Same-sex marriage: Lessons in conscience

Same-sex marriage: Lessons in conscience

At first glance, there’s nothing impressive about Laura Fotusky. Her soft, middle-aged figure, unremarkable cardigan, and dark, ‘80s-style hair capture the plain ordinariness of small-town America.
Nothing chic or trendy here.
But Laura grabbed headlines recently, standing tall to answer the call of conscience against the power of law. She resigned from her job as Barker Town Clerk, a position that would require her to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians once the newly-passed “Marriage Equality Act” becomes law on July 24.
Why resign from a fulfilling job when unemployment tops nine percent?
That’s the same word that gay advocates pulled out to laud New York State Senator Mark Grisanti, a Republican from Buffalo, for his balance-tipping vote in favor of homosexual marriage. He too earned headlines, as homosexual activists across the country hailed him as a “hero” for “voting his conscience.”


I disagree. Unless was also ready to resign to prevent divorced people and those who were “unable to consummate” from marrying as well.

Her “picking and choosing” proves (to me at least) that it’s bigotry, not righteousness.

My opinion.

I would keep on the same job. After all, I was not passing any Certificate of Catholic Marriage. It has nothing to do with Catholic Marriage.

It happens that both use the same word “marriage” which happens to have 2 (or many more) totally different meanings.

The insistence on homos to use the same word (that I totlly disagree) does not mean that their “marriage” is the same marriage of Catholic Spouses.:thumbsup:

The bigotry allegation is untenable.

She would have no reasonable way to determine who is divorced w/o an annulment and who is unable to consummate. Thus, she would have to err on the side of presuming validity. This is not the case for same-sex couples, however.

I applaud her. The Catechism teaches the sanctity of marriage and the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts. Divorce does not rise to that level.

None of the articles I read said anything about whether or not the (now-former) Barker Town Clerk is even Catholic… if not, then “divorced” and “unable to consummate” don’t even apply.

Actually that’s not true. In Ga at least, you must furnish copies of your previous divorce decrees when applying for a marriage license.

Its apparently not true in NY either:

Information regarding previous marriages must be furnished in the application for a marriage license. This includes whether the former spouse or spouses are living, and whether the applicants are divorced and, if so, when, where and against whom the divorce or divorces were granted. A certified copy of the Decree of Divorce or a Certificate of Dissolution of Marriage may be required by the clerk issuing the marriage license.

So it is your contention that if say a couple came in and happened to mention that they were “unable to consumate” that she would then refuse them a marriage license or resign?

I didn’t think so.

That’s what makes it bigotry…

You can’t have it both ways. Either we’re imposing the Catholic definition of marital eligibility on everyone or we’re not.

We can’t impose it on “gay” Protestants or Atheists but not on divorced Protestants or Atheists , at least not with any degree of intellectual integrity.

In fact, attempting to do so is what makes her actions susceptible to being labeled “bigotry”.

So… big deal…

bigot -
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

I’m glad to see we’re in agreement.

The issue is you see a problem with it and I don’t. We all could be labeled bigots to some degree. I would rather be bigoted towards God than against.

They don’t require any certification of annulment, however. If a person is divorced and the apparent marriage annulled, he would not show certification of the letter to the State since it is internal to the operation of the Church.

It also seems unlikely anyone would be waving around their medical issues in a clerk’s office outside the rare circumstance where the couple are rushed b/c one party is on his deathbed. However, such a statement may not have truly been “unable to consummate” but rather some other issue preventing children. Sterility is not in itself an impediment to marriage. If the clerk is in the position to interview the couple more thoroughly to determine whether consummation is truly impossible, she may do so.

Most of the time, I think she is required to verify documentation (ID, disposition of previous marriage, etc) and witness signatures and is prohibited from going beyond that. In the case of what, on the surface, may be an invalid marriage, there is reasonable doubt to that presumption. That is because what appears to be an impediment, upon full investigation, may turn out to be nothing at all. The case of SSM is different in that such an attempted marriage is obviously invalid regardless of any other circumstance.

No the problem I see is a public official who is bigoted against one group of citizens and is trying to pass off her bigotry as religious principle.

If she were truly concerned with the religious aspects of marriage she would refuse to issues marriage licenses to other groups who are ineligible to marry on religious grounds.

She didn’t.

Therefore I question her sincerity.

At least she had the integrity to resign since she seems unwilling to properly execute her office as a public servant.

We are now playing to the lowest common denominator rather that what is best for the common good. She can take a logical position on this without ever calling upon her faith. The natural law is higher than man’s laws. When she took her oath homosexual marriage was not a law.

I find it interesting how often people will attempt to completely stifle and/or silence a debate by resorting to name-calling–bigot, bigotry, racist, racism, homophobic, blah blah

that’s not debating, that’s the adult version of sticking your tongue out at someone

I’m sure you don’t see the irony of your post, but I’ve got a bit of time this afternoon, so here it goes…

I’ve spent quite a lot of time making sure I argued against the position, not the person, and making the distinction between the woman herself and her actions. All in an effort to promote an actual exchange of ideas.

Then you come along and without providing any constructive contribution to the discussion, accuse me of trying to “stifle the debate by name calling”.

Are you serious?:shrug:

And your point is what?

I didn’t call her a “bigot”.

I said she had a bigoted position

and I described how I came to that conclusion.

I notice that no one has actually challenged the conclusion…

In fact, the OP agrees with me…

So its wrong to point out bigotry?

Really, is this is the best you can do?

Yup :yup:

Def.: big·ot·ed (bg-td) adj.
Being or characteristic of a bigot

Simple grammar.

Stop trying to parse words and back-pedal.
*(“Is this the best you can do?”) * :wink:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit