NY Town Clerk’s Refusal to Issue Marriage Licenses to Same Sex Couples Generates Opposition to Her Re-Election Bid

The Wall Street Journal notes that Rose Marie Belforti’s campaign for re-election to the part-time position of town clerk in Ledyard, New York has encountered opposition based on her response to the legalization of same sex marriage in the state. Citing her religious beliefs, Ms. Belforti has declined to participate in the issuance to marriage licenses to same sex couples, instead directiing a deputy to serve any same sex couples seeking the essential document.  This arrangement means that same sex couples can only obtain a license by appointment at a time when the deputy is available, a situation that create differentiated access to marriage despite the creation of a marriage equality rule under New York law. People for the American Way represents a couple that is now contemplating a lawsuit after being turned away when the deputy was not on duty. 

Write-in candidate Ed Easter is challenging Belforti.  A fellow Republican who identifies himself as a Christian, Easter explains his entry into the race this way: "It's not about attacking her beliefs….It's about her beliefs are not letting her do her job." As quoted  in the New York Times, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo responded to Ms. Belforti’s position by saying, “When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get to pick and choose.” The New York State Health Department has issued a memorandum warning clerks that the refusal to issue marriage licenses to a same-sex couple would be a misdemeanor.  According to the Times article, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF)  represents Ms. Belforti and plans to argue that her beliefs must be accommodated.  On their website, ADF presents a position statement entitled “The Homosexual Agenda: The Principal Threat to Your Religious Freedom.” 

As explained on the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, the religious exemption provisions of New York’s same sex marriage law do not extend to public employees, such as town clerks. Under Title VII, if Ms. Belforti were an employee, rather than the office supervisor, she would only receive such an accommodation of her beliefs is the requested staffing alteration did not unduly burden other employees and interfere with office operations. Requiring an effective suspension of service when she was alone in the clerk’s office during normal business hours would justify a refusal of such an accommodation of her request.

In an Opinionator piece in the NYTimes, Linda Greenhouse connects Ms. Belforti’s stance to a broader set of claims for religious exemptions from job duties, such as those pursued by pharmacists objecting to requests to provide the morning after pill, as well as the brewing controversy over the recently issued HHS rule requiring private insurance plans to cover “women’s preventive services,” including contraceptives.      

JFB