Tim Moore, the Speaker of the NC House, suddenly found his opportunity to override Gov. McCrory's veto of the "magistrate's recusal" law, so now it's perfectly legal for government officials in our state to pick and choose which couples they'll marry, based on their "religious belief," a.k.a., personal prejudices.
This law is so blatantly unconstitutional -- guaranteeing unequal treatment for some people -- that it will be enjoined by a judge probably before the veto override ink is quite dry.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This whole thing about the recusal bill is the definition of "a solution in search of a problem." It's really not about protecting someone's religious freedom; it's all about making a statement and pandering to the conservative base. I've seen quotes from several legislators who voted to override, saying things like "this bill doesn't mention gay marriage" or "this bill doesn't target gay citizens." If that's the case, then what, pray tell, is this bill FOR? Lawmakers shouldn't pass bills if they don't understand the consequences of those bills. If this isn't about gay marriage, then what kind of marriages IS it about? Also, where are the hordes of magistrates and register of deeds employees who were begging for this bill? Anyone? Anyone at all? . All the statements I've read from magistrates and registers of deeds say something along the lines of "Our office will serve any citizen who comes in."
I think there's more to it than just pandering to evangelicals and bigots for the upcoming election.
Phil Berger and his crew have already shown connections with the hate group the National Organization for Marriage, hiring leaders of the group to support Amendment One in court:
http://goqnotes.com/31719/nc-gop-hires-anti-gay-leaders-in-effort-to-stop-same-sex-marriage/
NOM has been looking for a test case to get the right to refuse services based on religious exemptions in court. NC legislators are giving that case and I'm willing to bet it was part of a deal for voter information, promises of campaign donations from one or more of NOM's big monied backers, or even the promise of some kind of job down the road.
This wasn't about mere ideology or pandering - someone spent several days behind the scenes trying to resurrect this law after the governor's veto. They wanted it badly. If it was mere pandering for some evangelical votes in 2016, they could have pointed to their original vote and moved on. Someone wanted this as a court case for the broader concept of religious discrimination in government.
So, magistrates can claim religious exemptions on any little thing that they may feel offend their tender religious sensibilities? Does this apply to ANY religious beliefs that a magistrate may subscribe? Say, Islam, et.al.? Or only christian doctrine? I'm all confused.
Why should people be paid to NOT do their jobs?
This will probably soon be forgotten... it will be interesting to see how many people will take "advantage" of the opt-out. I'm guessing it won't be many! For most people, this is really a non-issue. Tempest in a teapot.
Post a Comment