Posted on 12/11/2015 12:18:05 PM PST by wagglebee
RALEIGH, North Carolina, December 11, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Three couples are challenging the constitutionality of North Carolina's law allowing magistrates to bow out of performing same-sex "marriages."
According to court documents, the plaintiffs – two lesbian couples and an opposite-sex interracial couple – argue that the state's new law is discriminatory and thus unconstitutional. They and LGBT rights activists, as well as the state's GOP governor, all argue that the intention of the law is to illegally discriminate against same-sex couples.
However, ABC 11 noted that a state statute does not require couples to perform marriages, a position argued by North Carolina Values Coalition's Tami Fitzgerald.
"The whole lawsuit was based upon the assumption that there's a duty of magistrates to perform marriages," Fitzgerald told ABC11, "and that's an incorrect assumption. It's incorrect legally because the statute says it's an additional authority. So it's optional for magistrates and registers of deeds. It's not a duty."
Enacted in June over Governor Pat McCrory's veto, Senate Bill 2 allows magistrates to avoid performing same-sex "marriage" ceremonies – as long as the magistrates then withdraw from conducting any marriage ceremonies for six months.
Thirty-two magistrates have taken advantage of this option, with other magistrates having to be bused in to perform ceremonies. The plaintiffs argue that this extra cost to the state gives them standing in court, as does the bill's provision of pension funds for those magistrates who resigned before Senate Bill 2 was enacted and then became magistrates again. The bill puts state money toward the pensions of the magistrates as though they had never resigned.
Fitzgerald countered that critics have "challenged a lawsuit based on a law they don't like."
"What Senate Bill 2 does, it balances the right of homosexual couples to get married against the rights of an employee, including a government employee, to follow their religious beliefs, even when they're on the job. And we have a First Amendment right to exercise religious beliefs."
The state's attorney general, Roy Cooper, says he will defend the law even though he disagrees with it. Fitzgerald noted that critics "can't point to one single case where a homosexual couple has been denied the right to get married."
Two attorneys are representing the plaintiffs. One of them, Katherine Parker, is a former legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
“All we want is people to tolerate us gays.” /s
And they wonder why the term homofascists was created.
My simple and only answer...
Why can't the deviatns be content in their closet?
Then we, other 98% can be happy too!
The homofascists won’t be satisfied until everyone is publicly forced to celebrate their perversion.
We were assured no clergy would be forced to violate their consciences.
“However, ABC 11 noted that a state statute does not require couples to perform marriages, a position argued by North Carolina Values Coalition’s Tami Fitzgerald.”
I don’t understand.
History teaches us that the result of the War of Yankee Aggression was to free the slaves (and exponentially expand the crushing burden of federal tyranny). The perverts’ rights clan is busily rebuilding slavery with a different target: normal people.
“Then we, other 98% can be happy too!”
These people are miserable. They are jealous of other peoples’ happiness and therefore will do anything to make everyone just as miserable as they.
Let’s try another way to look at this that is not so Politically Correct. See if this follows.
Killing a stray dog is not a crime (just go with me on this). Imagine a Supreme Court affirms this to be true. Now imagine somebody suing someone else because they DIDN’T kill a stray dog. Now imagine a judge that says, guilty! the citizen that did not kill the stray dog owes the plantif $$$$ because they were offended.
These twits are completley ignoring how the law is written and insisting that they be expanded and enforced in a way that suits them.
I’d say we should just “carpet-bomb” these miserable people ... but since they’re lesbians that’s probably the wrong term to use (heh-heh!)
If they are able to get married by anyone, they are NOT suing to stop a magistrate from bowing out. They ARE suing to force a magistrate to perform a gay marriage.
I don’t care whether their legal arguments are valid or not - their intent is to force their beliefs on others. And if someone in the area is allowed and willing to marry them, they cannot argue that anyone else’s religious beliefs are being forced on them they way they want to force theirs on the magistrates.
The end was inherent in the beginning. Deo vindice.
What lawless Obamas activist justices do not want citizens to find out is that the states can discriminate on the basis of any criteria which the states have not amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
For example, the states make laws which discriminate on the basis of age for getting a drivers license and purchasing alcoholic beverages because the states have not amended the Constitution to protect underage citizens on these issues.
Regarding sex-related issues for example, the only sex-related right that the states have amended to the Constitution to expressly protect is voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment.
And regarding marriage issues, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitutitions silence about things like marriage means that marriage is uniquely a state power issue. So the states need to grow some and call the Supreme Courts bluff about the fictitious constitutional right to gay ”marriage.”
In fact, when patriots elect Trump, or whatever conservative they elect, they need to also elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress to support Trump. A state sovereignty-respecting Congress would also be able to fire activist justices. =^)
I thought they wanted to be able to get married. Done. Now they want each magistrate to LIKE it??
Seriously, what if a wedding is coming up on the docks and the official knows one of the couple and doesn’t like them? Can’t he say, someone else marry the Smiths; I’m not marrying them? Can’t they just switch shifts or something?
So funny that they object to straights forcing their beliefs on others, but do exactly the same thing they claim to hate.
No doubt.
The Gaystapo is on the March..
I can confidently predict THAT can never happen!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.