#ncga [Absence makes the gay lobby a lot less fonder.]

jeterPoor Charlie.  He just can’t win.  He got the amnesty opponents riled up on the big driver license vote. [He voted to kill the Blust amendment stripping license privileges for illegals from the legislation, and then voted in committee to kill the bill.]

Now, he’s got the gay lobby angry.  They were happy with him on his initial vote against the bill protecting the religious freedoms of magistrates. Jeter had gone on record saying he would vote to uphold McCrory’s veto:

Snip20150611_2

 

The override attempt comes up today, and — surprise — Mr. Jeter is nowhere to be found:

Snip20150611_3

 

(For the record, I have TWO sources who tell me they definitely saw Jeter roaming the hallways of the Puzzle Palace today.)  As expected, the gay lobby was not happy with the vote  (Check out the reply below from “Kate”:

Snip20150611_4

 

 

This may have been part of some strategy.  The smaller the turnout, the lower the number of votes needed for an override.  Leadership could have instructed those three to go take a walk in order to achieve that objective.  (They would have been NO votes if they had been “present.”)

23 thoughts on “#ncga [Absence makes the gay lobby a lot less fonder.]

  1. From another article I found: “In vetoing the legislation last week, Governor McCrory cited the U.S. Constitution, stating “we are a nation and a state of laws. Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath; therefore, I will veto Senate Bill 2.” ”

    Weird to say, but I agree with McCrory.

    A magistrate is an officer of the court, and as such, in the issuing of various licenses is acting as a representative of the state/government, not in a private capacity.

    If you are unable to fulfill the particular roles required of a government office (or even a private job for that matter), then you should not agree to occupy that office.

    If SSM were a legal thing in NC, when a private citizen goes to the state to obtain a license he’s legally qualified for… the magistrate’s personal feelings on that qualification is and should be irrelevant.

    1. I don’t. These magistrates got put in this position because a federal judge decided to attack both western civilization and the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. And McCrory, his oath of office notwithstanding, simply isn’t interested in pushing back against federal infringements against North Carolina’s Tenth Amendment prereogatives.

      1. While I certainly have a very large problem with the current balance of power (or sad lack of it) between the feds and state governments… I also do not think that means states have license to infringe on individual rights either, including the equal treatment and consideration we all should expect and receive from a government (federal or state or local).

          1. I agree, and I I think they’ve been walked all over recently in these abusrd public accommodation cases, but I think this is an entirely different type of conflict of individual rights.

          2. If one’s individual beliefs run counter to something in a job description then DO NOT apply for or take the job. Rather simple. Give the job to someone who will perform the job duties.

          3. Hum, so only non-Christians need apply for government jobs. I think maybe the better idea would be for government to get out of the marriage business.

        1. Lynyrd – I agree, government has no business being in the marriage business, and I’d be all for it being strictly a private deal. But, while the government “is” in that business, it needs to conduct it fairly and equally with regard to all citizens, regardless of anyone’s religious convictions, yay or nay.

          Christians can certainly work in whatever field or job they want, provided they’re capable of and willing to perform the duties of that position. If I’m afraid of guns, I shouldnt apply to be a cop on a beat, and if I can’t swim, I should not apply to be a lifeguard.

          I think a job like the one here is someone who’s acting as an extension of the state. If I go to a state office to acquire a state license that I’m legally permitted to obtain… I dont care about the personal beliefs of the guy behind the counter who’s job it is to issue it – that’s not why I’m there.

          1. Same sex marriage is not based on our law. It is based on an arrogant decree of pompous leftwing ideologue federal judge who is willfully distorting our Constitution, a judge who should probably be tarred and feathered and run out of the country on a rail (probably to North Korea). It is judicial tyranny, pure and simple.

            And in the next primary, every conservative voter should remember that this very same arrogant leftwing ideologue of a federal judge was enthusiastically supported for this position by Richard Burr.

          2. – “Same sex marriage is not based on our law.”

            I see it as a pretty clear case of “equal treatment”. Yes, states should be able to control their own affairs, and much more so than the current situation allows – but that doesnt mean states are free to infringe on the rights of it’s citizens, either.

            There is no reason I can see, esp. considering how low the threshold is for qualifying as a heterosexual couple, why homosexual couples should be denied such state-issued licenes. They shouldnt be in the business, but while they are, they also cant give privileges to group, but deny another, without a valid reason – which I dont see that they have.

            But still, that’s also all an entirely different question than this magistrate-excusal legislation.

          3. The 14th amendment does not grant equal protection of the laws to all classes, only those protected classes mentioned. Homosexuals are not one of them. Indeed, since homosexuality was a serious criminal offense at the time the amendment was adopted, it is nonsensical to argue that its framers intended to include homosexuals.

            Your argument follows the line of the liberals who legislate from the bench by ”finding” things in the Constitution that clearly are not there.

          4. – That homosexual behavior was a crime at the time of the founding seems irrelevant. It’s certainly not a crime “now”, and thus when it comes to the equal applicability of the set of laws that exist now, I dont see how that behavior matters.

            – No the 14th Amendment doesnt explicitly mention homosexuality, or any special classes. It does though read, ” No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            – When a state like NC issues a license (regardless of it’s purpose) that confers various legal privileges to some applicants, but will exclude others, that’s fine – but it needs a valid reason as to why its making such a distinction and exclusion, and I see no valid basis when it comes to disallowing homosexual couples.

            I dont think that reasoning is finding something not there – I’m applying a general constitutional rule to a current, specific case. I thought that was kinda the point.

          5. Extending protected classes to mere BEHAVIORS like sexual preferences is a real stretch. What about other sexual preferences like pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, and incest? In your view should those other sexual preferences / behaviors also have Consitutional standing? If not, why the favoritism to homosexuality?

          6. “Extending protected classes to mere BEHAVIORS like sexual preferences is a real stretch. ”

            I dont believe I did that, and I’m not really a fan of the whole idea of “protected classes” either. I said instead that the state needs a reason if it’s going to make a distinction between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples, and I dont see one.

            Absent that, pretty much by definition, the state is not extending “equal protection under the law” to those citizens it’s arbitrarily excluding from the legal benefits it’s handing out to the other group of applicants.

            “What about other sexual preferences like pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, and incest?”

            What about them? As far as I can tell, those types of cases have all had arguments made against them – ie, that a valid reason to exclude all of those “does” exist. For instance, things like pedophilia and bestiality dont involve two consenting adults – children and animals arent capable of legally forming consent to enter themselves into such contracts, so they arent eligible – seems like a valid reasoning to me.

            I personally havent looked as closely at all the various arguments for and against the other two example types you offered, and I’ve already written quite a bit here more than I expected to, but there “have” been various arguments made. I think they’re weaker, and whether they’re still valid or not… *shrug*

            Regardless though, I think the same principle is involved and should be equally and independently applied to all of those examples, including SSM.

  2. I see it different lets say the magistrate was a recovering alcoholic and the marriage law was changed that the couple marrying and the participating court officer had to take a drink together to finalize the ceremony. Would you want the magistrate to be forced to drink. I hope not and that is what this does on moral grounds keeping the magistrates freedom from not being taken away

    1. I’ve no interest or desire in infringing on anyone’s freedoms, or to change any person’s religious beliefs. I wouldnt want to try and force anyone to do anything, much less try to get a recovering alchoholic to take a drink. But, then, I might also advise that same person that perhaps taking a job in a bar might not be the best choice for them, too. 🙂

      I think on the flip side, any citizen who presents themselves to engage with a state agency is engaging with “the state”, and is well within their rights to expect the state to deal with them at a certain level of appropriate impartiality and professionalism, regardless of the personal feelings of a government employee there whose charge is to deliver that service for the state.

      I think a more apt analogy would be if perhaps one of the employees at the DMV administering the driving test wanted to refuse say, women, or black people, or white people, or whatever.

      Or if I had to sit around the NC license plate office for hours, or had to wait additional days or weeks to get a new license plate – because I wanted a specialized National Rifle Association plate for my car, but the two ladies behind the counter felt morally opposed to guns.

      I’m all for individual liberty (very much so) but in this case I think an accommodation is being forced onto the wrong party.

  3. Bravo Mr. Jeter Bravo!!! Well played. Didn’t want to be on record so we took a walk did we. Outstanding service outstanding! Those silly constituents back home they’ll never know. You’re smarter than them. That’s just my two cents.

  4. Oh my, it appears that Mr. Jeter and Mr. Bradford are taking walks and can’t show up for work. What to do what to do. The public must be warned about these slackards.

    Bulk Rate Permit No.
    Postage Paid

  5. I would have loved to see you vote for the SB 2 override but given the fact it passed and you walked I’m ok. However ONLY because it passed do I forgive you. If this was conservative legislation that failed and you walked you would move up on the hit list. Mission accomplished your check is on the mail. PS tell Rep Warren To sign a short term apartment lease his train is leaving.

  6. Equating a twisted perverted ruling by a leftwing hack federal judge distorting the Constitution with the Constitution itself is outrageous. Religious liberty was directly placed in the US Constitution by the framers. Homosexual marriage never was placed in it by either the framers or subsequent amendments. Indeed when the Constitution was drafted, homosexual acts were ”crime against nature” under the criminal law and punished by death in all states. They were also serious criminal offenses when the 14th amendment was adopted.

    We need to thank the moderate and liberal Republicans who came through on this vote, but certainly not the cowards like Jeter.

    We also need to recognize that the issue involved here is a less significant one than the ones where so many liberal Republicans screwed up – pandering to the renewable energy special interests and pandering to the illegal aliens. By doing what was right here, they did NOT erase their record of the other travesties.

  7. Actually we need to thank the three “brave and courageous” Democrats that cast the three “bipartisan” votes to override Patty’s veto.

  8. Here is your House question of the session.

    Who walks more on votes ?

    A: Rep Charles Jeter
    B: Rep Kelly Hastings

    Someone please tell us!

    1. Damn the difference. They are both liberal Obama Republicans who need to be primaried and removed.

Comments are closed.