While Kentucky Lets a County Clerk Go to Jail, North Carolina Protects Religious Freedom

Many North Carolina civil magistrates refuse to participate in same sex “marriage,” but their religious freedom hasn’t been terminated.

If you think the jailing of Kim Davis was unavoidable, unless she submitted to the Supreme Court as her Lord and Savior, here is evidence that you are wrong. YWFF 4 reports: “Dozens of N.C. magistrates refuse to perform gay marriages.”

The number of North Carolina magistrates recusing themselves from performing civil marriages under a new law has more than doubled in recent weeks.

The state court system says it’s received 32 notices from magistrates since the law took effect June 11. That’s up from 14 in early July and represents nearly 5 percent of the state’s magistrates.

I’m sorry the numbers are so low. But the point here was that North Carolina has come up with a religious accommodation in keeping with the mandate of the First Amendment. I am not happy that this means that the pretense of same-sex “marriage” will continue, but there is nothing I can do about that except pray, primarily. But at least our legal freedoms in this important area have been preserved in North Carolina.

And that tells us something. It tells us that these freedoms could have been protected in Kentucky, but the people in power did not want to do so. All this drama around Kim Davis was completely avoidable.

The law exempts court officials with sincerely held religious beliefs opposing gay marriage.     

The law also gave the recusal option to some register of deeds workers issuing marriage licenses. Elected officials would perform the duties as a last resort.    

My only quibble is that I don’t see why it has to be a “religious” belief. I could easily imagine a secular atheist believing that marriage as an institution is defined as a man and a woman.

Signing a marriage certificate for two men or two women would be the same as signing a statement that 2 + 2 = 5. People have the right not to tell lies on orders of the state.

But we have to ask: Was the purpose of pushing same sex “marriage” through the Supreme Court really due to an overwhelming demand for same sex marriage? Or was it to have an excuse for regime change in which Christians are driven out of office. If Kentucky is choosing willfully to leave their county clerk unprotected, it raises the possibility.