Gay marriage advocates sue North Carolina over opt-out law

reuters.com ^ | 12/09/2015 | COLLEEN JENKINS

[massmike]

A North Carolina law that allows government officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages if they cite religious objections is unconstitutional and should be struck down, according to a federal lawsuit filed on Wednesday to challenge the measure.

The six plaintiffs, who include gay couples, argue the legislation allows magistrates and other officials who perform marriages to put their personal beliefs before their sworn constitutional duty.

"And the law spends public money to advance those religious beliefs," said Luke Largess, a partner at the Charlotte-based law firm Tin Fulton Walker & Owen that filed the challenge. "That is a straightforward violation of the First Amendment."

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Asheville. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat who is running for governor, said his office will defend the state even those he personally opposes the legislation.

North Carolina's Republican-led legislature passed the law earlier this year as social conservatives nationwide pushed for so-called "religious freedom bills" in response to same-sex marriage becoming legal.

State legislators overrode Republican Governor Pat McCrory's veto of the measure, allowing it to take effect in June, the same month the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the country.

Supporters of the North Carolina law say it protects sincerely held religious beliefs while also ensuring officials are available in all jurisdictions to perform marriages. Magistrates who ask to opt out are barred from performing any marriage, gay or heterosexual, for six months.

Critics say the opt-out option discriminates against gay and lesbian couples. In one county, they said, all magistrates recused themselves, forcing public funds to be spent to bring in magistrates from elsewhere to marry local couples during short shifts.

Utah is the only other state with a similar opt-out law.

[cloudmountain]

"Gay marriage" is an oxymoron.
Besides being sick, sick, sick, it's a sin. And not a small sin.

[mrsmel]

Sanctuary cities! Sanctuary cities! Illegal, and those aliens are subsidised through taxpayer money too!

[mrsmel]

I agree. I have tried to explain that even though sin is sin in the eyes of the perfect and holy God, some are more egregious in their societal effects, and God must have felt the same way, because he calls homosexuality, amongst some other sins, an abomination, and he destroyed-was it four or five-cities over it, Sodom and Gomorrah being the two most famous ones.

It is also a sin of utmost rebellion, an active shaking of the fist in God’s face, more than a giving in to our natural sinful human nature. You don’t see ‘Murderer’s Pride” parades, or “Thieves’ Pride” or even “Adulterers’ Pride”.

[fwdude]

Kennedy already ruled in Obergefell that religious belief and freedom would not be affected by the decision. So, is Obergefell a wrongly decided opinion and invalid?

[tanknetter]

I don’t think thats what Kennedy said. Iirc he said that the ability to discuss and teach from a religious perspective. But that shouldn’t be taken as being able to act based on one.

What this case says is that the ability to marry (which the NC law guarantees and protects) isn’t enough. People who disagree with that should not have the right to reasonable accomadations of their religious beliefs.

However I think there’s more at work here than a sociopathological need to require someone who personally disagrees with your marriage to preside over it.

What I think this is about is finding a way to drive religious Conservatives out of government service, and specifically the judicial branch. Set up a construct where Conservative judges/magistrates must choose between their faith and their jobs. When they leave their jobs they can be replaced by Progressive judges/magistrates. Which will have an impact on ALL issues that come before the courts.

[fwdude]

Here’s Kennedy’s opinion in the brief:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those
who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate
with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts,
same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The
First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and
persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach
the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to
continue the family structure they have long revered. The
same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for
other reasons.”

[tanknetter]

Exactly. Teach and advocate.

[fwdude]

You cannot teach and advocate when you are forced to repudiate what you are teaching and advocating by actions.

[tanknetter]

Thats a good point.

But do you think thats what Kennedy had in mind when he added that caveat?

[GenXteacher]

Kind of odd- we can have a religious test to determine if you can hold a government job, but not one to see if you can get into the country and blow it up.