Posted on 04/22/2015 8:30:58 AM PDT by xzins
(Courthouse News) – Two former magistrates sued the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts claiming it violated their religious rights by forcing them to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies or face discipline, termination, and even criminal prosecution.
Gilbert Breedlove and Thomas Holland claim in a lawsuit filed in the Wake County Superior Court that they resigned from their positions after the AOC and its director, John Smith, made no attempt to accommodate their religious beliefs while attempting to comply with the change in law on same-sex marriage.
Instead, they say, the AOC forced them to choose between “taking an act that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs or being criminally prosecuted.”
SPECIAL: Join the Tea Party REVOLUTION! The Obama Regime must be dismantled!
Faced with these options, Breedlove and Holland resigned “under duress.” They are now asking the court to reinstate them to their jobs.
Holland lives in Graham County, N.C. and served as a magistrate for almost 24 years until he resigned on November 1, 2014. In the lawsuit he says he professes and practices his religion as a Christian and has done so for all of his adult life. He was raised a Baptist and “believes that same-sex marriage violates the principles and edicts of his religion.” Therefore, “he sincerely believes that he cannot maintain his religious beliefs and simultaneously participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony.”
Breedlove, a former Marine, lives in Swain County, N.C. and served as a magistrate for about 24 years until he resigned on October 21, 2014. He too is a Christian and is a member of the New Testament Independent Missionary Baptist Church. Breedlove believes that participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony places him “at odds with his religious beliefs.”
After the federal courts issued an order declaring that it is unconstitutional for North Carolina not to recognize same-sex marriages, the AOC issued a statement that said, “Magistrates should begin immediately conducting marriages of all couples presenting a marriage license issued by the Register of Deeds.”
“A failure to do so would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution under the federal ruling,” Smith wrote, “and would constitute a violation of the oath and a failure to perform a duty of the office. For these reasons, all magistrates must treat same-sex marriages for which a marriage license has been issued by the Register of Deeds the same way that marriages between a man and a woman are scheduled and conducted.”
Smith said that if a magistrate refuses to perform same-sex marriages, then he or she could be suspended, removed from office, and potentially face criminal charges. Smith said the reason for the magistrate’s removal didn’t matter. In other words, there were no exemptions offered in the AOC’s policy for a magistrate to avoid participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony for any reason, religious or otherwise, the lawsuit says.
In a letter to N.C. Senator Phil Berger on November 5, 2014, Smith stated that “the AOC would not accommodate any magistrate who felt compelled to refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony for religious reasons and that any magistrate who attempted to avoid participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony could face civil liability.”
According to the complaint, Smith, “basically said that if a magistrate has a religious objection to participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony, the magistrate should resign.”
The N.C. Constitution, however, states that “all persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. . . . No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
Holland and Breedlove’s faith is based on a “foundational belief that marriage is the sacred union of one man and one woman.” Therefore, according to the complaint, they “cannot participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony because doing so would force them to act in contravention of their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
The plaintiffs asked the AOC to accommodate their religious beliefs in a way that would not force them to choose between violating their religious beliefs or resigning their position as a magistrate. The AOC, however, “made no effort to attempt to offer some alternative that would address Plaintiffs’ request.”
“Defendants have an obligation to perform their duties in a manner consistent with the North Carolina Constitution including not interfering with Plaintiffs’ rights protected by Article I, Section 13 and not discriminating against Plaintiffs on the basis of religion as prohibited by Article I, Section 19,” the complaint says.
As a result of the AOC’s refusal to accommodate, Holland and Breedlove were forced to resign. They now seek a declaration that the defendants’ direction and policy discriminated against them and violated Article I, Sections 13 and 19 of the N.C. Constitution.
Holland and Breedlove seek a determination by the court that they should be reinstated to their positions as magistrates with all back pay and lost benefits. They also seek a preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining Smith and the AOC, and anyone acting in or on their behalf, from mandating that Holland and Breedlove must participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony without as much as an attempt to offer accommodation for them.
Plaintiffs’ lead counsel is Ellis Boyle of Raleigh, N.C.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/04/13/judges-say-gay-marriage-forced-them-out.htm
Yeah....the EVIL that won’t go away.
[[Government lawyers, as a practical matter, can’t really do that.]]
They have to- I gave the list, of which there were many reasons why they must in certain situations-
[[Although, since this is a requirement to conduct a civil wedding as part of a job description, then how does recusal apply to an act?]]
As in there shall be no religious test for hiring judges- there is no requirement/question for qualification that says the judge must perform gay marriages that clearly violate a religious concept of marriage between man and woman only- once you demand that they answer yes to gay marriage, you are applying a ‘religious test’ to the qualifications for acceptance as judge- You are telling that person they can not be a judge unless they agree to do something that will violate their personal religious belief- you are saying their personal religious belief disqualifies them from office- which would be a violation of ‘no religious test’ law
(I believe, I’m no lawyer- and don’t know much law- I’m just trying to think through this systematically)
because the law is ‘upper class’ and bakers are ‘lower class’ and apparently don’t deserve the same protections/rights as upper classes
(The law is supposed to apply equally to ALL regardless of position, color, race, or whatever- but obviously it doesn’t- which is why rangel and bawney fwank and ilk get away with what they do
Very well thought out points if you don’t mind me saying.
[[Last, but NOT LEAST, The Supreme Court has determined that no religion (atheism) is a religion. By your reasoning, the US Government has created a defacto official religion that everyone MUST follow (i.e., no religion)! But, since Congress never “officially” created that religion, you are still okay with the results - right? ]]
Exactly, and I’ve been arguing that for years- Secularism is a ‘nontheistic communal belief systems’
I’ve also argued that even secularism IS a religious belief-, and the supreme court judges ruled that it was a religion- (The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488).)
http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm
And government is trying to force their secularism humanist religion on everyone under penalty of the law- something they are forbidden to do under the constitution.
so humanists get to force others to believe what they believe, and to bar religious folks from believing what their own religion teaches
Thanks, I don’t know if they are 100% correct, but they SEEM to me that they are- going by what’s on the books regarding recusals of judges
that website I linked to is very interesting read- it lays out the fact that the supreme court has ruled secular humanism is a relgion and entitled to ‘conscientious obections’ Yet turns around and declares that it’s not entitled to conscientious objections’ whenever CHristians try to bring up the FACT that the SC ruled they WERE entitled to it.
The site also shows how the SC ruled “Secular Humanism is a religion “for free exercise clause purposes,” and it is not a religion “for establishment clause purposes.””
Which is huge, because first of all secular humanism has been used by government to establish an official government ‘religion’ yet the supreme court then turns around and denies it claiming it is only allowing secular humanism under the ‘free exercise’ law and that it isn’t ifnact establishing a government mandated religion (punishable by law if one refuses to obey I might add- which is EXACTLY what our constitution was meant to protect us against, a government run religion punishable by law IF people refuse to submit to it- this is what we escaped from when we escaped England and founded America=- and also what we fought against when we fought the British who were trying to enforce a government run religion on us)
That site really does a good job exposing the blatant hypocrisy of the SC, and it’s a pretty short read too- well worth the read-
For years I’ve posted that the ultimate goal of the homosexual normalization movement is to subvert the Church and all other moral resistance that stands in the way.
Now it has become clear to most people for the first time what the true objectives are.
Now I have also sought solutions, solutions that will endure and remain strong against all challenges. And I have found one. To understand what must be done will require you to think a little deeper and to think of something that as Mark Levin says “is a solution as big as the problem” meaning a solution that gets its hands around the ‘whole problem’.
First, here are some ‘knee-jerk’ solutions that don’t work or will not work:
1. DOMA. DOMA was no solution and already has easily been removed as an obstacle.
2. Amending the US Constitution. This is a step in the right direction but amending for the purpose of defining ‘marriage’ is short-sighted and can fail to gather sufficient momentum just as the BBA of years past (Balanced Budget Amendment). It’s actually pathetic to have to think we must amend our sacred document to guard against perversion and there’s no telling if such an amendment would stand the test of time as it may conflict with rulings of other amendments. Such a solution also attempts to enact morality and common sense which is a futile effort, an intractable problem because there’s always another exception, an offshoot, another ‘problem of the day’ that can’t be solved with legislation.
Basically, we can legislate neither morality nor common sense ***effectively***. It just cannot be done adequately.
But before considering other alternatives, we should take note of certain observations:
1. Americans by and large do not want to normalize homosexuality. Recent press and ‘polls’ are trying to condition Americans into thinking that they do want to normalize homosexuality. This is a lie.
2. 38 states passed state legislation defining marriage in its tradition sense or they voted against initiatives to legalize homosexual marriage or they passed laws or held referendums or amended their state constitutions to either ban homosexual marriage or define precisely what marriage is, between one man and one woman.
38 states; think about that.
12 States passed same-sex marriage legislation or initiatives.
3. Now note that it takes 3/4’s of states which is presently equal to 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment to the US Constitution thereby making the amendment a part of the US Constitution.
4. Federal Courts have struck down state bans, definitions and initiatives that seek to uphold traditional marriage.
5. The US Supreme Court is getting ready to review the definition of marriage and they are sure to rule for homosexuals. Justice Kennedy will be the swing vote just as he was when he ruled against DOMA in Windsor.
So given the 5 points above it would seem reasonable to amend the US Constitution to define marriage but as previously pointed out this would be solution that falls short.
To understand better, we need to look at the above five points again and importantly the second point. Read it again. What does it tell us?
It tells us the States have no power before the federal government.
It’s as simple as that.
Let’s repeat it with emphasis:
THE STATES HAVE NO POWER BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Now some may still think ... “Oh but Congress can amend the Constitution”. Think about this. Will the present makeup of Congress amend anything to express the Will of the People? The answer is absolutely not, they won’t even get it into a committee. They have been sold to the highest bidder. We live in a time when the corruption in Congress is so thick that it would be unbelievable to past generations.
Think about it some more in terms of the 10th Amendment. Is the 10th Amendment respected, observed, utilized? No, it is not. It has been subordinated by other amendments.
A Marriage Amendment will be challenged by rulings that elevate the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments over it.
Now let’s repeat the main reality:
THE STATES HAVE NO POWER BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Why is this? How did this happen?
The answer is easily ascertained. This loss of power is a direct result of the 17th Amendment which extinguished the power of state legislatures before Congress. Just a note in passing, the 17th, the 16th and the 18th were all passed in 1913. They were all a stain on the US Constitution and serve as a clear illustration of how ‘knee-jerk’ reactions to problems and conflicts of the day can result in disaster.
Now, 102 years later, we have perversion threatening our freedom of conscience and the very fiber of our beings.
SO, if we are to consider amending our US Constitution, we must be very careful, very thorough, and we must understand the core of the problem. In all likelihood we only get one shot at this in our lifetime.
The root of the problem is the 17th Amendment. We can propose to repeal it but that can be a very hard sale, perhaps more difficult than privatizing Social Security. The 17th Amendment gave the power to vote to the people. In effect, to repeal it will launch a debate and war in society that will end up following so many directions that it will smother the entire reason of why we needed to do it in the first place; the reason for repeal will get lost in the noise and be forgotten.
But let’s look at the problem from a slightly different angle. If we can’t get at the root of the problem, can we get at the core of the problem?
The answer is yes. And it involves amending the US Constitution through the States asserting Article V.
Now I will repeat an illustration that shows us how the power of Article V can be unlocked by the States to restore federalism thereby restoring our liberty and saving our Republic. Note that this illustration condenses several of Mark Levin’s suggested Liberty Amendments and also has incorporated valuable input from concerned Freepers.
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII
To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States and to restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:
************************************************
Section 1.
A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.
Section 2.
Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.
Section 3.
Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, federal court decisions and executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void.
************************************************
Section 3 of the above illustration puts an end to the social tyranny of the federal government. Now I will point out that such an amendment does not get us out of the woods completely. US Supreme Court Justices can still base bizarre rulings from the 14th Amendment and other amendments to overrule a 28th Amendment like the one above. But then States can void such rulings and this sets the stage for a grand conflict that can be resolved by a President and a Congress that will reign in the US Supreme Court by packing it, cutting its budget and pruning its jurisdictions. The 28th Amendment can survive as a preeminent amendment of the US Constitution when voters and state legislatures unite to fight together.
WHAT WE CAN WE DO TODAY?
We should strongly recommend the following must-see video of Mark Levin be watched, consumed and studied:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA
And we should strongly recommend everyone to urge their respective state senators and state representatives, and the people that work for them, to view it also.
Most people today don’t even know who their state legislators are. Is this surprising in light of the 17th Amendment?
Start with a simple task today. Put it on your to-do list to find out who is your State Representative and who is your State Senator. Get their names, addresses and phone numbers. You will be astonished at how accessible and neighborly they can be.
In a marriage...the two people marry each other. The priest, minister, rabbi, judge...whatever, merely acts as an official witness...by the power vested in me by the State of —————I pronounce you whatever and whatever you are..The person conducting the ceremony is merely the states witness...nothing more.
That is complete and utter nonsense. What you say may be what the left wants marriage to be, but that doesn't make it so.
If marriage were nothing more than a civil contract, no witnesses would be required.
When the Chief Justice administers the required oath to the president is he just a witness? Or is he an official representative asking a legally binding question?
Legal matters are settled in court. Churches don’t get involved.
No way Jose!
Religious freedom is too precious to hide behind their “official capacity as a magistrate” excuse. Grow a spine or we are all lost. No government has the right to trample on our religious freedoms.
Same sex-couples now have the right to marry in North Carolina, but are they entitled to be married by these two magistrates? No.
When the administrative office hired these two magistrates, they had no need to leave their religious liberties at their office door. Now that the law has changed, the AO has decided the magistrates no longer need their liberties. Same-sex couples are not entitled to pick and choose which magistrates will marry them. The AO can find another magistrate to perform the act.
The law does not say every magistrate has to perform this ceremony. The law says the ceremony is legal. Who performs it is another story.....at least that’s the way I read it.
So the Govt is in involved then
I agree. It is odd to say that 2 magistrates with decades of faithful service are legal today, and then having changed absolutely nothing about themselves, say that they are illegal tomorrow.
There was absolutely no reason they could not have been accommodated.
;^)
bump!
” If marriage were nothing more than a civil contract, no witnesses would be required. “
FACT very much in evidence.
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.