News

Magistrates who jumped the gun on same-sex marriage recusal law want Supreme Court review

Two state magistrates who resigned from their jobs rather than perform same-sex marriages, citing religious objections, have asked the state Supreme Court to bypass the Court of Appeals and directly review a trial court order dismissing their lawsuit against the Administrative Office of the Courts seeking reappointment and damages.

The magistrates, Thomas Holland of Graham County and Gerald Breedlove of Swain  County, alleged in their complaint that they resigned under duress after the AOC advised in an October 2014 memo that refusal to perform same-sex marriages would constitute “grounds for suspension or removal from office, as well as, potential criminal charges.”  They contend that the AOC’s opinion regarding their employment obligations failed to accommodate their religious beliefs in violation of the state constitution and left them no option other than to step down.

(Both resignations predated the legislature’s enactment of the law allowing magistrates to opt-out of their marriage duties based upon a “sincerely held religious belief.” )

In the trial court, the state argued that the magistrates resigned voluntarily and not “under duress,”  pointing out that they weren’t ever asked — let alone directed — to perform a same-sex marriage and that no one with the authority to remove them from office ever threatened to do so.  In fact, that authority rests with the senior resident superior court judge in the county, not the AOC.

Wake County Presiding Superior Court Judge George B. Rollins, Jr. agreed with the state and, in an order dated September 19, 2015, dismissed the case.

The magistrates’ appeal comes at a time when same-sex couples in the state have challenged the recusal law in federal court, contending that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by authorizing the expenditure of public funds to accomplish a religious purpose, and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, by singling out gay and lesbian couples and denying them the fundamental right and dignity of marriage as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in June in Obergefell v. Hodges.

One Comment


  1. Kenneth Chang

    January 11, 2016 at 4:17 pm

    The big problem with those that are against SSM or Homosexuality is their Argument of Religion. All that use it, lose. Why Religion, when there are so many better and stronger winning Arguments to use. All of SSM is Constitutionally wrong, therefore, why not use Constitutional Arguments instead of Religion. SCOTUS erred big time on this one and their ruling should be set aside as Unconstitutional. Pity

Check Also

State Supreme Court rules retroactive application of teacher tenure repeal is unconstitutional

The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that ...

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

Van der Vaart: supporter of Trump, critic of regulation, was in charge during some of the state [...]

North Carolina voting rights groups and Democrats were compared to the legendary Pied Piper at the s [...]

More than 10 pollution sources, including two Superfund sites, are within a mile of the new Aberdeen [...]

Report authors, advocates differ over possible side effects On Monday, the Congressional Budget Offi [...]

The right-wing wallflowers of The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday, with an almost palpable sense [...]

The post Hofeller: The GOP’s “Michelangelo of the gerrymander” appeared first on NC Policy Watch. [...]

It’s going to happen eventually. It may not be right away and it may not look exactly like it ought [...]

You have to wonder: What would U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. tell that proud North Carolina ge [...]