure it wouldn’t be any more confusing than coming across an adoption in your family tree.

  19. Point Blank , she should be fired if she doesnt resign, she is in a public job and has to treat other right, if she refuses to be courteous to others she has a hate for for no other reason than her own wicked religions or klan, treat the people right and fair or get out of the public arena , that house every race and gender, and discrimaination is wrong, and acting out hate is a hate crime, against customers, and their famiieles and it is also bad for business, a horrible character and reputation on any business and people , businesses are going to have to start hiring people who have taken diversity training and passed back ground checks against bigotry and hate groups and klans, or their businesses should be sued for the abuses they are quilty of allowing and doing nothing to stop, its both peoples faults, of the abused victums

  20. Frank Cardinalli 13 Sep 2011, 9:24pm

    Show Ms. Belforti the door.

  21. Right so when it comes to saying “I Do”, will the animal be able to make that statement?

    Honestly, she is barking mad!

    1. Michaelangelo 14 Sep 2011, 1:18am

      No, but its owner can give consent on its behalf.

      Deluded, mad, pagan and tyrannical cultures, like our present one, have already, in the past, made allowances for marriage to exist between a man and an animal (cf ancient Roman emperors) and Hindu sects.

      Consent can be given by the owner of an animal / property, or by the parent of a child.

      Also, when marriage is redefined to include the same sex (which is a first for civilized human history), what’s to stop lawmakers from redefining the concept of consent?

      Sge’s not mad – our society is, and no-one is willing to admit it.

      1. “Sge’s not mad – our society is,”

        Er, and you, it seems.

        It seems your religion is blinding you to the truth. If your argument was true, you can show us such an example of animal marriage in Holland, SA, Belgium, etc, where marriage has been allowed for gay people?

        You can’t. So, without evidence, one can only conclude you are a lair or a fool. Which is it?

      2. David Waite 14 Sep 2011, 7:24am

        Both Roman and Orthodox Catholic Churches conducted same sex marriages for their first 1400 years of existence.

      3. So you would be prepared for an owner to consent on behalf of an animal and have it marry a person yet not have a same sex marriage – that is bizarre, Michaelangelo – and you call other people mad!

        Furthermore, if you extend that concept – does that mean you encourage under age marriage, or marriage of slaves without their consent, or forced marriage – because “someone can consent on their behalf” … sheesh

        Your argument is vile and ridiculous

    2. David Waite 14 Sep 2011, 7:15am

      See, you just answered your own question. She’s worried that someone will come in with a smart poodle and she’ll have to ask, “Bark twice if you say ‘I do.'”

  22. Paddyswurds 13 Sep 2011, 9:39pm

    By arguing and debating with this pepa thing you are all guilty of giving his clearly ridiculous theories credence they clearly can never, in a sane world, possess.

    1. Could be Keith in another pseudonym again!!!!

    2. Robert White 13 Sep 2011, 10:14pm

      Leaving a stupid argument unaddressed may leave stupid people believing the stupid argument was convincing.

      It’s always better to resist stupidity to the limit of your own wherewithal.

    3. Its all well not confronting stupid arguments, but sometimes they have to be confronted to prevent those who are questioning from being usurped by ridiculous theories. Sometimes they have to be challenged to ensure the integrity of the argument that has reason and sense.

      For example, Mugabe has put forward many arguments that are crazy and reprehensible in Zimbabwe but due to the length of time they are promoted there has been a sense of normalisation of some of Mugabes views and policies which has almost (in some people) given a sense of them being correct and sane. Left unchallenged then such vile practices as those endorsed by Mugabe could spread. Unfortunately, we do not challenge these issues consistently enough.

      I appreciate Pepa is in a different category of influence to Mugabe, nonetheless his ridiculous views may have influence on some and require challenge and to be shown (largely) to be as obscene as they are.

  23. Oh for crying out loud! North Carolina, now NY. What is the matter with these folk?

    1. Robert White 13 Sep 2011, 10:16pm

      Hey! Rest of the world! Next time you decide to export all your religious nut-jobs, don’t send them all to the same place… it weakens the gene pool.

      You could have spared us out some of those criminals or something…

      Sincerely, some guy stuck in the U.S.A.

      8-)

  24. And this makes perfect sense, because we all know that animals and other inanimate objects possess the intelligence and capability to sign a marriage contract. Lady, quit your bitching and speculating and do the job that the state of New York is paying you to do.

  25. If I hear one more person say ‘I don’t have a problem with gay people, I have friends that are gay’ I am going to puke!!!!

    1. I don’t have a problem with gay people, I have friends that are gay!

      And I am gay myself…… :P

  26. Johnny33308 14 Sep 2011, 1:01am

    See, even having a law in place granting marriage equality makes no difference at all. The evil bigots still get to disregard the law if they choose to do so. So much for a win for Our People. I guess we must eradicate KKKristianity if we ever wish to be “allowed” freedom. So be it!

  27. where is this so called gay support groups called ANONYMOUS? why don’t they really do something? They say they are really Christians who hide behind mask so nobody knows that they are Christians. We have never seen them do that much to help gays, I wonder why? They look like another hate group, like Christians who hate any religion that is not Christian. For those who don’t know Christians have been killing Muslims for thousands of year, it is in your history books and you can now google it.

    1. get off the whole Anti-Christian thing, we get it you don’t like em and what is this bull about Anonymous, they hacked Westboro Baptist Church and they’re not a gay support group.

  28. For just a little levy….my father’s father’s family were kind of self-important type of people…proud of thier two hundred year heritiage in our community….there was this family web site, someone on there insisted that each branch of the family have DNA test (son of a son of a son), turns out that my father’s 1700 ancestor was not genetically related to the father on his birth certificate…but to the Davison guy down the hill…lol What makes this lady think that people doing research on thier families isn’t dealing with the same thing….DNA testing is such are new science….women were having alot for fun years ago than we give them credit for :)

  29. “If we choose to be a ‘spouse,’ does that even limit [marriage] to a human being?” It does if you’re a sane, rational and moral human being! It better be an adult human being too! What part of sick Hickville are you from???

  30. friday jones 14 Sep 2011, 6:41am

    “Ms Belforti, who cited her religious objections, said: “I don’t personally have any problem with gay people. I have friends who are gay.”

    I have a BINGO!

    1. Agreed!

      This should read:-

      “I have friends who are gay….”

      …but none of them like me becuase I’m an idiotic prejudiced bitch who thinks all my gay friends are into bestiality.

  31. Gay Daily Mail Reader 14 Sep 2011, 6:50am

    As she is a silly old cow, should her husband be done for beastiality?

    1. ha ha ha well said

  32. David Waite 14 Sep 2011, 6:57am

    I’m sending this clerk’s statement to all her gay friends.. Oh! Wait! She doesn’t have any sentient gay friends. Guess I’ll have to settle for donating to the lawsuit fund.

  33. Kyle Reppert 14 Sep 2011, 8:46am

    Plain and simple she is elected to uphold; enforce; and apply the law. If anybody thinks that she has a right to disregard the law on “religious or moral grounds”; then you should also find it ok for a clerk to issue marriage licenses to gays & lesbians in states where gay marriage is illegal. As long as they do it based off of religious or moral grounds. I know that the Unitarian Universalists believe in gay marriage. The point is is that the law is the law and one who is in a position to uphold the law must do so.

  34. Her husband must be refusing to shag that bitch I suppose and want to marry a harrier one for a real boner. Sad woman.

  35. Nutjobsareeverywhere 14 Sep 2011, 10:39am

    Hey every cloud !! Congratulations deputy you’ve just been promoted !! Erm unless your not human !! Like your predecessor,

  36. Jock S. Trap 14 Sep 2011, 10:40am

    The woman should go. It’s time bigots were forced out of jobs where they have any holdings over others. Time that these bigots were finally dealt with.

  37. When someone says, “I have gay friends” you can be sure she doesn’t.

  38. That bitch should be dropkicked!

  39. It’s always so revealing when these bigots use the “i’ve got gay friends” mantra to get them off the hook of homophobia. Most religion is homophobic so who is she kidding?

  40. Miguel Sanchez 14 Sep 2011, 3:11pm

    The Mayor or even the Governor could suspend her pending a full investigation into her actions. She’s clearly violated the law.

    I hope their lawyer wins a huge settlement against her.

  41. beercan dave 14 Sep 2011, 5:25pm

    probably why shes a ms!!!!!!
    who would want to marry a saddo like this

  42. beercan dave 14 Sep 2011, 5:28pm

    even better look her up on facebook standing next to a cow! and she talks of bestiality ……..me think the lady doth protest too much

  43. beercan dave 14 Sep 2011, 5:29pm

    could be a bull ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,as I married a man not an animal I cant be sure

  44. Profestional or personal stance? But shed marry a person to a cat if it was cute tho….Where are all the cretins coming from?

  45. i do hope that the lawsuit is against Ms Belforti herself and not New York after all it is her choice not to comply and she is elected and not concidered an employee ?

  46. xatianNsouthampton 15 Sep 2011, 12:42pm

    She has a point, which the gay community has to take to task. Previously marriage forms have always aided in genealogy, and when you take the dumb comment about beastiality away, there is a clear concern here about the future research implications of those generations to come after us, who are looking through these records for details and information concerning their lineage.

    1. Ooer missus 15 Sep 2011, 3:53pm

      Genealogy is just a hobby mainly for retired people with time on their hands. And as someone pointed out above, DNA is far more reliable.

      Hardly a reason to deny anyone a marriage certificate, she’s just grasping at straws to justify a personal prejudice.

    2. Not true, xatian. Any problems like adoption or unofficial fostering of children have happened many times in the past amongst straight people and I haven’t heard of anybody being stymied in their research because of that. The major issues are inaccurate/miscopied/very old information or people using more than one name.

      The idea that a same sex marriage certificate would be confusing for future genealogists is simply stupid and alarmist. In my opinion, it’s a daft reason plucked out of the air to try to give her actions validity.

  47. Sounds like she’s on a bit of a power trip way above her pay grade and IQ.

  48. It would be best for her to retire if she feels she cannot fullfill the requirements of the job. She doesn’t even really have an excuse I have heard: that marriage equality was not the law when she was hired. Legislation changes and public servants need to be able to deal with those changes.

  49. Gosh I never knew there were so many Sickies in these comments.

  50. By not signing the marriage licence for gay couples, that constitutes discrimination. Well, it does in my eyes, and English Law. However, this is the USA, and it seems those in officialdom are just starting to get used to the idea!

  51. Joseph Ratzinger 21 Sep 2011, 1:32am

    It’s odd that some religious people claim that (1) that gay rights impinge on religious freedom and (2) that gay marriage will lead to polygamy being legalised. Surely what would lead to polygamy is not homosexuality, but their own very insistence on the supremacy of religious rights. Because for billions of people across the globe polygamy is both their religious and traditional right, and forbidding it appears to be against principles of religious freedom. Also 100 years ago polygamy was the norm for over 80% of the worlds population.

    Fortunately secular concerns will trump religion in this case in western countries.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all