North Carolina Allows Officials to Refuse to Perform Gay Marriages
By JONATHAN M. KATZ JUNE 11, 2015
DURHAM, N.C. — Defying the governor, lawmakers on Thursday enacted a law that allows state court officials to refuse to perform a marriage if they have a “sincerely held religious objection,” a measure aimed at curtailing same-sex unions.
The Republican-controlled House voted 69-41 on Thursday to override a veto by Gov. Pat McCrory, also a Republican, who refused to sign the marriage bill in May. Mr. McCrory said at the time that although he believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman, he vetoed the bill because “no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath.”
The State Senate, which is also controlled by Republicans, overrode Mr. McCrory’s veto June 1.
The law, which takes effect immediately, allows magistrates, along with assistant and deputy registers of deeds, to refuse to perform a marriage without facing punishment or charges of willfully failing to discharge their duties. Court officials who disclose a religious objection must stop performing all marriages for at least six months.
The governor condemned the move. “It’s a disappointing day for the rule of law and the process of passing legislation in North Carolina,” Mr. McCrory said in a statement.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union said it was too soon to say how a ruling expected this month by the United States Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage might affect the North Carolina law.
The measure is one of a string of bills in states like Indiana, Arkansas and Louisiana to allow people to circumvent equal protection for same-sex couples on grounds of religious freedom. It is also part of a series of sharply conservative bills passed by North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature, including a bill signed last Friday by the governor that requires women who seek abortions to wait 72 hours before they can undergo the procedure.
North Carolina politics are often pulled between urban and college-town progressives and suburban, rural and military-town conservatives. The issue of same-sex marriage has swerved back and forth in recent years. In 2012, the voters approved an amendment to the state Constitution banning same-sex marriage. Two years later, a federal judge in Asheville, N.C., struck down the amendment.
The sponsors of the bill, introduced in January, said it was in direct response to the federal court ruling. In a February floor debate, a sponsor of the bill, E. S. Newton, a Republican state senator known as Buck, referred to “some wise old judges that think they know better than us, that they know more than God,” according to The Raleigh News & Observer. “I will not stand idly by and watch the demands of a few insist that a magistrate perform a wedding that he or she strongly believes to be immoral.”
“It’s hard to believe that any governor — much less a conservative one — would veto a bill protecting the religious freedoms of his constituents. The House and the Senate made the right call in overriding Governor McCrory’s ill-advised veto and we are grateful for their continued leadership in fighting to preserve this fundamental American freedom,” the group’s executive director, Tami Fitzgerald, said in a statement.
Chris Sgro, the executive director of Equality North Carolina, which supports same-sex marriage, said he was surprised and disappointed. The group plans to challenge the law in court.
“We believe it is going to make us a national eyesore in North Carolina, which is even sadder because it is not the will of the people,” Mr. Sgro said. “We are going to be assessing legal steps.”
The bill had been on the House calendar since June 3. Ten members were absent for the vote. Lawmakers voted roughly on party lines, save three Democrats who voted to override the governor’s veto, and three Republicans who broke with their caucus to support it.
In another move criticized by supporters of same-sex marriage, Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, a Republican, on Thursday signed a law allowing private agencies with state contracts to refuse to make adoption referrals that violate their religious beliefs. Supporters said the law codified existing practice in Michigan, but critics said it would allow discrimination against not just same-sex couples, but also religious minorities, single parents and others.
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives: Ronald Reagan
Must be part of their "less goverment" agenda! 
When I was young and stupid, I was actually happy I was from NC....
In 1976, two blind people came before the magistrate in Winston-Salem to marry. The magistrate refused because Carol Figueroa was white and Thomas Person was black. They returned with two lawyers from Legal Aid. Rather than perform his sworn duties, the magistrate stood and read Bible verses. This was nine years after mixed-race marriage was legal nationwide. It took three years of legal fighting for the couple to marry, and they remain so to this day. We are again having this fight in North Carolina. Gay couples have had the right to marry here since October 2014 due to a 4th Circuit Court ruling.
North Carolina Allows Officials to Refuse to Perform Gay Marriages
By JONATHAN M. KATZ JUNE 11, 2015DURHAM, N.C. — Defying the governor, lawmakers on Thursday enacted a law that allows state court officials to refuse to perform a marriage if they have a “sincerely held religious objection,” a measure aimed at curtailing same-sex unions.
The Republican-controlled House voted 69-41 on Thursday to override a veto by Gov. Pat McCrory, also a Republican, who refused to sign the marriage bill in May. Mr. McCrory said at the time that although he believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman, he vetoed the bill because “no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath.”
The State Senate, which is also controlled by Republicans, overrode Mr. McCrory’s veto June 1.
The law, which takes effect immediately, allows magistrates, along with assistant and deputy registers of deeds, to refuse to perform a marriage without facing punishment or charges of willfully failing to discharge their duties. Court officials who disclose a religious objection must stop performing all marriages for at least six months.
The governor condemned the move. “It’s a disappointing day for the rule of law and the process of passing legislation in North Carolina,” Mr. McCrory said in a statement.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union said it was too soon to say how a ruling expected this month by the United States Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage might affect the North Carolina law.
The measure is one of a string of bills in states like Indiana, Arkansas and Louisiana to allow people to circumvent equal protection for same-sex couples on grounds of religious freedom. It is also part of a series of sharply conservative bills passed by North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature, including a bill signed last Friday by the governor that requires women who seek abortions to wait 72 hours before they can undergo the procedure.
North Carolina politics are often pulled between urban and college-town progressives and suburban, rural and military-town conservatives. The issue of same-sex marriage has swerved back and forth in recent years. In 2012, the voters approved an amendment to the state Constitution banning same-sex marriage. Two years later, a federal judge in Asheville, N.C., struck down the amendment.
The sponsors of the bill, introduced in January, said it was in direct response to the federal court ruling. In a February floor debate, a sponsor of the bill, E. S. Newton, a Republican state senator known as Buck, referred to “some wise old judges that think they know better than us, that they know more than God,” according to The Raleigh News & Observer. “I will not stand idly by and watch the demands of a few insist that a magistrate perform a wedding that he or she strongly believes to be immoral.”
“It’s hard to believe that any governor — much less a conservative one — would veto a bill protecting the religious freedoms of his constituents. The House and the Senate made the right call in overriding Governor McCrory’s ill-advised veto and we are grateful for their continued leadership in fighting to preserve this fundamental American freedom,” the group’s executive director, Tami Fitzgerald, said in a statement.
Chris Sgro, the executive director of Equality North Carolina, which supports same-sex marriage, said he was surprised and disappointed. The group plans to challenge the law in court.
“We believe it is going to make us a national eyesore in North Carolina, which is even sadder because it is not the will of the people,” Mr. Sgro said. “We are going to be assessing legal steps.”
The bill had been on the House calendar since June 3. Ten members were absent for the vote. Lawmakers voted roughly on party lines, save three Democrats who voted to override the governor’s veto, and three Republicans who broke with their caucus to support it.
In another move criticized by supporters of same-sex marriage, Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, a Republican, on Thursday signed a law allowing private agencies with state contracts to refuse to make adoption referrals that violate their religious beliefs. Supporters said the law codified existing practice in Michigan, but critics said it would allow discrimination against not just same-sex couples, but also religious minorities, single parents and others.
“It’s hard to believe that any governor — much less a conservative one — would veto a bill protecting the religious freedoms of his constituents.
It is understandable to expect lawmakers to follow the Constitution; HOWEVER, the same sex couples should not be able to use "religious freedom" as a basis for demanding marriage rights because there is NO religion that agrees with homosexual unions. AND yes I KNOW that religious freedom means the right to have no religion at all.
States could enact civil union laws allowing the gay couples rights to insurance, health care benefits etc., but they cannot say it is a marriage, because marriage was defined long ago by God to all the people of ALL the faiths. Even back in those early days, there were wives and there were concubines, the difference was plain to everyone. There were no homosexual marriages, which is not to say homosexuality did not exist back in those times. The city of Sodom was destroyed by God for that reason. The laws did not change for the Jews, the Christians or the Muslims. The original human family was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. All progeny came from Abraham and Sarah after that.
[Edited on 6/13/2015 by gina]
It is understandable to expect lawmakers to follow the Constitution; HOWEVER, the same sex couples should not be able to use "religious freedom" as a basis for demanding marriage rights ...
Give me an example where same sex couples have used "religious freedom" as a basis for demanding marriage rights. As far as I know "religious freedom" has only been used by those who wish to deny marriage rights.
If your religion gets in the way of performing your job, maybe you should be looking for another job. Other jobs you should not hold if you are of certain religions is a ham baker if you are Jewish and a stripper if you are a Muslim woman.
If your religion gets in the way of performing your job, maybe you should be looking for another job. Other jobs you should not hold if you are of certain religions is a ham baker if you are Jewish and a stripper if you are a Muslim woman.
EGG ZAKK LEE
What a bunch of narrow minded bigots. Aren't these jobs funded by taxpayers, yet the employees get to pick & choose when & when not to execute their duties?
Looks like a winner for the GOP. Hopefully this will make it to the platform, the primaries, and the GOP 2016 candidate can campaign on this. Should win bunches of votes. 😛
Looks like more of that good 'ole conservatism that alloak bleeds for on this site.
I would like to see one of those self righteous religious judges or legislators throw someone in jail for adultery.
there is a Commandment against it, of course, but people would rather spend their energy on denying gay people their civil rights
