Skip to comments.North Carolina lawmakers allow 'opt-out' over same-sex marriage
Posted on 09/02/2015 8:44:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Government officials in North Carolina can refuse to perform same-sex marriages by citing religious objections under a law enacted on Thursday by the Republican-led legislature, which voted to override the governor's veto.
The law protects the jobs of magistrates and other officials who refuse to perform marriages of gay couples by citing a sincerely held religious objection.
Governor Pat McCrory, also a Republican, had said the officials who swore to defend the Constitution and perform their duties of office should not be exempt from upholding their oath.
The state House of Representatives overrode his veto by reaching the three-fifths majority in a 69-41 vote. The state Senate overrode the veto earlier this month.
While gay marriage was targeted in a wave of conservative legislation in U.S. statehouses this year, North Carolina is among the few states to pass a measure. Utah approved a similar opt-out law earlier this year.
North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore said in a statement after the vote that the law protects sincerely held religious beliefs while also ensuring that magistrates are available in all jurisdictions to perform lawful marriages.
Once they have asked to opt out in writing, magistrates would be barred from performing any marriage, gay or heterosexual, for six months.
Gay rights advocates said a court challenge was expected.
"This bill, which will now become law, is discriminatory and treats gay and lesbian couples as second class citizens," the Rev. Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, executive director of the advocacy group Campaign for Southern Equality, said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
PASS A LAW SIMILAR As NORTH CAROLINA's !!
North Carolina has balls; how about the rest of the States in the United States of America?????
Interesting result, as carpetbaggers have been trying hard to make NC “progressive”. NC seems to be holding up better than SC.
A better solution would be to get government out of the marriage business.
This won’t matter. Some leftist black-robed tyrant will just declare such a law “unconstitutional,” the catch-all label to impose their agenda.
I’m not criticizing this law, just being a realist. We are now a lawless nation.
> Once they have asked to opt out in writing, magistrates would be barred from performing any marriage, gay or heterosexual, for six months.
“Opting out” pertains to ALL marriages.
So that covers magistrates. But I assume a county clerk in North Carolina who refused to issue a marriage license would be facing the same kind of penalties that the one in Kentucky is facing?
if NC had “balls”, how come your state had a slight 2% difference in voting during the 2012 elections for Romney? it’s still a toss up state, similar to a transvestite. Put down the state pom pom’s a bit..
Utah is run by Hatch, the same as Kentucky being run by McConnell, Arizona by McPain, South Carolina by Linda Graham....
Who is your state being run by?
“Who is your state being run by?”
a total leftwing, illegal alien loving, obamatard asskissing imbecile of a Dummycrat moonbat idiot...
Easiest thing to do in my opinion is take DOMA, change it to Defense of Holy Matrimony Act and run it through the House and Senate again.
Let Obama and the left veto that one.
Yes and do it like they did the gun grab in Connecticut,overnight, in an emergency session
“Governor Pat McCrory, also a Republican, had said the officials who swore to defend the Constitution and perform their duties of office should not be exempt from upholding their oath.”
Unless you are the GOP Congress.
Exactly. Thank you.
a Republican, had said the officials who swore to defend the Constitution and perform their duties of office should not be exempt from upholding their oath.
I agree. The problem is there does not exist in the Constitution a provision that states homosexuals can marry. That is just a couple of judges “interpreting what the founders meant. The founders wrote what they meant. If they wanted homosexuals to marry it would have been written in there. So by not issuing license to homosexuals the clerks are actually upholding the Constitution when the judges with a great lack of spine did not............
The irony is taking the oath on the Bible.
There is something to be said for being grandfathered in when your job description changes. This is very good.
At face value this sounds good, in reality, loads of lawyers and politicians won’t let it happen. The lawyers stand to benefit from court divorce cases, and the political belief that government must provide support to marriages and divorce is the sacred law to a large segment of the population (must pull out those restraining orders, alimony, child support, inheritance, etc., to prove that government is the hero and supports people).
From a standpoint of principle, I do agree, I don’t feel like inviting government into my life and relationships whenever the option is there.
Watch for a federal court to throw this out. The gay fanatics will not quit until every person in the country bows down and kisses . . . well, you know.
Just like they threw out the previous state statute saying that the state recognized only one man-one woman marriages, and the state constitutional amendment to the same effect.
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.