If the veto was overridden and becomes law a magistrate can refuse to marry a same sex couple. He or she, if they declare their opposition, can't marry anyone gay or straight, for a six month period. It might not be a big deal in an urban county, but in the many rural counties is can be a very big deal. If you only have a half dozen magistrates and three of them refuse to perform their marriage duties you would be left with only three for the whole county. A magistrate has to be on duty 24 hour a day, 7 days a week. It is hard to imagine that there wouldn't be long gaps in coverage for conducting marriages in that situation.

(06-04-2015 08:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If the veto was overridden and becomes law a magistrate can refuse to marry a same sex couple. He or she, if they declare their opposition, can't marry anyone gay or straight, for a six month period. It might not be a big deal in an urban county, but in the many rural counties is can be a very big deal. If you only have a half dozen magistrates and three of them refuse to perform their marriage duties you would be left with only three for the whole county. A magistrate has to be on duty 24 hour a day, 7 days a week. It is hard to imagine that there wouldn't be long gaps in coverage for conducting marriages in that situation.

It is fcking crazy. You have no business being a Magistrate if your religious convictions inhibit you from carrying out your duties. Step the fck down..or grow the hell up and deal. I personally am embarrassed as a North Carolinian on this law. I hope like hell the Governors veto stands.

(06-04-2015 09:58 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 09:53 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  I'm guessing it is state by state on the timelines to get a license, I know in Georgia we had to go ahead of time to get ours done.

I'm sorry, but religious beliefs should not come in to play when you are a public servant. Carry out the law and nothing more.

That was our governor's belief, so he (a republican) vetoed the bill. If you don't want to perform your duties, get a private sector job.

The senate overrode him. The house has to as well for it to pass. It'll probably pass, but it should be closer than the senate race.

NC politics are all sorts of ****** anyway. In the last election, 60% of votes for congress went to democrats, yet only 3 of the 13 representatives elected were democrats. Our districts are gerrymandered to hell.

Source? It doesn't shock me but I just moved back to NC recently.

(06-04-2015 08:32 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 08:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If the veto was overridden and becomes law a magistrate can refuse to marry a same sex couple. He or she, if they declare their opposition, can't marry anyone gay or straight, for a six month period. It might not be a big deal in an urban county, but in the many rural counties is can be a very big deal. If you only have a half dozen magistrates and three of them refuse to perform their marriage duties you would be left with only three for the whole county. A magistrate has to be on duty 24 hour a day, 7 days a week. It is hard to imagine that there wouldn't be long gaps in coverage for conducting marriages in that situation.

It is fcking crazy. You have no business being a Magistrate if your religious convictions inhibit you from carrying out your duties. Step the fck down..or grow the hell up and deal. I personally am embarrassed as a North Carolinian on this law. I hope like hell the Governors veto stands.

Good on you.

(06-04-2015 11:16 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 10:04 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Fvcked Up ! Race does Not fall under religious beliefs. I Feel bad for the Couple.

Same here. Someone should kick that magistrate in the nuts.

Did i misread the article or didn't this happen 40 years ago. You gonna go kick some 80 year old retired north carolina magistrate in the nuts?

Smh.

(06-04-2015 09:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But when we walked into that government office together, we were told that the magistrate on duty wouldn’t give us a marriage license. I was flabbergasted. We had planned everything, we had all our paperwork and we were legally eligible to get married.

So why wouldn’t he marry us? The reason, it turned out, was because Thomas is African-American, and I am white. The magistrate told us that marrying an interracial couple went against his religious beliefs. Our happy day quickly turned into a
nightmare.

This year, when I learned that legislators in Raleigh were pushing a law that would allow magistrates to refuse to marry couples on religious grounds, I felt the pain of that day all over again. Senate Bill 2 would give magistrates the ability to discriminate against couples exactly the same way they discriminated against Thomas and me almost 40 years ago. Gov. Pat McCrory vetoed the bill after it was passed by the legislature, but the Senate has already overridden his veto, and the House could do the same.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-e...rylink=cpy

NC PRIDE, I am so proud of my state for doing the right thing.

(06-05-2015 06:26 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 09:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But when we walked into that government office together, we were told that the magistrate on duty wouldn’t give us a marriage license. I was flabbergasted. We had planned everything, we had all our paperwork and we were legally eligible to get married.

So why wouldn’t he marry us? The reason, it turned out, was because Thomas is African-American, and I am white. The magistrate told us that marrying an interracial couple went against his religious beliefs. Our happy day quickly turned into a
nightmare.

This year, when I learned that legislators in Raleigh were pushing a law that would allow magistrates to refuse to marry couples on religious grounds, I felt the pain of that day all over again. Senate Bill 2 would give magistrates the ability to discriminate against couples exactly the same way they discriminated against Thomas and me almost 40 years ago. Gov. Pat McCrory vetoed the bill after it was passed by the legislature, but the Senate has already overridden his veto, and the House could do the same.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-e...rylink=cpy

NC PRIDE, I am so proud of my state for doing the right thing.

sarcasm?

(06-05-2015 06:45 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:26 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 09:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But when we walked into that government office together, we were told that the magistrate on duty wouldn’t give us a marriage license. I was flabbergasted. We had planned everything, we had all our paperwork and we were legally eligible to get married.

So why wouldn’t he marry us? The reason, it turned out, was because Thomas is African-American, and I am white. The magistrate told us that marrying an interracial couple went against his religious beliefs. Our happy day quickly turned into a
nightmare.

This year, when I learned that legislators in Raleigh were pushing a law that would allow magistrates to refuse to marry couples on religious grounds, I felt the pain of that day all over again. Senate Bill 2 would give magistrates the ability to discriminate against couples exactly the same way they discriminated against Thomas and me almost 40 years ago. Gov. Pat McCrory vetoed the bill after it was passed by the legislature, but the Senate has already overridden his veto, and the House could do the same.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-e...rylink=cpy

NC PRIDE, I am so proud of my state for doing the right thing.

sarcasm?

Nope, I'd like to see NC become a model where the final solution is state recognized Domestic Partnership aka civil unions and the end to state issued marriage license. The domestic partnership would be a simple state issued license with no ceremony. Marriage ceremonies would be up to individuals and their religious institution. This would be the solution includes everyone, but keeps the religious rite of marriage separate from the state objective of house-holding. To me this is a very libertarian approach to this issue.

(06-05-2015 06:51 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:45 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:26 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 09:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But when we walked into that government office together, we were told that the magistrate on duty wouldn’t give us a marriage license. I was flabbergasted. We had planned everything, we had all our paperwork and we were legally eligible to get married.

So why wouldn’t he marry us? The reason, it turned out, was because Thomas is African-American, and I am white. The magistrate told us that marrying an interracial couple went against his religious beliefs. Our happy day quickly turned into a
nightmare.

This year, when I learned that legislators in Raleigh were pushing a law that would allow magistrates to refuse to marry couples on religious grounds, I felt the pain of that day all over again. Senate Bill 2 would give magistrates the ability to discriminate against couples exactly the same way they discriminated against Thomas and me almost 40 years ago. Gov. Pat McCrory vetoed the bill after it was passed by the legislature, but the Senate has already overridden his veto, and the House could do the same.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-e...rylink=cpy

NC PRIDE, I am so proud of my state for doing the right thing.

sarcasm?

Nope, I'd like to see NC become a model where the final solution is state recognized Domestic Partnership aka civil unions and the end to state issued marriage license. The domestic partnership would be a simple state issued license with no ceremony. Marriage ceremonies would be up to individuals and their religious institution. This would be the solution includes everyone, but keeps the religious rite of marriage separate from the state objective of house-holding. To me this is a very libertarian approach to this issue.

But how is the magistrate bill doing that? How is that doing the right thing? Not that I disagree with what you actually said. But also, isn't a marriage by the magistrate a "civil" ceremony, thus taking religion out of it by definition. I mean sure it is still called a marriage, but for all practical purposes it is a "civil union."

(06-05-2015 07:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:51 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:45 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:26 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 09:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But when we walked into that government office together, we were told that the magistrate on duty wouldn’t give us a marriage license. I was flabbergasted. We had planned everything, we had all our paperwork and we were legally eligible to get married.

So why wouldn’t he marry us? The reason, it turned out, was because Thomas is African-American, and I am white. The magistrate told us that marrying an interracial couple went against his religious beliefs. Our happy day quickly turned into a
nightmare.

This year, when I learned that legislators in Raleigh were pushing a law that would allow magistrates to refuse to marry couples on religious grounds, I felt the pain of that day all over again. Senate Bill 2 would give magistrates the ability to discriminate against couples exactly the same way they discriminated against Thomas and me almost 40 years ago. Gov. Pat McCrory vetoed the bill after it was passed by the legislature, but the Senate has already overridden his veto, and the House could do the same.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-e...rylink=cpy

NC PRIDE, I am so proud of my state for doing the right thing.

sarcasm?

Nope, I'd like to see NC become a model where the final solution is state recognized Domestic Partnership aka civil unions and the end to state issued marriage license. The domestic partnership would be a simple state issued license with no ceremony. Marriage ceremonies would be up to individuals and their religious institution. This would be the solution includes everyone, but keeps the religious rite of marriage separate from the state objective of house-holding. To me this is a very libertarian approach to this issue.

But how is the magistrate bill doing that? How is that doing the right thing? Not that I disagree with what you actually said. But also, isn't a marriage by the magistrate a "civil" ceremony, thus taking religion out of it by definition. I mean sure it is still called a marriage, but for all practical purposes it is a "civil union."

Getting to the final solution isn't going to be one step it will take a couple of tries to get something everyone will accept. When you think of it, the current arrangement of marriage is a major violation of separation of church and state. Ministers close the ceremony by saying "by the powers vested in me by the state of..." What I am suggesting is complete separation on the state side with a legal document that can be completed at the courthouse, or downloaded, notarized and submitted back to the courts for filing. Marriage would then be a religious decision with no link to state authority no powers given to clergy and no state definition of marriage. Honestly this is the only workable solution that to me meets constitutional separation of church and state.

Marriage on the state side is nothing more than a legal construct, so why require a ceremony. Marriage on the religious side can be a complex rite depending on the religion, and yes it many religions it may be exclusive to one man one woman.

(06-05-2015 07:25 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:51 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:45 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:26 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  NC PRIDE, I am so proud of my state for doing the right thing.

sarcasm?

Nope, I'd like to see NC become a model where the final solution is state recognized Domestic Partnership aka civil unions and the end to state issued marriage license. The domestic partnership would be a simple state issued license with no ceremony. Marriage ceremonies would be up to individuals and their religious institution. This would be the solution includes everyone, but keeps the religious rite of marriage separate from the state objective of house-holding. To me this is a very libertarian approach to this issue.

But how is the magistrate bill doing that? How is that doing the right thing? Not that I disagree with what you actually said. But also, isn't a marriage by the magistrate a "civil" ceremony, thus taking religion out of it by definition. I mean sure it is still called a marriage, but for all practical purposes it is a "civil union."

Getting to the final solution isn't going to be one step it will take a couple of tries to get something everyone will accept. When you think of it, the current arrangement of marriage is a major violation of separation of church and state. Ministers close the ceremony by saying "by the powers vested in me by the state of..." What I am suggesting is complete separation on the state side with a legal document that can be completed at the courthouse, or downloaded, notarized and submitted back to the courts for filing. Marriage would then be a religious decision with no link to state authority no powers given to clergy and no state definition of marriage. Honestly this is the only workable solution that to me meets constitutional separation of church and state.

Marriage on the state side is nothing more than a legal construct, so why require a ceremony. Marriage on the religious side can be a complex rite depending on the religion, and yes it many religions it may be exclusive to one man one woman.

I could go along with that. But I'm still confused by how this magistrate bill does anything positive and it in all likelihood is unconstitutional.

There is nothing religious about this. This is racism.

(06-07-2015 11:51 AM)chess Wrote:  There is nothing religious about this. This is racism.

The writer was comparing her situation 40 years ago with the legislation allowing magistrates to refuse to conduct marriages for same sex couples. In both cases the magistrates are basing their refusal to conduct the marriage on their strongly held religious beliefs.

(06-05-2015 08:40 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:25 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:51 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:45 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  sarcasm?

Nope, I'd like to see NC become a model where the final solution is state recognized Domestic Partnership aka civil unions and the end to state issued marriage license. The domestic partnership would be a simple state issued license with no ceremony. Marriage ceremonies would be up to individuals and their religious institution. This would be the solution includes everyone, but keeps the religious rite of marriage separate from the state objective of house-holding. To me this is a very libertarian approach to this issue.

But how is the magistrate bill doing that? How is that doing the right thing? Not that I disagree with what you actually said. But also, isn't a marriage by the magistrate a "civil" ceremony, thus taking religion out of it by definition. I mean sure it is still called a marriage, but for all practical purposes it is a "civil union."

Getting to the final solution isn't going to be one step it will take a couple of tries to get something everyone will accept. When you think of it, the current arrangement of marriage is a major violation of separation of church and state. Ministers close the ceremony by saying "by the powers vested in me by the state of..." What I am suggesting is complete separation on the state side with a legal document that can be completed at the courthouse, or downloaded, notarized and submitted back to the courts for filing. Marriage would then be a religious decision with no link to state authority no powers given to clergy and no state definition of marriage. Honestly this is the only workable solution that to me meets constitutional separation of church and state.

Marriage on the state side is nothing more than a legal construct, so why require a ceremony. Marriage on the religious side can be a complex rite depending on the religion, and yes it many religions it may be exclusive to one man one woman.

I could go along with that. But I'm still confused by how this magistrate bill does anything positive and it in all likelihood is unconstitutional.

Simply going along with same sex marriage won't generate any discussion on a real solution. Bottom line gays ORIGINALLY said they wanted the same legal rights as straight couples, so fix the government issue, make government recognition of couples (households) a simple legal document, why is a ceremony needed to get a legally binding government document? I don't recall a ceremony for deeds to real estate, or car titles, why a ceremony for registering with the government as a couple? Forcing a ceremony to register as a couple regardless of the words spoken is essentially establishing a government religion.

(06-07-2015 04:54 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 08:40 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:25 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 06:51 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Nope, I'd like to see NC become a model where the final solution is state recognized Domestic Partnership aka civil unions and the end to state issued marriage license. The domestic partnership would be a simple state issued license with no ceremony. Marriage ceremonies would be up to individuals and their religious institution. This would be the solution includes everyone, but keeps the religious rite of marriage separate from the state objective of house-holding. To me this is a very libertarian approach to this issue.

But how is the magistrate bill doing that? How is that doing the right thing? Not that I disagree with what you actually said. But also, isn't a marriage by the magistrate a "civil" ceremony, thus taking religion out of it by definition. I mean sure it is still called a marriage, but for all practical purposes it is a "civil union."

Getting to the final solution isn't going to be one step it will take a couple of tries to get something everyone will accept. When you think of it, the current arrangement of marriage is a major violation of separation of church and state. Ministers close the ceremony by saying "by the powers vested in me by the state of..." What I am suggesting is complete separation on the state side with a legal document that can be completed at the courthouse, or downloaded, notarized and submitted back to the courts for filing. Marriage would then be a religious decision with no link to state authority no powers given to clergy and no state definition of marriage. Honestly this is the only workable solution that to me meets constitutional separation of church and state.

Marriage on the state side is nothing more than a legal construct, so why require a ceremony. Marriage on the religious side can be a complex rite depending on the religion, and yes it many religions it may be exclusive to one man one woman.

I could go along with that. But I'm still confused by how this magistrate bill does anything positive and it in all likelihood is unconstitutional.

Simply going along with same sex marriage won't generate any discussion on a real solution. Bottom line gays ORIGINALLY said they wanted the same legal rights as straight couples, so fix the government issue, make government recognition of couples (households) a simple legal document, why is a ceremony needed to get a legally binding government document? I don't recall a ceremony for deeds to real estate, or car titles, why a ceremony for registering with the government as a couple? Forcing a ceremony to register as a couple regardless of the words spoken is essentially establishing a government religion.

Maybe if it was 1993 and this was the suggested idea instead of trying to have both civil unions and marriages side by side, then you would have a plan. Both I think the civil unions for all has left the station and there is no way to get it back.

With no warning and no debate allowed, the House voted Thursday morning to override Gov. Pat McCrory's veto of Senate Bill 2, allowing magistrates and county register of deeds employees to opt out of performing marriages for religious reasons.
Read more at http://www.wral.com/ability-to-opt-out-o...x08z4vx.99

(06-11-2015 06:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  With no warning and no debate allowed, the House voted Thursday morning to override Gov. Pat McCrory's veto of Senate Bill 2, allowing magistrates and county register of deeds employees to opt out of performing marriages for religious reasons.
Read more at http://www.wral.com/ability-to-opt-out-o...x08z4vx.99

Hopefully this will for the discussion to make NC the model for the rest of the US. NC exits the marriage business and replaces it will a simple legal document known as a civil union, no ceremony required. All marriage before the law change will be recognized, but since NC would no longer recognize marriages after the new law it can't be forced to recognize same sex marriages from other states. This is the solution that should have been put in place to start with. Same sex couples get legal recognition, no church can ever be forced to perform a same sex marriage.

(06-11-2015 06:38 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 06:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  With no warning and no debate allowed, the House voted Thursday morning to override Gov. Pat McCrory's veto of Senate Bill 2, allowing magistrates and county register of deeds employees to opt out of performing marriages for religious reasons.
Read more at http://www.wral.com/ability-to-opt-out-o...x08z4vx.99

Hopefully this will for the discussion to make NC the model for the rest of the US. NC exits the marriage business and replaces it will a simple legal document known as a civil union, no ceremony required. All marriage before the law change will be recognized, but since NC would no longer recognize marriages after the new law it can't be forced to recognize same sex marriages from other states. This is the solution that should have been put in place to start with. Same sex couples get legal recognition, no church can ever be forced to perform a same sex marriage.

When has a church been forced to perform any marriage?

(06-11-2015 07:27 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 06:38 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 06:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  With no warning and no debate allowed, the House voted Thursday morning to override Gov. Pat McCrory's veto of Senate Bill 2, allowing magistrates and county register of deeds employees to opt out of performing marriages for religious reasons.
Read more at http://www.wral.com/ability-to-opt-out-o...x08z4vx.99

Hopefully this will for the discussion to make NC the model for the rest of the US. NC exits the marriage business and replaces it will a simple legal document known as a civil union, no ceremony required. All marriage before the law change will be recognized, but since NC would no longer recognize marriages after the new law it can't be forced to recognize same sex marriages from other states. This is the solution that should have been put in place to start with. Same sex couples get legal recognition, no church can ever be forced to perform a same sex marriage.

When has a church been forced to perform any marriage?

That's a future I hope never happens, but some of the same sex marriage supporters that post on want churches that refuse to perform same sex marriages to lose their tax exempt status. That is essentially forcing churches to perform same sex marriages.

I ran into one of the magistrates in my County this week. I expressed my sentiment that I would be very disappointed with him if he refused to do his job. He said he has had conversations with dozens of magistrates all over NC about this issue and has not heard one say they would refuse to marry anyone. There may be one or two..but..they are the vast minority. He said that he found marrying gays distasteful...but...it is his job. I have a feeling this is going to be pretty much a non issue. Most Counties have multiple magistrates that can cover each other. The chance that someone will not get married because of this law is very slim. I'm sorry the Legislature did not see it as our Governor did. This should never have been an issue IMO.