Daniel2 Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 It appears the next legal skirmish is on the way... As one of two states in the nation that exempt state officials from performing same-sex marriages, can we assume that a challenge to the Utah compromise will be coming up soon....? Lawsuit Challenges Gay Marriage Law in North Carolina By tom foreman jr. and gary d. robertson, associated press CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Dec 9, 2015, 2:36 PM ET Three couples filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging North Carolina's law allowing officials to refuse to perform gay marriages based on their religious beliefs. Their attorney says the state is violating the First Amendment and using taxpayer money to advance a religious point of view, and they want to strike down the law — one of only two in the country. The law was pushed by Republicans and passed in June over the veto of GOP Gov. Pat McCrory. Under the law, local magistrates, who can preside over marriages, and some register of deeds officials, who issue licenses, can opt out of performing marriages if they have a "sincerely held religious objection." Attorney Luke Largess said that even if officials don't support gay marriage, they must uphold the law. "People are entitled to have their religious beliefs about marriage, but the state can't ... pay for it," he said at a news conference in Charlotte. The plaintiffs weren't present. Only North Carolina and Utah provide religious-objection options for court officials. In North Carolina, any official's decision to opt out applies to all marriages — same-sex and heterosexual — for at least six months. About 5 percent of the state's roughly 670 magistrates had filed recusal paperwork as of September, according to the state court system. Backers of the law say that it protects religious freedom and that government employees should be allowed religious accommodation if marrying same-sex couples runs counter to their beliefs. The law's chief author, Senate leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, considers the law a reasonable solution while complying with court rulings that ordered civil gay marriages be performed. "Every North Carolinian seeking a gay marriage license since (the bill) became law has received one, and this is just the latest attempt by the far left's political correctness mob to force their beliefs on everyone else by trampling the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom," Berger said in a statement. The lawsuit focuses primarily on the magistrate exception, arguing that it treats gay and lesbian couples differently, in violation of the equal-protection provision in the Constitution. The lawsuit also puts religious belief above the obligations of magistrates to carry out laws they swore to uphold, critics say. The law "does not represent the values of inclusion on which North Carolina was built," Chris Sgro, executive director of gay-rights group Equality North Carolina, said in a news release. "It targets same-sex couples." The law was filed by Berger when several magistrates resigned shortly after federal judges in October 2014 struck down North Carolina's 2012 constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. The state's top court administrator said at the time magistrates who declined to officiate for same-sex couples could be fired or face potential criminal charges. The plaintiffs include two same-sex couples. One of them, Kay Diane Ansley and Catherine "Cathy" McGaughey, helped overturn in court North Carolina's 2012 constitutional ban. The third couple, a white woman and black man, successfully sued in the mid-1970s when Forsyth County magistrates refused to marry them on religious grounds, according to the lawsuit. The religious objection law has required officials in McDowell County, about 75 miles northwest of Charlotte, to bring in magistrates from adjoining Rutherford County because several magistrates have opted out of marriages. Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat, said Wednesday that he personally opposed the magistrates' law but told reporters his office would defend the state, the lawsuit's defendant. Cooper's office had stopped defending the 2012 amendment when a federal court struck down a similar amendment in Virginia. Cooper is running for governor next year and seeking to unseat McCrory, who vetoed the bill. McCrory said public officials who voluntarily swear oaths to defend the Constitution shouldn't be exempted from some duties. ——— Robertson reported from Raleigh, North Carolina. Interesting that one of the three plaintiff couples is actually a heterosexual interracial couple who were denied a marriage license due to the magistrates' religious objections to interracial marriage... That seems to suggest that the parallels between and legal arguments comparing interracial and same-gender marriage are more closely related than many have accepted. Additionally, it's worth noting that the Utah compromise is different than North Carolina's in that it is a block of legislation that simultaneously provided gays and lesbians protection from discrimination in housing and employment, and included a clause that if one part of the legislation were to be struck down, then the rest of the law would also be stricken.
carbon dioxide Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 2 hours ago, Daniel2 said: It appears the next legal skirmish is on the way... As one of two states in the nation that exempt state officials from performing same-sex marriages, can we assume that a challenge to the Utah compromise will be coming up soon....? Interesting that one of the three plaintiff couples is actually a heterosexual interracial couple who were denied a marriage license due to the magistrates' religious objections to interracial marriage... That seems to suggest that the parallels between and legal arguments comparing interracial and same-gender marriage are more closely related than many have accepted. Additionally, it's worth noting that the Utah compromise is different than North Carolina's in that it is a block of legislation that simultaneously provided gays and lesbians protection from discrimination in housing and employment, and included a clause that if one part of the legislation were to be struck down, then the rest of the law would also be stricken. In Utah a person can opt out of giving a license if they object but someone else has to be available to give the license. Which seems reasonable to me. As long as they get what they wanted, it really does not matter who gives it to them. 3
Russell C McGregor Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 2 hours ago, Daniel2 said: It appears the next legal skirmish is on the way... As one of two states in the nation that exempt state officials from performing same-sex marriages, can we assume that a challenge to the Utah compromise will be coming up soon....? Interesting that one of the three plaintiff couples is actually a heterosexual interracial couple who were denied a marriage license due to the magistrates' religious objections to interracial marriage... That seems to suggest that the parallels between and legal arguments comparing interracial and same-gender marriage are more closely related than many have accepted. Additionally, it's worth noting that the Utah compromise is different than North Carolina's in that it is a block of legislation that simultaneously provided gays and lesbians protection from discrimination in housing and employment, and included a clause that if one part of the legislation were to be struck down, then the rest of the law would also be stricken. That's right. The juggernaut won't be satisfied until everyone can be coerced into actively supporting same sex "marriage" -- and can be punished if they don't smile while they are doing it. Now repeat the mantra: "Same sex marriage won't affect anyone else. Same sex marriage won't affect anyone else. Same sex marriage won't affect anyone else...." 3
Sanpitch Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: That's right. The juggernaut won't be satisfied until everyone can be coerced into actively supporting same sex "marriage" -- and can be punished if they don't smile while they are doing it. Now repeat the mantra: "Same sex marriage won't affect anyone else. Same sex marriage won't affect anyone else. Same sex marriage won't affect anyone else...." Russell, I sometimes get the idea that you hate SSA persons, or is it just the ones that talk about it or push for some rights so they can live as they wish? Do you also hate anyone that does not agree with you? Do you hate anyone that says anything negative against your beloved church? Avoid personal comments. 1
Daniel2 Posted December 10, 2015 Author Posted December 10, 2015 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: In Utah a person can opt out of giving a license if they object but someone else has to be available to give the license. Which seems reasonable to me. As long as they get what they wanted, it really does not matter who gives it to them. I agree - it is clear that the Utah compromise had a lot of thought and effort from both sides to come up with something to meet in the middle. And that may be another key distinction from the North Carolina law that hopefully will allow Utah's body of legislation to stand.
Daniel2 Posted December 10, 2015 Author Posted December 10, 2015 58 minutes ago, Sanpitch said: Russell, I sometimes get the idea that you hate SSA persons, or is it just the ones that talk about it or push for some rights so they can live as they wish? Do you also hate anyone that does not agree with you? Do you hate anyone that says anything negative against your beloved church? Sanpitch, Caustic as his posts may sometimes appear to be, I really don't think that Russell hates gay people. I believe he operates from a paradigm shaped by having had bad experiences with the more radical fringe elements of the pro equality movement. While he may be resentful of the abusive nature of some of the bad experiences he's endured in the past, I don't believe he feels his motivation is hate so much as being a voice of warning in defense of what he believes are righteous causes. Regardless of the nature of his motivation, I find it's rarely helpful to accuse anyone of being hateful. The best any of us can do when faced with his kind of opposition is reach out with understanding and forgiveness. 3
Storm Rider Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 It would be rather disingenuous if it came to Utah given that one's rejection is also dependent upon having another persona available to fulfill the request for a marriage. However, if the objective is to force everyone to kowtow to the god of SSM then we have another strong evidence that the entire charade had nothing to do with SSM and everything to do with forcing every human to accept SSM as better than any other social relationship. Geez, this just gets better and better. 2
Russell C McGregor Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: In Utah a person can opt out of giving a license if they object but someone else has to be available to give the license. Which seems reasonable to me. As long as they get what they wanted, it really does not matter who gives it to them. It seems reasonable to you. And it seems reasonable to me. And it probably seems reasonable to most same sex couples who just want to avail themselves of the same sex marriage laws. But will it satisfy the radicals who are running the ongoing "equality" crusade? 2
Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: In Utah a person can opt out of giving a license if they object but someone else has to be available to give the license. Which seems reasonable to me. As long as they get what they wanted, it really does not matter who gives it to them. No govt official should ever be allowed to claim religious exemption from performing what is really just a clerical function. Moreover, LDS doctrine demands obedience to the law, and simultaneously stands foursquare behind the right of other people to practice whatever religion they wish -- presumably meaning that legally non-traditional forms of marriage cannot be objected to by state or local officials. Any Utah official who refuses to follow the law in this matter should be fired, and his bishop ought to begin an inquiry into his heresy in denying doctrine plainly contained in the Articles of Faith (part of the LDS Canon), and by implication the inspired Constitution of the United States. We should have no patience with those who will bring Mormonism into disrepute. 3
filovirus Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: No govt official should ever be allowed to claim religious exemption from performing what is really just a clerical function. Moreover, LDS doctrine demands obedience to the law, and simultaneously stands foursquare behind the right of other people to practice whatever religion they wish -- presumably meaning that legally non-traditional forms of marriage cannot be objected to by state or local officials. Any Utah official who refuses to follow the law in this matter should be fired, and his bishop ought to begin an inquiry into his heresy in denying doctrine plainly contained in the Articles of Faith (part of the LDS Canon), and by implication the inspired Constitution of the United States. We should have no patience with those who will bring Mormonism into disrepute. They are following the law in Utah. The law allows that exemption. Therefore no law is being broken. If you believe the law needs to be changed to not allow that exemption, argue for that instead. 1
Zakuska Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: No govt official should ever be allowed to claim religious exemption from performing what is really just a clerical function. Moreover, LDS doctrine demands obedience to the law, and simultaneously stands foursquare behind the right of other people to practice whatever religion they wish -- presumably meaning that legally non-traditional forms of marriage cannot be objected to by state or local officials. Any Utah official who refuses to follow the law in this matter should be fired, and his bishop ought to begin an inquiry into his heresy in denying doctrine plainly contained in the Articles of Faith (part of the LDS Canon), and by implication the inspired Constitution of the United States. We should have no patience with those who will bring Mormonism into disrepute. Not to mention D&C 134 which specifically addresses the very issue. 3 We believe that all governments necessarily require acivilbofficers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign. 4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules ofaworship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punishbguilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul. 5 We believe that all men are bound to asustain and uphold the respective bgovernments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and crebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience. 6 We believe that every man should be ahonored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the blaws all men owe crespect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker 1
Russell C McGregor Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: No govt official should ever be allowed to claim religious exemption from performing what is really just a clerical function. Moreover, LDS doctrine demands obedience to the law, and simultaneously stands foursquare behind the right of other people to practice whatever religion they wish -- presumably meaning that legally non-traditional forms of marriage cannot be objected to by state or local officials. Any Utah official who refuses to follow the law in this matter should be fired, and his bishop ought to begin an inquiry into his heresy in denying doctrine plainly contained in the Articles of Faith (part of the LDS Canon), and by implication the inspired Constitution of the United States. We should have no patience with those who will bring Mormonism into disrepute. If the law provides a religious exemption, then they are within their rights claiming such an exemption. There is no "heresy" in view, unless you count "same sex marriage." The US Constitution being "inspired" doesn't make it scripture. Perhaps it's time to repent of flag idolatry. Standing for a principle doesn't bring the Church into disrepute. 2
Teancum Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 20 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: That's right. The juggernaut won't be satisfied until everyone can be coerced into actively supporting same sex "marriage" -- and can be punished if they don't smile while they are doing it. Now repeat the mantra: "Same sex marriage won't affect anyone else. Same sex marriage won't affect anyone else. Same sex marriage won't affect anyone else...." On second thought I think my comments were not proper. So I deleted them. Edited December 10, 2015 by Teancum 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 It'll be really interesting if polygamy is ever made legal in the United States.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 8 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: If the law provides a religious exemption, then they are within their rights claiming such an exemption. There is no "heresy" in view, unless you count "same sex marriage." The US Constitution being "inspired" doesn't make it scripture. Perhaps it's time to repent of flag idolatry. Standing for a principle doesn't bring the Church into disrepute. You can throw the Articles of Faith and D&C 134:3-6 under the bus, if you wish. Many do, so as to justify their rejection of our great, inspired Constitution. Standing for unrighteous principles does place the Church in disrepute, and always has. Idolatry has no place in Mormonism, and never has, although it is a strong temptation -- about which Jean-Francois Revel writes in his The Totalitarian Temptation. 2
Russell C McGregor Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You can throw the Articles of Faith and D&C 134:3-6 under the bus, if you wish. Many do, so as to justify their rejection of our great, inspired Constitution. Standing for unrighteous principles does place the Church in disrepute, and always has. Idolatry has no place in Mormonism, and never has, although it is a strong temptation -- about which Jean-Francois Revel writes in his The Totalitarian Temptation. It's not obvious to me that anyone has thrown the Articles of Faith and D&C 134:3-6 under any bus, anywhere. I have seen that claim put forward before, and I have not the slightest reason to believe it. If you're going to make the US Constitution the cornerstone of your scriptural canon, please tell us: was the 18th Amendment inspired, or was it the 21st? It's just as well that the Church is not standing for any unrighteous principles. I don't know if you've noticed, but freedom of religion is enshrined in the very first amendment to that holy constitution of yours. And as for traditional marriage: that's always been a righteous principle. So I'm afraid I'm unable to see the Church standing for any unrighteous principles. 2
Russell C McGregor Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 On 12/10/2015 at 5:24 PM, Robert F. Smith said: We should have no patience with those who will bring Mormonism into disrepute. Incidentally, if that's really your position, then you presumably advocate that we should immediately excommunicate everyone who supports same sex marriage. I think the brethren are a little more tolerant of dissent than you are, however. 2
The Nehor Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You can throw the Articles of Faith and D&C 134:3-6 under the bus, if you wish. Many do, so as to justify their rejection of our great, inspired Constitution. Standing for unrighteous principles does place the Church in disrepute, and always has. Idolatry has no place in Mormonism, and never has, although it is a strong temptation -- about which Jean-Francois Revel writes in his The Totalitarian Temptation. I reject parts of our Constitution. I do not think God was responsible for the 3/5ths of a person bit or the agreement to allow the slave trade to continue without impediment until 1808. I also reject the clause prohibiting titles of nobility as they currently disqualify Jesus from ruling over the nation as he has several titles. I also question the wisdom of Article IV, Section 3 which seems to prohibit the existence of West Virginia. Does God hate West Virginia? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 8 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: It's not obvious to me that anyone has thrown the Articles of Faith and D&C 134:3-6 under any bus, anywhere. I have seen that claim put forward before, and I have not the slightest reason to believe it. Constitution haters regularly throw the Articles of Faith and D&C 134:3-6 under the bus when they prove to be inconvenient, and then oh so innocently deny that they are bigots. If you're going to make the US Constitution the cornerstone of your scriptural canon, ...................... No Mormon I know makes the Constitution part of any Scriptural Canon, and that is a straw man designed to take our eye off the Articles of Faith and D&C 134:3-6, which are part of the LDS Canon. It's just as well that the Church is not standing for any unrighteous principles. I don't know if you've noticed, but freedom of religion is enshrined in the very first amendment to that holy constitution of yours. Then why do you condemn freedom of religion and speak contemptuously of that Constitution of yours? It is a document which belongs to all of us Americans, and is the supreme law of the land in a secular sense. See Dallin Oaks, "The Divinely Inspired Constitution," Ensign, 12/1 (Feb 1992), online at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/02/the-divinely-inspired-constitution?lang=eng . And as for traditional marriage: that's always been a righteous principle. So has polygyny, even though the Mormon people were denied their Constitutional right to practice that form of non-traditional marriage. Only a hypocrite denies others their right to practice forms of non-traditional marriage. So I'm afraid I'm unable to see the Church standing for any unrighteous principles. I too am unable to see the LDS Church standing for any unrighteous principles, although some of the members are very slow to accept the canonical LDS faith. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I reject parts of our Constitution. I do not think God was responsible for the 3/5ths of a person bit or the agreement to allow the slave trade to continue without impediment until 1808. I also reject the clause prohibiting titles of nobility as they currently disqualify Jesus from ruling over the nation as he has several titles. I also question the wisdom of Article IV, Section 3 which seems to prohibit the existence of West Virginia. Does God hate West Virginia? Why then did William Gladstone (a great British statesman) say that "The Constitution of the United States is the greatest document ever struck off at one time by the mind and purpose of man." What was he thinking? See Dallin Oaks, "The Divinely Inspired Constitution," Ensign, 12/1 (Feb 1992), online at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/02/the-divinely-inspired-constitution?lang=eng .
Deborah Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 I honestly don't see a religious basis for doing something as part of your job even if it disagrees with your personal feelings. If you don't like the requirements of the job find another job. This is of course totally separate from churches and private individuals who perform religious ceremonies. However, it appears that the LBG community is pushing this to the churches. http://nbc.com.co/christian-pastor-in-vermont-sentenced-to-one-year-in-prison-after-refusing-to-marry-gay-couple/
Scott Lloyd Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 On 12/10/2015 at 0:41 PM, Russell C McGregor said: If the law provides a religious exemption, then they are within their rights claiming such an exemption. There is no "heresy" in view, unless you count "same sex marriage." The US Constitution being "inspired" doesn't make it scripture. Perhaps it's time to repent of flag idolatry. Standing for a principle doesn't bring the Church into disrepute. This is quite correct. A study of the relevant passages in the Doctrine and Covenants shows that the idea of the U.S. Constitution being divinely inspired has reference to its underlying principles being approved of God: that is to say, it is God-approved to the extent that it safeguards and guarantees principles of moral agency and individual freedom of choice -- which it does do to a great extent. It would be folly indeed to assert that each and every phrase in the Constitution is sacrosanct or inviolate. Much of it has been amended over the centuries, after all, including the portion that approved slavery.
Daniel2 Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) On 12/09/2015 at 4:42 PM, Russell C McGregor said: That's right. The juggernaut won't be satisfied until everyone can be coerced into actively supporting same sex "marriage" -- and can be punished if they don't smile while they are doing it. Now repeat the mantra: "Same sex marriage won't affect anyone else. Same sex marriage won't affect anyone else. Same sex marriage won't affect anyone else...." Hi, Russell, I believe your phrasing of "Same sex marriage won't effect anyone else" is a mischaracterization of what has been repeatedly stated, before--at least, I can accurately say that I've never argued that same-sex marriage wouldn't have ANY effect on others. Though I wouldn't be shocked if someone said it, somewhere, I'd like to clarify, at least so far as what I and others like me have said: What I (and other pro-LGBT advocates for equal civil marriage rights for same-gender couples) have consistently argued is that same-gender couples deserve the same marriage rights as others, and that allowing us to marry will have no more effect on opposite-gender couples' marriages, or society in general, than opposite-gender couples' marriages have on us, or society in general. In other words, allowing gays and lesbians the same right of civil marriage would obviously have some effect on society, in that our marriages will carry the same legal clout and have the same civil/public ramifications as other marriages. AND we have said that those SAME affects are justifiable and Constitutionally-justifiable, and don't infringe on others' rights any more or less than the effects of opposite-gender marriages have on others' rights. Clearly, the fact that same-gender couples can marry has SOME affects on society--especially as related to civil servants or businesses that cater to weddings--as well as the fact that public schools which teach history or different aspects of family life WOULD acknowledge the reality of same-gender civil marriage. I hope that helps clarify. Edited December 11, 2015 by Daniel2 Edited to correct the spelling of "affect"... Thanks, Scott! ;)
Scott Lloyd Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 On 12/11/2015 at 1:55 PM, Daniel2 said: Hi, Russell, I believe your phrasing of "Same sex marriage won't affect anyone else" is a mischaracterization of what has been repeatedly stated, before--at least, I can accurately say that I've never argued that same-sex marriage wouldn't have ANY affect on others. Though I wouldn't be shocked if someone said it, somewhere, I'd like to clarify, at least so far as what I and others like me have said: What I (and other pro-LGBT advocates for equal civil marriage rights for same-gender couples) have consistently argued is that same-gender couples deserve the same marriage rights as others, and that allowing us to marry will have no more affect on opposite-gender couples' marriages, or society in general, than opposite-gender couples' marriages have on us, or society in general. In other words, allowing gays and lesbians the same right of civil marriage would obviously have some affect on society, in that our marriages will carry the same legal clout and have the same civil/public ramifications as other marriages. AND we have said that those SAME affects are justifiable, and don't infringe on others' rights any more or less than the effects of opposite-gender marriages have on others' rights. Clearly, the fact that same-gender couples can marry has SOME affects on society--especially as related to civil servants or businesses that cater to weddings--as well as the fact that public schools which teach history or different aspects of family life WOULD acknowledge the reality of same-gender civil marriage. I hope that helps clarify. Thanks, OK, I can overlook one or two instances of the same grammatical infraction in a single post, but when it gets up past half a dozen or so, it is beyond the margin for tolerance. affect: a verb meaning to influence. effect: a noun meaning result. In pretty much every instance above where you wrote "affect," you should have used "effect." No offense. Many, many people make this error, and you are, for the most part, a good, articulate and lucid writer. But if I don't say something about it, who will?
Recommended Posts