Alex Hayden DiLalla, a North Carolina native, is National LGBT Caucus Chair of the College Democrats of America and Louis Duke is President of the College Democrats of North Carolina.
Today, the North Carolina state senate will meet in committee to discuss North Carolina Senate President Phil Berger’s Senate Bill 2.
The bill, which would allow a magistrate or register of deeds to refuse to issue marriage licenses or perform same-sex marriages, follows a wave of religious freedom bills introduced in conservative legislatures across the country in response to court rulings removing same-sex marriage bans.
It’s likely to move to the floor of the Republican controlled senate later this week.
The senate committee’s discussion comes right in the frightening footsteps of Arkansas’ successful passage of SB 202 on Monday, a bill the Washington Post called an “anti-anti-discrimination bill that seeks to prevent cities and counties from protecting the civil rights of gay people.”
The reality is that LGBT North Carolinians might once again be subjected to a disturbing and fiscally irresponsible form of legalized discrimination. Senate Bill 2 would have officials in North Carolina ignore the controlling opinion of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and of the United States Supreme Court, inviting what promises to be a costly and doomed legal fight at taxpayers’ expense.
Senate Bill 2 was introduced under the guise of protecting religious freedom, but it clearly goes beyond the protecting an individual’s right to worship as they please—unafraid of retribution by the state for practicing one’s religion alone or in concert with others—and instead allows public officials to shirk the duties of a job they signed up for.
And the legal basis is shaky at best. As EqualityNC Director Chris Sgro noted in a recent op-ed “in 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that RFRA doesn’t apply to state and local governments. And courts have found that laws denying North Carolinians marriage licenses on religious grounds (i.e., interracial marriages) are unconstitutional.”
The cards are on the table and it’s clear as day that Sen. Phil Berger and Rep. Skip Stam are less concerned with creating jobs to put North Carolinians back to work, and more concerned with divisive social issues will pad their conservative resumes for their own electoral advantage.
We fought hard to keep Amendment One from placing discrimination in North Carolina’s constitution, and after it’s devastating passage we kept on fighting until it was rightfully struck down.
We’ve been down this road before, and after finally welcoming marriage equality to the Tar Heel State, we cannot allow our leaders to once again discriminate with impunity.
All the while, Governor Pat McCrory has remained silent on whether or not he supports this discriminatory legislation.
After Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. ushered in marriage equality to North Carolina, back in October, Governor McCrory would only say that he accepted the decision—declining to acknowledge his preferred outcome in the case.
Now, we’re left wondering if McCrory would sign the bill if it arrived on his desk.
North Carolinians cannot afford to sit this one out and see what legislation will come as the third wave of anti-LGBT discrimination. We all must speak out starting today and say enough is enough. Not in our state. Not again, NCGA.
There is little doubt where the current governor would stand on signing the bill. Several years ago, when I was in Charlotte for the statewide HRC Dinner (Human Rights Campaign), there were numerous members of Congress in attendance, as well as state legislators and many locally elected officials. The mayor of any town/city where the dinner is held either attends and welcomes the guests or sends a letter. Mayor McCrory sent the words that “These” people were not welcome in his town. I knew where I stood, as did Congressman Brad Miller and David Price. Shame on him. Shame on him since he took office as governor.
SO – suppose a registrar’s “sincere religious belief” is that Jews shouldn’t marry Christians, or Catholics shouldn’t marry Protestants, or African-Americans shouldn’t marry whites, or old men shouldn’t marry young women, or divorced people shouldn’t marry anybody – and on and on? Logically those would have to be covered too, right? These folks are nuts.
This is insane. Whatever restrictions put in place by the General Assembly will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court. They are just appealing to their conservative base for money and votes. The marriage equality horse has left the stable, but they are trying to make it as difficult as possible for the majority of people who do not have a problem with same-sex marriages to ,once again, not have their voices head. Time for a change.
As many consider marriage, a sacrament in THE CHURCH, why do people insist upon calling unions marriage. In Europe there are two steps taken, one, called a civil union, which is called just that, CIVIL UNION, WHICH TAKES CARE OF THE STATE, and then, if wished, a church ceremony? I really would like to have an explanation.
What does THE CHURCH mean? Do you mean the Roman Catholic church? If so, that institution doesn’t get to claim and define marriage for people who aren’t members. Do you mean some other specific Christianity-claiming church? If so, that institution doesn’t get to claim and define marriage for people who aren’t members. Do you mean the conglomeration of all Christianity-claiming churches? If so, those institutions don’t get to claim and define marriage for people who aren’t members.
(I’m fairly certain THE CHURCH doesn’t mean any faith communities that aren’t Christianity-claiming but if it does, guess what? Those institutions don’t get to claim and define marriage for people who aren’t members.)
People get married; that satisfies the state. Whatever churchy foofooraw couples have in conjunction or afterward is up to them and their faith leaders.