Sodomite activists in North Carolina are in court to force magistrates in the state to endorse their perversion of marriage by making them perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, even if the person’s conscience stands opposed to such ceremonies.
The demands in the Ansley v. Warren case in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals undermine the claim that the objective of same-sex duos is to have the same access to marriage as heterosexual couples.
It’s not enough to have the same access, the plaintiffs contend.
The “gay”-rights activists aim was profiled in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case, which had been dismissed by a trial judge. Liberty Council is seeking to intervene on behalf of the constitutional requirement that the state not burden faith, because “the attorney general will not vigorously defend the law.”
The lawsuit brought by homosexual advocates challenged the state’s SB2 law, which allows magistrates to opt out of performing any marriage ceremonies. It stipulates that the state will provide a magistrate from another office to conduct a ceremony if a magistrate opts out.
U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs had no standing because they weren’t personally injured by the law.
“As plaintiffs have made no allegations of an ‘injury in fact’ that might otherwise allow them to assert standing in this case, plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing they have standing to bring Due Process and Equal Protection claims,” Cogburn wrote.
Homosexuals and their activist friends were not happy about the outcome, so they decided to sue to force every single magistrate to perform these perverse “marriages.”
However, Liberty Counsel chairman Matt Staver said, “Magistrates have the constitutional right to follow their conscience and rights to free exercise without fear of punishment.”
“The LGBT agenda seeks to steamroll over the conscience of everyone who believes in natural marriage,” Staver added. “We are proud to defend Magistrate Brenda Bumgarner and others in this case as it has an effect on all judges and their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
A brief was filed after North Carolina’s Administrative Office of the Courts issued an order to require magistrates to conduct same-sex ceremonies even if it violated their beliefs.
Liberty Counsel’s brief argues that the order is the very thing violating the constitutionally protected rights of magistrates under the First Amendment.
“The AOC ordered that no exemptions or accommodations would be made, including reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs that only the union of one man and one woman can be solemnized as a marriage,” the brief reads. “Magistrates who held those religious beliefs and convictions … were given the Hobson’s choice of surrendering their sincerely [held] beliefs and violation their conscience or losing their jobs.”
The brief went on to note that a refusal to consider accommodations for magistrates “violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, [paragraph] 13 of the North Carolina Constitution, under which the government may and sometimes must accommodate the religious beliefs of its citizens.”
“The AOC’s directive also violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that employers, including the government, reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of employees,” Liberty Counsel said.
Bob Unruh points out, “The brief pointed out that SB2 ‘grants same-sex couples the same access to a magistrate as is available to other couples by providing that a judicial officer be available during hours designated for marriages.’”
“Without SB2, it explained, North Carolina is in violation of both the U.S. and state constitutions,” he continued. “Accommodating religious beliefs and conscience through exemptions such as SB2 has been recognized by this court, and the U.S. Supreme Court as striking the proper balance between the promises of the Free Exercise Clause and the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause.”
While Unruh makes mention that the state having a religious test oath is banned by the US Constitution, that ban is in place at the federal level, no the state.
What’s amazing in all of this is that sodomy is still against the law in the State of North Carolina, even though the Supreme Court claims they have the authority to strike down sodomy laws, something they don’t actually have the authority to do, according to the Constitution. Furthermore, the right of sodomites to marry each other is not in the Constitution either.
This is exactly where Christians are losing the battle. The issue here is not marriage, it’s sodomy. Either sodomy is a crime, and a capital crime at that, or it’s not. Our forefathers believed it was criminal. The Bible says it is criminal. The state law says it is criminal. So, if North Carolina would simply follow its own law, it would punish sodomites instead of giving them a voice to be heard to pervert the institution of marriage. Sadly, they are too cowardly to do so, and now we have a president that seems to think it is the law for sodomites to marry and seems to support special rights for these criminals.
This is just a step. If they can force magistrates to do this, the next step is to force churches and individuals to accept it and not be able to speak out on it. You’ve been warned.