Lesbian seeking marriage license arrested in NC

[Faygo Kid]

Source: CBS News

(AP) WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. - A lesbian who sought a North Carolina marriage license with her partner and was rejected under a state law banning same-sex marriage was arrested with another person Thursday after they refused to leave a government office where several gay and lesbian couples were turned away.

The civil disobedience followed a day after President Barack Obama publicly endorsed same-sex marriage, and two days after North Carolina voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman.

The protest came amid attempts by a gay rights group, Campaign for Southern Equality, to broaden public support to allow same-sex marriage and more protests are planned in coming days at other county offices in North Carolina that issue marriage licenses

Nine gay and lesbian couples each presented completed forms and identification to a clerk at the local Register of Deeds office in Winston-Salem, but were refused because state law recognizes only heterosexual couples. . .

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57432285/lesbian-seeking-marriage-license-arrested-in-nc/

---

Civil disobedience. We saw it 50 years ago, and we are appropriately seeing it again now.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

1. Kicking for civil disobedience...

and marriage equality.

[Faygo Kid]

2. Thanks. Apparently quiet here tonight.

I thought this was inspiring. Glad you did, too.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

3. Absolutely.

I did what I could from Wake County for these couples, but was no match against the bigots in 92 other counties. Sigh.

[goclark]

18. K and R

Absolutely Kicking!!!!!!

[kiranon]

4. Here comes the test case in federal court and many more to follow. Yes!!

[happyslug]

7. Test Case for WHAT?? The protesters were told to leave and did not, then arrested.

That is all the Courts are going to look at, NOT what they were protesting, but that they were told to leave and did not. This was in a Government Building, the government workers had to right to tell them to leave, they did not. That is Defiant Trespass in most states. That they were protesting is NOT a justified reason to commit the CRIME of trespassing. Thus everything but that they were told to leave and did not is all that was and will be all that is considered as far as the arrest and trial is concerned.

During the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, protesters did the same thing, were arrested and convicted and those conviction STOOD. People protest and get arrested, the crime they are charged with is a variation of Trespassing, causing a public nuisance or other threat to the public (Such as not being able to get into the Government Building).

Now, do to the actual protest, people heard of the protesters and what they were protesting for. That is the main purpose of any Civil Disobedience. NOT to have a test case to show something is illegal, but to bring to the attention of people what the protesters want to change.

George Wallace did the same type of illegal protest at the door of the University of Alabama. NOT to be arrested, but to show his opposition to integration. In the actual situation Wallace stood aside when given the Federal Court Order to leave the African American students in, as he had agreed to do before he even started the protest. The purpose of his protest and his speech "Segregation now, Segregation forever" was to show his opposition to integration, not to force a court case on that issue. The same here, these protesters are NOT trying to get a court case on homosexual marriage, but to bring it to the attention of others (just as Wallace did with his stand on the University of Alabama's steps).

[backscatter712]

15. There's two things in play. One is the act of civil disobedience.

They'll get slapped with something minor, like disorderly conduct for that.

The other is that they went to the government clerk to get a marriage license, and told they couldn't have one because they were a same sex couple.

Now they have standing to sue North Carolina on civil rights grounds.

[MADem]

17. Yes, quite right-- the synopsis convolutes the two issues.

The civil disobedience calls attention to the issue of civil rights/equality, but they are two separate and distinct matters.

[kiranon]

24. Thanks. Fact that blacks were arrested for sitting at a lunch counter

or at the front of the bus was further indication of the color of State law justifying civil rights violations.

[happyslug]

26. Under the Federal laws of the time the arrest was legal

It took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make it illegal for the state to enforce a state law that prohibited blacks from sitting at the lunch counter. The blacks who sat at the lunch counter in the 1950s were arrested, jailed and convicted under that state law. The Conviction was not even appealed, for it was clear the conviction would be upheld.

Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, "public accommodations" (which included lunch counters) no longer could discriminate based on race even if such discrimination was mandated by state law. Only after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could an African American file an appeal from a conviction with any hope of getting the conviction reversed.

Civil Rights are a product of statute only. Congress has the right to pass Civil Rights Laws under the terms of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Except for the right of Equal protection of the laws and Due Process, the Constitution grants no Civil Rights. The US Supreme Court has ruled that Gay marriage was NOT legal in the 1860s (When those amendments were passed) and thus NOT a federal constitutional issue.

For that reason the Courts that have permitted gay marriage has done so under STATE Constitutional Equal protection and due process grounds.. Just like those African Americans at the lunch counter in the 1950s, accepted the fact what they were doing was illegal but it was the best way to show your objection to the law as it stands.

[happyslug]

25. But discrimination against Homosexuals is LEGAL at the federal level

And given that the state had by referendum has adopted one man one woman definition of marriage, there is no state claim.

The Federal Civil Rights act does NOT include homosexuals among its protected classes of people, thus no federal Civil rights claim. The Referendum cuts out a Claim based on any STATE Civil Rights Act. Thus no violation of any Civil Rights law. The problem is not one of standing but the lack of any Civil Rights Law that is applicable to this case.

The US Supreme Court has ruled it is NOT a violation of the FEDERAL Constitution for a state to prohibit Gay Marriage. The states that have adopted Gay Marriage did so based on their own state Constitution.

Now California is on its own path in this fight between states and federal constitutions. In a case out of Colorado the Supreme Court ruled it was a violation of the Federal Constitution for a state to adopt a provision that in effect prohibiting Homosexuals from petitioning the Legislature to permit gay marriage (Which Colorado had done).

The Federal Trial judge in the Federal Case against the California Referendum took that decision to rule that the ban on Homosexual Marriage in California violated the Federal Constitution but on the thin line HOW the ban was achieved (Voters Referendum) makes any modification of such a ban by the state legislature impossible and thus violating the Federal Constitutional right to petition the legislature to address grievances. That case is on appeal, even through the State of California, through its elected offices, decided NOT to appeal. I suspect the Referendum will be upheld on appeal for that would follow previous US Supreme Court decisions as to Homosexual Rights.

I mention the California Situation due to its uniqueness but it was the result of California Ruling under State Constitutional law that the ban on homosexual marriage was unconstitutional, then the decision was reversed by a voter referendum. The same California Supreme Court then ruled that based on the referendum, gay marriages was no longer permitted under the STATE Constitution.

That is when it was taken to a Federal court, where the Judge said the referendum was in violation of the federal Constitutional Right to be able to petition the state legislature to address grievances (in this case to petition the California legislature to permit gay marriage).

A key to the Judge's decision was gay marriages had been legal. Thus the referendum changed the law. In the case of North Carolina gay marriages has NEVER been legal, thus the North Carolina Referendum changed no existing law. North Carolina can NOT rely on the Federal Court ruling in California for that simple reason (And that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is much more conservative then the Ninth Circuit).

In simple terms there is NO CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM under the facts of this arrest. The North Carolina Referendum made it impossible to make a State Civil Rights Case out of it, and the US Congress has NEVER Expanded the Federal Civil Rights Act to include Homosexual. Thus unless you can produce a decent argument under the Federal Due Process Clause (Such as the right to petition the legislature) there is no Federal cause of action. Thus any case filed will be dismissed for failing to state a cause of action.

This ban in North Carolina

[sarcasmo]

27. +1

[Renaissance Man]

5. Standing

Well, this is how you get standing in federal court and get several suits consolidated in one lawsuit.

Several lawsuits in the state level were consolidated in Brown, too.

[DeSwiss]

6. K&R

-

[freshwest]

8. N. C. has had problems in this area for a long, long time.

[DeSwiss]

9. It took 93 years to correct that previous wrong....

...I'm betting it won't take too much longer before this latest stupidity is dumped as well.

- To paraphrase Gene Wilder's the line to Clevon Little in the movie Blazing Saddles: ''You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the old South. You know… morons...... ''

[freshwest]

10. Yes, I just downloaded that clip last night, haha!

Every generation has to fight this over and over. It's like reinventing the fricking wheel every fifty years or so. We were well on our way in the Carter years on gettting equal treatment for everyone.

Then Reagan came in and destroyed it and they've got the jump on us now, or it seems. Did you see Will got attacked by some guy over this? There is going to be a lot of crazy the next few years.

I've argued this stuff for years and especially about the south. Sigh.

[tooeyeten]

36. the saddest thing

get anything on a legislative agenda, and "read 3 times and ratified."

Not much has changed in America, we get these laws even when we don't want them; time to monitor every state legislature from beginning to end.

[Dogtown]

11. K&R n/t

[Suji to Seoul]

12. i always thought that police had a little discretion in arresting people

Arresting two harmless people for protesting bigotry of epic levels.

I wonder how those three cops sleep at night. . .oh, I forgot. To become an officer, you must relinquish your soul.

[Botany]

13. They are filling some big shoes

[progressoid]

14. Well they should be arrested.

Because, states rights and all that ya know.

[Blue_Tires]

16. kick for justice

[bluestateguy]

19. I hope she insists on going to trial

and forces a jury to convict her.

She might as well force her county to spend lots of money on her case.

[closeupready]

20. Applause to them. They ain't messing around, making jokes.

They mean business.

[IamK]

21. there is a lot of bad hair in this photo... n/t

[Great Caesars Ghost]

22. Civil Disobidience never works anymore

[ieoeja]

23. Gov't learned the secret: drop the charges.

Chicago privatized curbside parking on Chicago streets. To date everyone who has gotten a ticket and gone to court has had the charges dropped. Groups are lined up to appeal this to get a constitutional ruling. But if they keep dropping the charges, there is nothing to appeal.


It's why some of us were disappointed when the Obama administration chose not to defend DOMA. The Loving-v-Virginia precedence for strking down that law is fairly obvious (on equal rights grounds, not Full Faith and Credit).

Furthremore, it could be used to strike down discrimanatory state laws as well. Though I doubt this Court would go any further than required.

Unfortunately, most human rights activists preferred they stop defending it. Which means it simply goes back into full force next time we have a Republican president.

[riderinthestorm]

29. I didn't know that about Chicago and their parking. I really hope NC and this case works differently

unfortunately I presume they'll follow the Chicago model... it can't be that much of a "state" (heh) secret.

K&R for more exposure for the weekend crowd.

[cliffordu]

28. K&R

for civil disobedience for sure.

For the civil rights.

Goddammit.

[tooeyeten]

30. 21st century version of lunch counter protest

[WorseBeforeBetter]

31. All the more poignant since GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA...

a short 30 miles away, was home to the lunch counter sit-ins.

How far we've progressed in 52 years!

[tooeyeten]

35. to your rhetoric question

barely 30 miles.

[AliciaH]

32. Please sign petition to move the DNC Convention!

We need to inspire the DNC to take the moral high ground and move the convention from North Carolina to a place that doesn't enshrine bigotry and hate in their state constitution as North Carolina has done. Please take a moment and sign my whitehouse.gov petition at http://wh.gov/mMo

We can inspire our President to use the political capital he has to stand up for civil rights and Marriage Equality and fulfill his promise to the progressive majority that elected him, and will support him now as long as we know he hasn't slid into the DINO trap that has caught so many we pinned our hopes and dreams on.

Help send a strong message for equality!

[rasputin1952]

33. Arrested for being a human being seeking Human Rights....

appalling.

[Zax2me]

34. So, arrested for being....human?!

Great....
This speaks so well of our corporate America.