Posted on 09/08/2015 2:35:00 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
More than 30 North Carolina magistrates so far have refused to perform weddings since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages in all 50 states.
But they’re not likely to suffer the fate of Kim Davis, the Tennessee county clerk who was recently jailed for her refusal. It turns out that taking this position is legal in North Carolina, according to CBN.com.
Shortly after the Supreme Court’s June decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that same-sex marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed right, the North Carolina legislature passed a law enabling officials to opt out of performing marriages altogether.
The law was designed to accommodate officials holding a “sincerely held religious objection” to same-sex marriage.
Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger was the law’s original sponsor.
“It’s keeping folks from having to choose between their job and their religious beliefs,” he said. “I think that’s important.”
Berger added that there haven’t been any problems encountered with implementing the law so far.
“I think the law is working very well,” he said.
Lookout 10th Amendment.
Some people prefer doing what is right rather than what is hip.
Get biddy Kintuck.
Bump!
Sorry, but when the first sentence of an article is deeply flawed and is patently false; I tend to disregard the rest of the article.
The story says they are not performing marriages.
Sounds like sexuality is not an issue. They’re just not performing marriages, period.
I don’t think that marrying couples is a mandated duty for a judge, whose responsibilities are primarily in the courtroom. Performing marriages may be optional, and these judges opted out. It is not their main job.
That’s the differences between these judges and the county clerk issue.
For a county clerk, issuing licenses IS a primary duty.
I’m solidly on the Kentucky clerk’s side in refusing to be involved in same-sex marriage, but she has no power to change law. Her only recourse, honestly, is to resign and find a job that doesn’t require her to do unholy things.
Can you inform us please what’s wrong with the first sentence of the article?
This seems somewhat similar to what the judge in Oregon is doing. He too (IIRC), opted out of performing marriages altogether, so as not to bring himself into a position where he might be faced with a situation that conflicted with his religious beliefs. This was by choice, rather than statute (performing marriage is (again, IIRC), an optional, rather than a required, duty for Oregon judges)
Naturally, the local gay activist group bigwig claimed it suggested this particular judge’s decision could be evidence of bias against gay defendants in any possible legal case. It’s not enough to take yourself out of the situation, it’s embrace 100% or be vilified as an enemy when you’re dealing with activists.
Is there more than one county clerk named Kim Davis?
And people said nullification doesn’t work...
2nd sentence...
There are 57 states?
/JUST kidding
RE: 2nd sentence...
Thanks.
But if the article is not credible because of the second sentence, surely these articles that corroborate the news should compensate:
and this:
The clerks asked them to do that 6 months ago. The dem Governor and House refused. Next election in My should be interesting.
It’s already legal, IMHO, in Kentucky and anywhere else that has a state Constitution and law defining such weddings as not legal.
The US Constitution does not address marriage. The 10th amendment to the US Constitution indicates very clearly that anything not addressed in the Constitution is left to the states or the people.
The woman in Kentucky is following Kentucky State law according to the Kentucky constitution.
Since it is not referred to or present in the U.S. Constitution, IMHO, the Supreme Court should have no standing in it...this issue is left, by constitutional decree, to the states.
Until the 10th amendment is either overturned, or another amendment alters it...the case should be closed in terms of the Supreme Court.
-PJ
Pay attention please:
I’m not the one saying the post was “not credible.”
RE: it would have to wait for the next regular session.
1) When is the regular session going to be?
2) Assuming they pass the law, will the governor ( a Democrat ) sign it?
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.