The house will come to order, members will take their seats, visitors will retire from the chamber, the Sergeant at Arms will close the doors, members and visitors are asked to please silence all electronic devices, and members there's a slight change in the days order after the prayer we will not immediately move to the we have a color guard with us this afternoon as well so just your note it'll be a little bit of a pulse. Members today's prayer is offered by Representative Kim Waddell would ask members and all of our guests in the gallery to please stand for the prayers and to remain standing for the presentation of colors and eventually for the Representative Waddell Good afternoon, the prayer that I offer today is from my pastor, the Reverend Danny Russell in Chevron North Carolina Church. If you would, pray with me. O God, we have already been through a full morning and now begin a full afternoon. We have been busy working at the start of the day, and several House Standing Committees have also met earlier this morning. Now we gather this afternoon to share ideas and make decisions on behalf of the people of North Carolina. Before we begin, we admit our shortcomings. At times we may feel like we have a memory problem such as not remembering the names of new people we meet. Even though we meet a lot of new people, we can't admit that we do not have a memory problem as much as a listening problem. When meeting new people or talking to acquaintances and friends, there are times that we are thinking about what we want to say, instead of listening to what someone else is saying. We can bet this applies to other areas of life, as we struggle to listen to others before making judgements about what we think they are saying we ask you for your help to give us patience and listening ears. We have a lot of decisions to make, and we need to listen to those around us to be thoroughly informed of making those decisions. It is easy for us to only listen to those who agree with us, we ask for the confidence and wisdom to listen to those who think differently, to help us make the best decisions for North Carolina. We come from a variety of backgrounds and convictions about what is important and how to address what is important, may we remember the grace that we have received and be empowered to share the grace during this session and in the days to come. In the name of my savior Jesus, Amen. Amen. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to admit the Color Guard. I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation in regard, indivisible, with liberty and [xx] the members we certainly appreciate the North Carolina National guard, color guard for presenting the colors today please join me in expressing our appreciation, the national guard color guard. The gentlemen from Hornet, Representative Louise is to recognize for a motion Mr. Speaker, the journal for May 26th has been examined and found to be correct, I move that it stand approve as written Representative Luise Moores the journal for May 26 be approved is written those in favor will say aye, Aye! Those oppose no, the ayes have it nad the journal is approved is written ratification of bill and resolutions, the Clerk will read. The [xx] Clerk reports
the following bills duly ratified in presentation to the governor. House bill 315, AN ACT TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO LANDLORD/TENANT LAW AND TO PROVIDE FOR PROPER COLLECTION OF FEES AND COSTS FOR SHERIFFS EXECUTING WRITS OF POSSESSION. House Bill 570, AN ACT TO DIRECT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE COURTS TO IMPROVE JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY THROUGH THE USE OF THE ELECTRONIC REPOSITORY COMMONLY KNOWN AS NCAWARE TO RESOLVE OUTSTANDING WARRANTS WHILE A DEFENDANT IS IN CUSTODY. Chapter of the bills will be noted. Members, our Nurse of the day is Heather Jones from Burlington, North Carolina. OK, she's not here just yet, we'll introduce her again. Members, a couple of special recognitions if the House will come to order. A couple of special recognitions I want to make sure the members are aware of. First of all, we have with us today a former House member, Fight[sp?] McGard[sp?] of Union County, Representative McGard[sp?] good to see you back there, Sir. thanks for being with us, and we also have a special guest and an honorary pay today, Parker Hamilton of course who is a daughter of Representative of suzzy Hamilton, Parker thank you for being here with us today we aslo have with us a school group, we have student's here from B'nai Shalom Day School in Greensboro who are with us. Would you please there so we could welcome you, thank you for being with us today. On behalf the lady from Wake, Representative Harley the chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Mr Theodore Ivory. Mr. Ivory spends most of his time ministering to the homeless South East Riley[sp?] and other areas of Wake County, the ministry he works with is the [xx] Ministry. He shares his testimony to addicts and homeless alike being both here myself just seven years ago. His story is a story of restored hope that has made a positive impact on folks here in Wake County. Would you please stand Mr. Ivory[sp?] so that we can welcome with us as well today. Thank you for being with us Our motion of Representative Reeves[sp?] and Salmon[sp?] of Lee County the chair is happy to extend the gallery to the Stanford Area and Chamber of Commerce Leadership Group. Those members are if you all please stand when I call your name. Jenny Dorrine Sterling Airs[sp?] Hash Benfield, Camila Davis, Conny Griffin, Ayana Hamilton, Melody Hamilton, Hanna Makrey, Greg Mowry Cathy Pearson and Mark Stevens. Would you all, are they here? I don't see him, Representative Reeves I don't know if I see you, your folks up there, we'll come back to him in just a few minutes. Members we have a few committee reports and bills that will be added to the day's calendar so I would ask the house to come to order, because the chair will be asking that these bills be added to the day's calendar. Representatives Davis and Stevens are recognized to send forth the committee report the clerk will read. Representatives Davis, Stevens judiciary three committee report Senate Bill 114, Custodial Parent/Party Cooperate with Child Support, favorable. Calendar and without objection, today's Calendar so ordered. Senate Bill 269, Landlord/Tenant-Alias & Pluries Summary Eject, favorable. Senate Bill 269 is referred to the Committee on Judiciary II. Senate Bill 311, Register of Deeds/Filing False Marriage Documents favorable. Calendar and without objection, today's Calendar so ordered, Representative Daughtry is recognized to send forward the committee report, the clerk will read Representative Daughtry, Judicial I committee report to Senate Bill two, Magistrates Recluse of Civil Ceremonies, favorable. Calendar objection. And then the Chair would ask his objection to today's Calendar, the gentleman from Durham has objected. I believe the Rules chairman is going to make a motion that Senate Bill two to today's Calendar, is that correct? The gentleman from Horn is recognized for a motion. Mr. Speaker I move that Senate Bill two be added to today's Calendar notwithstanding the objection noted on The gentleman from Horn has moved that Senate Bill be added to today's Calendar, further discussion, further debate? If not, the question for the House is the motion to add Senate Bill two to today's Calendar those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. Representative Daughtry, Adams, Pendleton,
these members wish to vote on the motion. Alexander Baskerville, Boles and Daughtry. Clerk will lock the machine to record the vote. 65 having voted in the affirmative and 43 in the negative, the motion the Bill will be added to Today's Calendar. Representatives Brown, Burr, Jones and Lambeth are recognized to sent forward the committee report, the clerk will read. Representatives Brown, Burr, Jones and Lambeth health committee report. House Bill 698 they'll be called immediate bill favorable committee substitute unfavorable original bill re-referred to finance. Original Bill favorable calendar committee substitute re-referred to the committee of finance members on behalf of the members of LMS Representative Russel Raddell the Chair is happy to extend the courtesy the gallery to the [xx] County Republican Women who also join with [xx] who is wife of our all Representative Steven Ross would you all please stand so that we can welcome you today, thank you for being here. Calendar House Bill 189, the Clerk will read. Representative Jones, Holloway House Bill 189, a Bill to be entitled an Act to provide for a referendum to reduce the size of the Rockingham County Board of Education over four years from eleven members to seven, and redrawing the election district to reduce the number of districts from six to four, so that four members are elected at districts by reducing the numbers of members elected at large from five to three, to change the method of election of the board to partisan, and to clarify the appointment of vacancies to the board. The General assembly of North Carolina enacts. For what purpose does the gentleman from Rockingham, Representative Jones rise? For a motion. The gentleman is recognized for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I move that we did concur. The only change that was made from the bill that the House previously passed was a clarification. The gentleman is recognized for the motion. The gentleman now has the floor to debate the motion. Thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you. I do move that we do concur the only change that was made from the bill the house previously passed was a clarification that an appointment of a new member to a vacated seat would to be of the same political party of the person that was vacated, I appreciate your support. For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Lukey rise? To see if Representative Jones yield for a question? Does the gentleman from Rockingham yield to the gentleman from Durham? Yes Sir, I'd be happy to. He yields. Representative Jones, in this bill on which we're being asked to concur today, the current motion, the election of school board members is partisan, democrat or republican, why was that done? Thank you for the question Representative Lukey, one of the reasons it was done was because in the last general and friends since we had 18 candidates running for the school board. And myself as a primary sponsor, representative Holloway is a primary sponsor, and senator Berger on the Senate-side as the local delegation all agreed that we thought it would be a superior manner for our school board to be elected in a partisan way. I truly believe that one of the roles of the political parties is to pare down the number of candidates that advance to the general election. As we look at our Democrat-Republican process, I think it's a better process if we do that and allow the people that actually win in the Fall to get a larger percentage of the votes, so we felt like that was a better way of doing it. Will you yield for another question? Does the gentleman from Rockingham yield to an additional question from the gentleman from Durham? Yes Sir I yield. He yields. You do agree that all the voters who are citizens or are registered Independent or Unaffiliated will therefore not be able to run for the school board? You do agree with that, correct? No Sir, I don't agree with that at all. I believe that they would have the same opportunity as, for instance, I had when I ran as an Unaffiliated Member to the North Carolina House they would get through a petition process but in fact some people might think that it could be an advantage to them in a way because I know that there are people that feel a lot that the school board is somehow a nonpartisan position as opposed to many of the other positions that we are electing, we can agree to disagree about that, but we didn't think it would
give the voters more information on the ballot if we include the political party and we also believe that it doesn't make a candidate any more less partisan just because they put their partisan affiliation on the ballot, so, it does continue to allow a nonpartisan candidate to be a viable candidate for the school board. Speak on the motion. The gentleman from Durham has the floor to debate the motion. Members of the House, in facts and unaffiliated which are increasing as voters in North Carolina and non-affiliated resident of Rockingham County voter would have a much more difficult time running for office for the reasons of having to gather petitions extra. There is no reason to vote, have partisan elections all that does is keep voters from thinking through what the issues are in running for a school board, what's best for our children. This is not a good idea and I would urge you to vote against the concurrence Motion. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier rise? To debate the motion, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman has the floor to to debate the motion. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. I appreciate actually Representative Jones including in the bill and Representative Holloway on the referendum which we haven't had on other bills sadly, but because I fundamentally disagree on the policy as we debated before about moving to partisan school boards because the School Board Association, which is made up of Republicans and Democrats and Independents as I understand it, opposes this bill and because I think that adding partisanship and polarization to school boards creates no better public policy, I'm going to vote as I did originally against the bill and hope that those who voted against it will do so again. For what purpose does the gentleman from Rutherford, Representative Hager rise? Debate the motion. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As some of you may not have picked up, this is a and I ask Representative Jones this to make sure this is a local bill and the delegation is in favor of this bill. So, I think that probably says enough to how I think give you guys, it is again, if you consider local bills to be the kind of the property of the delegation which I do, then I'm going to vote yes For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Martin rise? To debate the motion. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Well, two points. Let's understand what our job in the local bill is and isn't if the framers of our state constitution intended for the delegation to be the final say on the dispossession of local bill they would so provide the constitution but instead no they do require us as the entire general assembly to consider the wisdom of moving forward on a local bill or not I think it's good practice on most measures to differ to the wishes of the delegation the way it's sssueing controversy both at the local level matter will blow it through out the state this entire appropriate in fact it's our duty as members of the house to weigh in on this and second I be voting against this for the same reasons I did when I came to the House the first time, no one I hear in my constituency or from anywhere on the state is saying the problem with the all elections is that they aren't part enough. I'd encourage you to join me in voting no. For what purpose does the gentleman from Stokes, Representative Holloway rise? Speak on the bill. The gentleman has floor to debate the motion. Thank you. Members, again I'll point out what Representative Hager reminded you, this is a local bill. We do have a referendum in there for the districts, but it just bothers me there we're so worried about people knowing what others political affiliation is. I just do not understand what is the big deal with that, and I know we say, Well, education is non-partisan issue. Well if that's the case, that's a big part of what we do here, why don't we make this legislature nonpartisan? And if worried about Independents, how many people, let's have a show of hands, want to give up their seat for an Independent? But I don't see how this bill makes it more difficult for Independents to get elected, and in fact, I don't think you'll mind me pointing out, the primary sponsor of this bill was elected as Independent, and it can be done and in fact, if I were an Independent I would rather get on the ballot in a partisan election and have far fewer candidates and as Rockingham County we had 18 candidates for the school board, and yes I'm glad there was that many people wanting to participate, but that was very confusing for individuals. And if it's partisan, you'll narrow it down and if the Independent can get the signatures they'll be on the ballot, and that Independent would have a far better chance of getting elected with a Republican and Democrat and themself on the ballot rather than having
18 and just having a crap shoot. So again, this is a local bill. I ask that you support it, and I just to understand why it's so horrible to know what these people's political affiliations are. For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Michaux rise? To speak on the motion. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Just to call attention to the Majority Leader's statement he just made, that this was a delegation nearly everybody agreed on, so we are to vote for it. I would call his attention to the fact there was a, there had been bills in this house that delegations did not agree on and the house voted to change anyway call to [xx] bill from last year. For what purpose does the gentleman from Rockingham Representative Jones rise? To briefly debate the motion a second time The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion a second time. Thank you Mr. Speaker I think all of the good points have been made about the bill I won't repeat them, I will just point out that the house has a very good vote on this the first time around, the only change that was made was a minor clarifying change that even improves the bill and ladies and gentlemen I would ask for your support once again, thank you. Further discussion further debate, if not the question before the house is the motion concur with the Senate Committee Substitute the House Bill 189? Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote the clerk will open the vote. Representative Starm does the gentleman wish to be recorded on the vote? Clerk will lock the machine will record the vote. 72 having voted in the affirmative and 39 in the negative, the motion I concur is adopted the Bill is therefore ordered in row House Bill 113, the clerk will read Representative Hastings, Presnell, [xx], Bishop House Bill 113, a Bill to be entitled an Act to protect North Carolina's students by increasing the criminal penalty for the commission of certain sex offences committed against the students by a person who school personnel and to establish the procedure against institution oh higher education to obtain the list of students and employees, at the institution who are arrested as sex offenders. General assembly of Carolina enacts. The clerk is also directed to read the Senate Amendment 1. Senator Tillman moves to amend the bill on page 1 lines 28 through 32 by rewriting those lines to read. The gentleman from Gaston, Representative Hastings is recognized for a motion. I would move that we concur Mr. Speaker as amended. For what purpose does the gentleman from cumberland, Representative Glazier rise? To see if representative Hastings might yield for a question gentleman from Gaston heel to the gentleman from Cumberland? Yes sir. He yeidss. Thank you Representative, thank you Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to look really quickly, and I know I should've looked at it earlier, could you tell us looks like there's two changes that the senate amendment does to the House Bill, and I wonder if you could go through those, and the reasons for those changes please. As I remember from the senate committee, I think Senator Tillman just wanted to clarify that it would also include private schools and not just your traditional public schools. No followup, if I may debate the motion from Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from Cumberland is recognized to debate the motion. Thank you and it looks like on lines 14 and 15 of the amendment that's exactly what that portion does, and I have no problem with that. I'm going to vote for the motion because Representative Hastings has asked, but I think that the change that was made in line nine, was exactly a change that was made the other way in J2, and in the committee and on the House here, so it is reversing what we did. My only objection to it is I think that we are asking for something that probably we don't want, that is, with a class I felony, you actually get less time, have the opportunity at less time than a class A1 misdemeanor, and so while it is a felony, and that may be more important in fact, it is a lesser penalty in most cases than the A1 misdemeanor. So, if that's what you want to do, then I'll vote for it, but I think that discussion occurred in the House committee the end, I thought there was a different view, but since the sponsor wishes us to vote for it, I'll be glad to do that, but I think it's actually kind of intuitive to what he's trying to thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Hastings rise? To debate for a final time. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. As I remember I think the felony will remains the
same if I'm not mistaken, but going to the matter of whether it's an A1 misdemeanor or class work felony. The point about moving this to a felony is that a felony is viewed much more seriously especially in the long term as one applies for another job, and instances of that sort of so I think moving this to a felony is the proper public policy. Would encourage your support. For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Brawley rise? I wonder if Representative Glazier would yield to a question. Does the gentleman from Cumberland yield to the gentleman from Mecklenburg? Certainly Mr. Speaker. He yields. Representative, your legal is one that I frequently admire, and also your clarity of vision but as I was comparing the amendment to the original bill, I noticed that the original bill has class A1 misdemeanor crossed out, class one felony written in both in section three and in section two, and I'm wondering if that amendment is not just duplicating the changed language that was in the bill that passed from the House, and in fact the only change was the one to include the charter schools Representative Brawley me I'm looking at the amendment and I remembered the discussion on this in the committee, and I'm just looking and again I think 601 have [xx] depending on what you're trying to accomplish. I know that you would get more potential exist to give someone who does this active time far greater on the A1 than on the one felony, Class I felony, that's bizarre but it is sort of how it works, but Representative Hastings is correct that if you have a felony, maybe that's what we're trying to do for licensing purposes, so maybe it works both ways. I have always viewed that the class we tend to put things into a felony, but actually the tougher punishment the more options for a court, but with a A1 misdemeanor than a felony. You maybe right that it may be the changes is duplicative but strikes me is probably I come with a different choice but For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake Representative Stein rise? To speak on the motion. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. You could debate it either way. Each session has some themes, back in the 90s it was all about crime, then it was under Jim Hunt then it was about the children, then everything was about jobs and the crimes that had been committed in the name of jobs. This session I believe is going to be the Class I felony session, where we're wanting to make everything, we're going to expunge everything, but then raise everything to a felony but only the teeny tiniest felony that you get less than for the misdemeanor. It's really strange and odd, and I just make that observation in case you want to put that in your newsletters, this would be the Class I Felony Session. For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale rise? To speak on the bill. The gentleman has floor to debate the motion. The motion. I don't know why this concerns me, and it concerned me when it came through here last time. I don't think I voted for it last time, but I didn't get up and speak on it, but if you have an 18-year old that has a 17-year old girlfriend and he manages to get a job as a janitor at the school, he's in trouble isn't he? He's going to be convicted of a felony. I just think this could lead to some craziness here, we've seen it happen in other states where they've done this. We're talking less than four years older than the student, so I don't know, it's just something to think about. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Hastings rise? To see if Representative Speciale would yield for a question. Does the gentleman from Craven yield to the gentleman from Gaston? I yield. He yields. And of course, Representative you know there would be the issue of prosecutorial discretion that would be involved which could possibly keep someone from being prosecuted? I'm assuming you're aware that The gentleman has the floor to respond to the question. Yes I am but I would never want my liberty depending upon proprietorial discretion, the law should be clear. Does the gentleman from Craven heel to an additional question from the gentleman from Gaston? I yield He yields. In the final question, if it's truly a love affair then of course the
other party involved in the affair would probably not cooperate in the prosecution unless there was some sort of criminal behaviour involved, I'm assuming you're aware of that. I am depending on the age of the student For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash, Representative Collins rise? Briefly debate the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Representative Brawley's comments kind of intrigued me so I went back and looked up the bill, and he is absolutely correct. I looked up all three versions of the bill, the File Version, and Edit 1 and Edit 2 and the strike through from [xx] to whatever it is clear as felony has been in every version of the bill , the only change this amendment is making is the second change that's on here. That strike through is not a change, that was in the bill the way we sent it over to them. Further discussion, further debate if not, the question before the house is the motion to concur with senate amendment number one to the house committee substitute for house bill 113, those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote 110 having voted in the affirmative and four in the negative the motion concur is adopted the bill was order to send to the governor will be enrolled House Bill 294 the clerk will read Representative Boles House Bill 294 a bill to be entitled an act to make a criminal offense to provide a cellphone to a delinquent Juvenile in custody of the department of public safety. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. The gentleman from Moore, Representative Boles is recognized for a motion. And hope you'll vote to concur. Actually, the Clerk will read the amendment. Senator Lee moves to amend the bill on page 1, lines 19- 20 by inserting the following between those lines. And did the gentleman wish to move that the House concur with the Senate Amendment? That is correct. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the the question before the House is the motion to concur with the Senate Amendment 1 to the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 294. Those in favor will vote Aye, those opposed will vote No, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 114 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion is adopted, the bill is ordered enrolled and send to the governor. House Bill 513, the Clerk will read. Representatives Bryan and Stevens, House Bill 513, a bill to be entitled an act to make technical correction and other conforming changes to the general statute concerning real property. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. The gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Bryan is recognized for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to move to adopt the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 513. The gentleman is was moving to concur, is that correct? Thank you, move to concur. The gentleman has moved to concur with amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker there's just one clarifying change made in Section 1C that was recommended by Senator Barringer on the Senate side, it's perfectly good change, I'm glad to answer any questions, it's fairly complicated minor issue, but I encourage you to vote yes on the motion. Further further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the motion to concur with the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 513. Those in favor will say Aye, those opposed will vote No, the Clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine will record the vote 514 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, Motion cares adopted the Bill has been ordered in Row and sent to the senate. Members, we have a group of students with us today from Countryside school and Charlotte, would you all please stand so that we can welcome you with us to the state house today? Thank you for being with us House Bill 97, the Clerk will read. Representatives Bishop, Stam, Glazier and L. Hall, House Bill 597 a bill to be entitled an act to amend the provision requiring mediated settlement agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties [xx]. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts.
The the gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Bishop is recognized for a motion. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [xx] I believe there's an amendment that needs to be read by the clerk, the clerk will read. Senator Daniel moves to amend the Bill on page 2 line 7 through 10 by rewriting those lines to read. Now the gentleman is recognized for a motion. Thank you Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do concur. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question for the House is the motion to concur with the Senate amendment to the House committee substitute, the House Bill 597, those in favor will vote aye, those oppose vote no, the clerk will open the vote. Representative Penddleton does the gentleman wish to on this vote, the clerk will lock the machine will record the vote. 114 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion is adopted the bill is ordered in row and will be sent to the the governor. House Bill 892, the Clerk will read. Representative Lewis, House Bill 892, a bill to be entitled an act to appoint person to various public officers upon the recommendation of the Speaker of the House of the Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. The gentleman from Harnett, Representative Lewis is recognized for a motion. Mr. Speaker I move that the House do concur with the Senate committee substitute for House Bill 892. further discussion further debate? If not the question before the House is the motion to concur with the senate committee substitute to House Bill 892. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 113 having voted in the affirmative and 1 in the negative, the motion cards adopted the bill is ordered in row and sent to the Senate. Senate Bill 114, the clerk will read. Excuse me, staff will be sent to the Governor. Senate Bill 114 the clerk will read. Senators Randleman, Tarte, Bingham, Clark, and Newton, Senate Bill 114 a bill to be entitled An Act To Require The Department Of Health And Human Services, Division Of Child Child Development And Early Education And The Division Of Social Services, To Develop A Plan Requiring A Custodial Parent Or Other Relative Or Person With Primary Custody Of A Child Receiving Childcare Subsidy Payments And Cooperate With County Child Support Services Programs As A Condition Of Receiving Child Care Subsidy Payments, And Recommended By The Child Support Subcommittee And The Joint Legislative Program Evaluation Oversight Committee. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. For what purpose does the lady from Iredell, Representative Turner rise? To debate the bill. Lady has the floor to debate the bill. Members this is the Senate Bill 114 comes as the recommendation by the child report subcommittee of the joint legislation program evaluation oversight committee and it's based on a report prepared by the program evaluation division and presented to joint legislative program evaluation oversight committee on July 16th 2014 the bill require the division of child development and early education and the division of social services to develop a plan require a custodial parent or other relative or person with primary custody of a child who is receiving childcare subsidy payment to cooperate with the county child support services program as condition of receiving those payments, the current law require the person with primary custody of a child to cooperate with the child support services programs as a condition of receiving work fast benefits and this mimic that provision the bill will extend the requirement of childcare subsidies and will help ensure none custodial parent are contributing to the child welfare a report in the plan is required to be submitted to the joint legislative oversight committee on health and human services and the physical research division by February I thank you for your consideration and your support, thank you Further discussion further debate? If not the question before the House is the passage Senate Bill 114 on its Second Reading. Those in favor will say Aye, those opposed will vote No, the clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine
and record the vote, 113 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, Senate Bill 114 passes its Second Reading and will without objection be read a third time. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 114 on its third reading. Those in favor will say Aye. Aye. Those opposed will say no, the ayes have it. Senate Bill 114 passes it's third reading ordered in a row and sent to the Governor. Senate Bill 311 the Clerk will read. Senator Bingham and Davis, Senate Bill 311, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF MARRIAGE RECORDS PRESENTED FOR REGISTRATION. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. For what purpose does the lady from Surrey, Representative Stevens rise? To speak on the bill. The lady has the floor to debate the Bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, at this point any document presented to the Register of Deeds must be recorded by the Register of Deeds. What they're finding is that some people are presenting fake licence, and they can use those for other purposes and they're required to file those marriage licenses. All this statute does is to authorize the Register of Deeds to say, This is not an official form by us, we're not certifying the factualness of this licence. I ask for your support. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 311 on its Second Reading. Those in favor will vote Aye, those Representative Michaux, the Chair had put the question. When it's over, I'll come back to you on Third Reading. Those in favor will vote Aye, those opposed will vote No, the Clerk will open the vote. Representatives Reese and Hunter wish to record on this vote? The Clerk will lock the machine and will record the vote. 112 having voted in the Affirmative and 1 in the Negative, Senate Bill 311 passes its Second Reading and will without objection be read a third time. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Michaux rise? To ask Representative Stevens a question. Does the lady from Surrey yield to the gentleman from Durham? Is it appropriate at this point to say I do if we're talking marriage licence? I want to know. She does for now. Well, fortunately you're in good Thank you Representative Mitchell. In looking at this statute, is there anything in here that requires the register this to verify that is not an official [xx] document? Representative [xx] its says basically what they have done is they don't recognize it is an official document. Either their marriage license are at a very specific form and the marriage license we were showed was clearly not a proper marriage license. Another question. Does the lady yield to an additional question? I do. She yields. We have what I guess would be uniform type of form in this state but what about marriage licence from out of state which is not necessary to report to our floor is their anyway, I'm just looking at the fact that somebody got married in Nevada or California and had that marriage licence here without any investigation at all, the the original piece could see it is not an official marriage, is there anything in the act to verify that? Can I answer Mr. Speaker? The lady has the floor. Thank you. Representative Michaux, I think if you look at the second section, it depends on the purpose for which the marriage licence is being offered. If it's being attached to another document to evidence that they're in fact married, then it will be done as an attachment, but if they're submitting it as valid proof that a marriage occurred in North Carolina, then they may question that document as to whether in fact it's an official marriage licence document. Could I just follow up? Does the lady yield to an additional question? I do. She yields. What I'm asking you Representative Stevens, is that in Section 1 where it says that, This is document is not an official marriage document. I'm not talking when it was attached to any the document, all I'm asking is whether or not that official has investigated to find out whether or not it was, was or was not an official document. Representative Michaux, Section 1 there, the Section A, specifically refers to the statutes of North Carolina that authorize marriage. So, this is saying that the marriage license that's being submitted to them is not an official record of marriage under North Carolina law.
That is, it was not issued pursuant to 51-16 or a correction of a licence that was also issued under Section 51 which is North Carolina's Marriage Statue. Speak briefly on the. The gentleman from Durham has the floor to debate the bill. I guess I'm just concerned, Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen of the House, that even though the document certainly coming from any place other State would not look like our document issued under 51-16, and that that person makes an independent decision that this document's stamp is on it, this document is not an official document. So if you come in with a license from New York or wherever, and you want your license filed or on record here in North Carolina you stamp on it, This document is not an official marriage license. Period, end of report. So unless you have some clarification on it, I'm still going to vote against it. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 311 on its third reading. Those in favor will say Aye. Aye. Those opposed will say No. No. The Ayes appear to have it, the Ayes do have it, Senate Bill 311 passes its Third Reading, and will be send to the governor. Special message from the Senate, the Clerk will read. Senate Joint Resolution 421, a Joint Resolution expressing gratitude and appreciation to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. Senate Rule 32, the Bill hours[sp?] are for today's Calendar's is there objection? Hearing none, the Joint Resolution will be added to today's Calendar for immediate consideration, but before the Clerk reads that for what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Moore rise? Mr. Speaker, to change my vote on Senate Bill 311 from Aye to No. The gentleman will be recorded as having voted No on Senate Bill 311. The Clerk will read the Resolution which was just added to today's Calendar. Senate Joint Resolution 421, a Joint Resolution expressing gratitude and appreciation to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. The Senate resolved as concurring. Members of Chair belive, it may be a large contingent of active service members and veterans who may be coming in for this, so I think we may, I see General Lusk up there, but I think there's some more who are coming over, so it appears the members have left, so the general of Mansley, Representative Cleveland is recognized to debate the resolution Thank you, Mr. Speaker Ladies and gentlemen, it's our pleasure again today to honor our own Forces, the men and women who have protected our Country are protecting our country, those that go into harm's way so we can sit here and argue with each other in peace, that they've done a wonderful job for us. We have an all-volunteer force, these young men and women aren't forced to serve their country, they volunteer to do it. They come forth and put their lives on the line to ensure that the United States is safe. We've been in a continuous state of strife for some 10/12 years now, and the young men and women of this country continue to come forth to look after what our country stands for. And it's with my heartfelt thank you to the gentlemen and women of the armed forces that do this for us, and we must remember their families Those that stay at home in worry, those that stay at home and take care of the children, and keep the house ready for the parent that's gone to return, and some of their turnaround times are shot seven months, nine months, and they're gone again for being don't want to say used, they're overworked with their commitment in such that
many of them do not have long lag times where they can spend with their families. These young men and women are giving their all for us, and keep them in your prayers one of you see them thank them, and pray for them. for what purpose does the general from Gill, Representative Blast rise? Speak on the resolution. Gentleman has to forward to make the resolution. Thank you Mr Speaker and members of the house if you stop and think of it, it really is and we may get used to things here and it becomes second nature but it's really is a distinct honer and privilege to serving in a body like this an institution that embodies what freedom is all about, an elected legislature. We all represent people. And I think it we probably don't often enough really focus on that and wonder where did that come? Why does that exists? Why are we here? And I really do believe it's due to the men and women who over the centuries and even today are willing to put their lives on the line and go and defend freedom. We didn't earn the freedom, they did and one of my favorite movies is Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, and at one point he's saying, liberty is too precious of thing to be left to the book Miss Anders, men should hold it up in front of them everyday of their lives and say I'm free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn't, but I can and my children will and, we just don't think about that enough that most people in history have not lived free, they've lived under tyranny of some sort. Freedom of republic is a relatively new invention on a nation's wide scale in mankind's history, and it was gone out, people went out, and they won it from the tyrants. And I think I can say, without America arms forces, tyranny would have prevailed in the world by now, there would not be freedom. I spent a good portion of the day Monday, I kind of love memorial day because they have all these movies on, and I sat watched several of them and I know some of lines may not be real, but the stories are midway, but midway was on Monday, and I always get get a kick out of the Japanese Admiral and the Gumo[sp?] saying, these Americans sacrificed themselves like Samurai because the torpedo planes went in and just got decimated, but they pulled down the fighter protection umbrella, just as the dive bombers were coming along and boom! 4 Japanese aircraft carriers, the cream of the fleet, were gone in about 10 minutes, well 3 in 10 the next a few hours later. And some of the sacrifices that you see, the pilot shot up and burning, excruciating agony and this has been repeated on all over. And a little bit later, came Battleground about the Battle of the Bulge, and to watch those poor guys, a few of them threw away their overcoats early in an incredibly cold winter of 1944-45, to have to fight under those conditions! it's just to me, it's monumental that people can do that. Another example that gets lost in time, that they don't get enough credit was that 32nd Infantry Division in New Guinea, fairly early in the war taking and governor, these were National Guard people from the MidWest, Michigan and Iowa and a few other states that train think they were going to be civilians and were thrown suddenly into the war in jungle harsh conditions, most of them were sick and they sat there for months in the generous said no and you are going to take that in Swampy conditions without enough food, just the sacrifices just are incredible when I think about it and I am close by this I know this was a line in the movie to, I kind
of think like the admiral in the bridges at Toco[sp?] at the end after, I am trying to remember who it was it wasn't Jerry Copper it was William Holdern a short down and the admiral are setting their and going where do we get such men, where do we get such men, and I really I'm hopeful even in this times as Rep. Cleaveland said, that their are still Americans coming forward to go in the has condition Iraq, Afghanistan this were no means picnic areas, I am just astounded but that people will make those kinds of sacrifices with their lives hanging by a thread any moment they could be taken away and then sometimes I get kind of down on myself thinking waoo! I just stayed up to 2.30 the other night in this horrible place called the NC house and what they are will to go through to support and defend freedom out to be a lesson for us that we can do it a lot more that we are doing and I commend the resolution towards that. For what purpose does the gentleman from wake Rep. Pendleton rise speak on the resolution, the gentleman has the floor to debate on the resolution. Rep. Blust was talking about the 32nd division in New Guinea that it was the first American army division to deployed in the combat, and I talked to a man that was a veteran that and it was bad enough being in the jungle it was bad enough getting all kinds of jungle [xx] on your feet and other places on your body when he said the worst situation was that they had, you know it was [xx] WESTconsin buy the way that unit had to go out and retrieve there dead before it got dark. So, they went in right at dark and they got out and dragged our bodies back in, because you see, the Japanese resorted to cannibalism and ate our men that were killed imagine had to live with that and the rest of the year was like. Another story when on December the 8th 1941 the Japanese bombed the Philippines and this shows what can happen when you're not prepared because the day before that on December 7th 1941 as you all know they bombed Pearl Harbor but [xx] and his commanders didn't do anything about the other [xx]. So, the Japanese the next day bombed uphill in the [xx] and the military installations there and all B17 bombers and fibers are lined up in a row and all the Japanese did was just to destroyed everyone of our aircraft not even one of them when they turned themselves to Japanese, and the Japanese planned on taking if they can put tan in the mail within 30 days. The battle plan was that you would move back. So in early January, they started moving back onto the Bataan Peninsula which goes out into the Manila Bay, and at the end of that is Corregidor that you've all heard about. And so our troops, the Japanese gave them 30 days, they lasted on Battan five months, and finally General Wainwright who had pulled out and was on Corregidor Island at the time, told the commanding general there, You must surrender because our men and the Filipinos at Fall[sp?] Wilders are out of ammunition, they were out of food, they'd eaten all the monkeys, they'd eaten all the rats, they'd eaten all the dogs, they shot their horses, they shot their mules, they had nothing else to eat. So they had to surrender, but then the Japanese being the barbarians that they were had the led to deaths in much of Japan, and those men, who were about 21, 000 of them, they had to march to McDanno battle concentration camp, proposal camp, and it took five days and all the authorities[sp?] killed because usually if a Phillipino Roman came out, they were seven months pregnant with some water for some of our men, had Japanese killed her and cut her up in the stomach, and pulled out the baby inside of
her on the point of a fair nut. If you ran to get some water in the ditch, they beheaded you with Samurai swords, and these are things I like to think about and tell people, but you forget what our military is going through, God bless them. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Martin rise? To debate the resolution. The gentleman has the floor to debate the resolution. Thank you very much members. The paratrooper from Guildford words resonated with me, I was feeling pretty sorry for myself about one o'clock on I can remember was a Wednesday, Thursday morning. Each year is just one of the worst years of, worst nights of my year, and each year I've to tell myself that I'm not a sailor or coast guardsman standing and watch on the freezing deck of Cutter or Destroyer, I'm not in the mounts of Afghanistan having motor rounds robbed at me, I'm not even stuck on some back range in the Godforsaken sand and pantry of fork bag or camping zone at all but instead I'm sitting here in an air conditioned room within comfortable sits, good company on both sides and representing several thousands of my constituents in the same democratic rights that the marines from Onslow talked about and what a privilege that truly is, and that ladies and gentlemen gives me perspective and squares me away very quickly, and immediately. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to deviate slightly from the text of the Resolution here, so if you need to call me back into order I won't take offence, but I think you'll permit it. Members, we're doing this two days after Memorial Day, and as you all know, Memorial Day and Veteran's Day are two distinct holidays with two related, but very distinct purposes. Veteran's Day is a day to honor all veterans, all those who've served living and dead. Memorial Day is a day to honor those who did not return, who lost their lives in the service of our country. Most years we are not here in November, so we have made what I think is a sensible adaptation, to around[sp?] Memorial Day each year, sort of combining the spirit of both the holidays, to honor those who did not return, but honoring, as we do today in this Resolution all those that have served both living and dead, but at the same time in the end this time of the year my heart mostly goes out to those who did not return unto to there families and to them ill be saying a prayer to night and every night. For what purpose does the gentleman from Trans Slovenia Representative Whitemire rise? Comment on the resolution? The gentleman has forwarded the debate resolution. As Representative Martin alluded to this past week in and hopefully everyday, we give and commemorate there are over 1.3 million in the history of our nation who have given their all in defense of our nation and its ideals and also the over 38, 000 missing in action action. Today we express our gratitude and appreciation to the living, our nation has service members deployed around the world presently defending our [xx] defensing human rights man kind and a million other incredibly important pieces to our way of live. They have taken a oath to support and defend the constitution institution against our enemies foreign and domestic, and in doing so that's that blank check that you often hear about, and certainly we don't always get the choice of when that blank check gets cashed, and when it is cashed we say goodbye, families say goodbye and that's where Memorial Day, Memorial Weekend let's keep that in our mind, but today again we celebrate the living, our service members and our volunteers force, the greatest military in the nation, and we're in a constant state of readiness to defend what we have to defend against those who have fanatical, radical ideals that threaten our way of live. Please keep in mind that while we have thousands stationed around the World, they give the United States the unique ability to conduct 24-hour operations and engagements of all types to hold any target set at risk in any weather, any environment, anywhere in the world and to command and to control our activities in defense of what we have here, I salute our military past and present and I commend the resolution. For what purpose does the gentleman from Chiwan, Representative Stenberg rise? Speaking on the resolution Mr. Speaker. The Gentleman had the floor to debate the resolution. Last week, I had the distinct honor and privilege of attending the opening ceremonies of the [xx] games that were held out at Chapel Hill, at the Dean Smith Centre, and the speaking podium
was right underneath one of the baskets and it's amazing looking at that wonderful if it's out there where [xx] have paraded up and down for quite sometime now. It was interesting and worth noting I believe at these valor games, I had the opportunity to meet many of our veterans who have lost arms, legs or other limbs and yet they still had among them this tremendous competitive service where they still a speed of course among the group and many of them shared with me the fact that some of those they had served while we didn't make it back from the senator of service they thought quite certain that they too will be participating in these overall[sp?] games you know turning into a hero, interesting sudden a place where folks play basketball are also refereed to as fields[sp?]. Well I don't know if they're heros when they're playing basketball just by virtue the fact if they can dunk the ball and do able a number of things things they may indeed grow and become heroes of one sought or another but they aren't really heroes the heroes they were in the field arena on this day and on any given game day are those folks who gave so much to our country or veterans, or military service people, the folks that they should be teaching others to look up to not someone who can dunk a bomb necessarily but someone who is given the ultimate sacrifice, someone who has given up themselves unselfishly so that we can have this moment that we share it together today, so when we think about the word hero and we hear young people using the word hero, let's think about the true meaning of the word hero. But I've been living with among us, particularly those who have donned the uniform of our various time services and they categorized, should be categorized and are categorized and will forever be heroes. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Ford rise? To debate the resolution. The gentleman has the floor to debate the resolution. Mr. Speaker Cumberland County's Fayetteville is known as the 911 Strike Unit to be anywhere in the world within 48 hours. Just on Monday, we in Cumberland County rededicated the Committal[sp?] Center as the final resting place for those individuals that gave all. Our Committal Center, if it was in the Winter time it would be freezing cold, and in Summer time it would be burning hot. This body provided $125, 000 as a matching grant for the program. I bugged Representative Cleveland so much that he didn't want me to come to his office to help get the $125 that's the seed money for the matching grant, but one person Representative Cleveland, wrote a cheque for $125, 000 as a matching grant to start the rebirth of the center. Monday, some 300 person attended that final resting place for those that gave oath, and I am so proud that I had the opportunity to serve in the united states army and to defend this country because if it wasn't for the United States Army, I would not be in this chamber today, thank you Mr. Speaker. Further discussion further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of Senator John's resolution for 21 on it's second reading those in favor will vote Aye, those oppose will vote No, the clerk will open the vote Representative Pendleton does the, clerk will
lock the machine record the vote 113 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative senate joint resolution 421 passes it's second reading and will without objection we read a third time. The senate resolves house concur. Further discussion further debate, if not the question before the house is the passage of senate joint resolution 21 on it's third reading those in favor every will say Aye those oppose will say no, the aye's have it, senate joint resolution 421 passes it's third reading and is ordered and rolled. Members, the Chair would ask the body to join the Chair in welcoming a number of military leaders from base across North Carolina who've gathered at the general assembly for military appreciation day, all active duty military service members, reservist and veterans, would you please with all members of the general assembly who've served in the military also please stand so you can be recognized as well. Thank you very much for your service. Members our nurse of the day is now with us, Heather Jones[sp?] from Burlington. North Carolina, miss Jones, thank you for being with us today. Senate Bill two the clerk will read. Senator Berger, Senate Bill two a bill to be entitled on that [xx] magistrates, assistant register of deeds and deputy register of deeds to by performing duties ment[sp?] to ceremonious due some sincerely held religious objections. General of Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Further discussion further debate? For what purpose does the from the Union Representative Arp rise? To speak to the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Ladies and gentlemen, if we begin this debate I want to thank in advance for your candor, your respect and dignity as we debate this very passionate issue. I promise to you, that none of my comments are meant in anyway to detract from my great respect. But this is a serious issue, and I certainly understand the passion around it. What this bill is is as you know citizens of North Carolina in a democratically process as chosen to define marriage a certain way, and subsequent to that a Penal court ruling has changed that and the will of the people and the ability to do that. Since then a directive was issued by the administrative officers of the courts that directed the magistrates and rest assured these magistrates particularly, to issue marriage licence to perform civil ceremonies and if they did they would be subject to removal and disciplinary action. The issue was brought before us in order to be resolved in this manner and what this bill does is to provide for a religious exception for this magistrates. Quite frankly what this does is it registers of deeds, the register deeds and deputy register of deeds and the magistrates can be accused from performing all lawful marriages. It to the procedure with which these marriages will be performed and establishes minimum time frames in a very simple way, and also clarifies that this duty to perform is not a duty held individually by any magistrate but a collective authority held by the office. Far from being discriminatory what is does it actually provide for the accomplishment of the issuance of marriage licences and accomplishes the fact of the civil ceremony if requested by the people who choose to do so. This is not the discriminatory in the sense that it treats all people equally, and provides for a way for those have sincerely held religious
beliefs to those in very thoughtful and very resolve way. There had been a lot of talk on the floor about this to Bill, about it being discriminatory and how somehow marriages are not going to be performed. Marriage licences would be withheld. That's the straw man's argument, that sets up a false premises found nowhere in this Bill. And in fact it does the exact opposite. In fact, some would have us put in here a religious test, of our magistrates and say, you can have religious beliefs, but certain religious beliefs, if you disagree with homosexual marriages, you cant be a magistrate. I think it's a dangerous and chilling path that we walk when we put a religious test into holding office. And so what this Bill does, is walk a fine line to make sure that these civil marriages will be performed in a non-discriminatory fashion. But yet, attempts to accommodate those sincerely held religious beliefs of our great men and women who serve in these public offices. These were people who were in office, prior to the law changing. People say, well, why did they sign up? The law changed on them, they didn't change the law. And this is a reasonable, rational, very narrowly focused attempt to balance the need and duty of the government to issue those marriage licence in conformance with the law, and balance a religious, sincerely have religious beliefs, of the many women of our state. With that I ask for your support and vote for the bill. For what purpose does the gentleman from Lake Representative Stam rise? To speak on the bill. The gentleman had the floor to debate the bill. Mr. Speaker, members of the house applying neutral principle of law that have been longstanding this controversy would have been easily resolved. Title seven of the civil rights act of 1964 makes it unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge any individual or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation terms conditions or privileges of employment because of such individual's religion, that's been well known 1964 let's see that's 51 years ago. This law applies to both public and private employees but it expressly excludes some employees including magistrates, so, a few years ago the government the government employees rights act was passed that requires the same analysis for government employees like magistrates just correct with couple of the sanctions one they don't get a jury trial, and number two they cannot get punitive damages while under title seven the way it works out is that employee establishes a primo facial claim by showing a bona fide religious belief that means bonafide just means you actually believe it, that conflicts with an employment requirement. Number two, that the employee, the magistrate informs the employer of this believe and three that the employee was disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement. once that's shown the government then has to show that it could not reasonably accommodate this conflict, that's the law has been the federal law for many, many, many years. Two days or so after the federal court issued this decree that on marriage, the administrative office of the courts, send out a memo to all magistrate, judicial officials, everybody. That if every magistrate didn't conform, that magistrate could be suspended, fired and even subject to criminal prosecution and the Attorney General wouldn't defend them in correspondence just that month, the Head of the Administrative Offices of Courts told Senator Berger, you will know our memo stops short of saying that every magistrates in a county must conduct weddings, only that if any magistrate conducts any weddings, the magistrate must comply with
the federal citizens equally. Well that was pretty good wouldn't say they actually had to do them, and then correspondence with me a month later from the administrative officer of the courts, I personally tend to agree with your first point that a magistrate can avoid potential liability by not being permitted to conduct marriages at all. But even that position is debatable and requires the chief district court judge to taking away a power granted by the assembly. And then it goes on, I agree with your second point, it is not necessary that every seeking to be married be accommodated on the spot, but every person coming to be married is now entitled to be treat by our traditional officials just like others, seeking to exercise as the same right. Despite these concessions, the administrative office of the court the employer, refuse to accommodate these people I had a member of my community been a magistrate for 20 years, was the one who taught the younger magistrates how to do it, he was told, "you start doing it by such and such a date if not you're fired. " He held out doing the graveyard shift for a while I don't know how it finally turned out, but it was an employment issue. This conflict is completely unnecessary, this bill solves the conflict, without this bill, the state will be sued under GER- Government Employees Rights Act, it's already being sued by a couple of magistrates under the constitution and so what we're doing today, is just reasonably accommodating the positions of our employees we are doing what we were supposed to have done under federal law all along, people who want to get married can get married, they will not face discrimination, they'll be married. A few magistrates may decide not to do marriages at all. Personally, if I were a magistrate, I don't ever expect to be a magistrate, I wouldn't want to do marriages. You get called out, Friday nights, unless you just the court house, you get called out Friday nights to the rehearsal dinners and Saturday nights at the country club, and that's not the way I want to spend my time. But that's not a religious objection. We have to solve this problem, we can solve it today, we can send this to the Governor, and be finished with this particular [xx] that the administrative office of the courts caused last October. For what what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Mitchell rise? To speak on the Bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the Bill. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house, I naturally disagree with my colleague Representative Stam, because it does discriminate, it does cause people to discriminate. Let me give you just very the couple of simple examples, interracial couple comes in to the magistrates office to get married. At that point, the magistrate there or who, the magistrate there says, well I have a religious believe that interracial marriages should not happen and therefore, I'm not going to perform it. And then he goes to the next magistrate down the hall and that magistrate, all of sudden has the same religious belief that it should not happen. And that could happen in many instances where you have even religions, for instance a Baptist marrying a Methodist, that might be against somebody's specific religious belief. Now, how many of these acts does it take to make it known that you're being discriminatory [xx] Mr. Speaker, Persons who will. See if Representative Michaux will yield for a question. Yes. Will you yield for a question Representative Michaux? Yes. Representative Michaux, if I'm reading this right a magistrate couldn't on the spot decide based upon this particular couple in front of me, I'm not going to do this marriage. Doesn't a magistrate under this bill have to opt out of all marriages for a six month period? Yes he does, and he
can do it at the time that the situation arises. That's what it says. So the problem is that that individual is, first of all, the magistrate has sworn to uphold the laws that the State passes, that the government passes. And that if he cannot do it then that person ought not to take the job, but the fact of the matter is that you can use that phrase that, I'm religiously opposed to this type of marriage, right on the spot and then that person then cannot do any marriages for six months as I understand the bill. Why would you ask anybody who is a public servant to deny any couple the right to do what they want to do, and that's exactly what this bill does. Even carry it to the furthest extreme, if you decide that you want it as a legislator you wanted to marry somebody that was not a legislator, there could be a magistrate who has a thing about legislators and refuse, [xx] religiously oppose the legislators getting married. That's how far you can go with this situation. The other thing is that it's fresh up in my mind, in fact the more I stand here and think about it, the Bill we just passed a few minutes ago, that Bill about, the marriage licence not being recognized, sort of duck tails into this bill too in it, a little bit, seems though it does. It's a bad bill, it's in my estimation it's an unconstitutional bill because it sets up a situation where a group or a person can be discriminated against by public official. It's a bad bill and I hope you defeat it. For what purpose does the member from Buncombe, Representative Fisher rise? To debate the bill Mr. Speaker. The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman of the House, this bill is once again about priorities. Unemployment continues to rise in North Carolina as it did in April, and our focus here should be on jobs and education, and this legislature is going backward when it visits Senate Bill two. This is the bill that as Representative Michaux said could only be characterized as a vehicle that gives permission to discriminant. This bill says that, some people's rights matter but other people's rights don't matter. Our own Speaker said at the beginning of this session that we should be focused on creating jobs. Well this bill does not create jobs, in fact it's a job killer. This bill targets the LGBTQ community and bills like it in other States have drawn incredible opposition, from companies as large as American Airlines and Apple Oh we again force it to South Carolina as I said during the budget debate. North Carolina medium income was 38th in the country and now we will be following the 47th wage growth is still expected to be below low forecast but the most important thing to the people in this legislature is giving back to send the bill to senate bill two (xx) I said both know, thank you What purpose does gentleman from Lake Representative Martin, Grier Martin arise to debate the Bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the Bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members I'd first like to the bill presenter the gentleman from Union, on the civil way that he
has presented and debated this bill both in committee today and on the floor today. Second, I'd like to decry the rapidity with which this has been brought from committee to the floor today, that's something that I think has been a very negative trend in this General Assembly where the bill is seemingly not controversial, it's hopefully just a minor harm, but where a bill is this controversial we are really denying the people of North Carolina a chance to contact their elected Representatives and let us know what they think. I think we're only going to do this on controversial bills where we're ashamed of what we're doing or where we're somehow afraid of the judgement and the voice of the people, and I wish we were not doing it here, but here we are. So let me address a couple of points that the bill presenter made, he alleged I think that we are trying to create some form of religious test in order to hold office and nothing can be further from the truth we've actually had religious tests in North Carolina in the past it used to in be in North Carolina but the people we discriminate against were Roman Catholics and you had to be a member of the Protestant faith in order to hold office here you got admit to that at least that ladies and gentlemen was religious test for office holding. We've talked a little bit about reasonable accommodation s but in the end is an accommodation reasonable if it discriminates against citizens and yes ladies and gentlemen this bill is discriminatory it's couched in terms of equality that it somehow applies to all marriages just as several decades ago another type of test was used to discriminate against North Carolinian's a literacy test for voting it applied to folks of all races who had to "literate" in order to vote but we all know who that was aimed at and we all know who this bill here is aimed against also in spite of all the window dressing of equality on this make on mistake this bill has a discriminatory intent and let's talk a little bit about how that will practically play out and the gentleman from Durham Sherly[sp?] talked about this a little bit practically what could happen in smaller counties with fewer magistrates this is a greater risk but it could happen in any county if you set an appointment to go get married by a magistrate or walk in however the process is handled and you get there under this bill the magistrate could in that very moment when confronted by the same sex couple, and interracial couple a previously divorced couple whatever offends them, they can make a judgement right then, that they want recuse themselves and at that moment, give notice to the district court judge, and allover sudden the couple that if it set an appointment had cleared time off their calendar, made arrangements with their work for child care to come in, allover sudden has been told they cant get married. Now, there may be another magistrate available who is willing to perform that marriage, they may not be. But the point is that the same sex couple who comes in to get that marriage is going to have to wait longer than the heterosexual couple, that came in, and that way ladies and gentlemen is clearly discrimination. Mr. Speaker For what purpose does the gentleman from Union arise? Representative Horn Excuse me refrain from, Representative Martin yield for a question? Representative [xx] good friend yield for a question? He is my good friend and I'll gladly yield to it Representative Martin, when different classes of people are equally burdened, would you agree that that's not discrimination? That's not the case we have here different classes of people because of the practical fact and the aim of the bill are going to be treated differently. I'd be willing to bet you that a same-sex couple showing up with an appointment or showing up on the spot to get married is not going to be told that they have to wait until we can find a magistrate who's willing to marry them. However, I can guarantee you that there will be at some point in North Carolina a same-sex couple that shows up and is told they can't get married today unlike the heterosexual couple, they're going to have to wait a couple of days before they get married, and that is two classes being treated very, very, very differently. Follow-up. Follow-up. Follow-up question. Yes Sir. Does the member yield? Yes Sir. So, Representative Martin, you do understand that in the bill when the magistrate's presented to perform a ceremony the share their religious objection at that point and time, that they're barred from performing any marriage, right?
And then at that point in time, the system that's identified in the law begins the process to ensure that that marriage actually takes place, even to the point of it going to the District Court Judge to do that, to ensure that marriage. Are you equating a delay in time for, because nobody would be able to perform those marriages even if it's one magistrate that's in there they've accused, then no marriages would be performed at all through the magistrate's office. And are you equating a delay in time for equally disadvantaged classes of people being unconstitutional? To be clear, I am in no way saying or conceding that they're equally disadvantaged people here. In fact, the point I'm making is that they're absolutely one class is disadvantaged and what can happen is a magistrate who has had no problem performing heterosexual marriages, day after day after day is allover a sudden confronted with the same sex couple that magistrate realizes that they have an objection to performing same sex marriages, that magistrate then goes to the chief district court judge as provided for In this bill and tell them that they wish to accuse themselves for the six months periods, what happens then is the couples that come in, anytime in the day many time with there employers they come in and get marriage is told no, either this much, can't serve we've got to go and find someone or that's going to come back another day, now I do understand the law says that some day in the future and probably sooner rather than latter they'll get married but my point is they should not have to wait any more than a heterocouple should. Another point I'd like to make is when you're government employee you do have to make certain confections cause serve the public, in my other capacities as an army reservist have been ordered to do things I didn't want to do, have had do you think that I had a moral, objection to that hasn't been plesant but I took an oath to do it to serve the people and I gladly obey those oders indeed but in the end. Mr Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman from Maclineburg[sp?] rise to representative. You ask your representative Realwood Martin, was he here for a question? Representative Martin do you have a question? Yes Sir I will. Representative, in the military are you aware of religious accommodation for councilors and subjectors[sp?]? Yes. Another question? Do you believe that that religious accommodation is a good thing or bad thing? I believe it's a very good think and I also think you are making a tremendous mistake if what you are attempting to do is somehow equate the conscientious objector provision in our United States Military with this bill here, they are entirely distinct, and I will explain to you why. In order to be classified as a conscious objector in the United States Military, you have to sincerely object to war completely, you don't have, you cant just say I object to the war in Iraq, so therefore I'm not going to serve in it, you have to say that you object to war completely. The equivalent legislation here would be to say, to allow the magistrate to get out of performing marriages because they disagree with the institution of marriage entirely. As a conscience veteran in the military you do not get to pick and choose who you get to defend and you do not get to pick and choose your wars and we should not allow our magistrates to pick and choose which citizens they are and are not going to marry. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Yielded gentleman For what purpose does the black man from Wake, Representative Stam arise? The statesman of the 18th Century, Representative Martin do you yield to a question? Yes sir. On that point Representative Martin, you remember a couple of weeks ago Representative Adcock amendment on the execution bill to exempt physicians assistants from being participate in executions. You recall that? Yes. And her amendment did not require that physicians assistants not participate in medicine at all just that because it was against her code of ethics that she should not have to participate in this one procedure of taking the life of another person, what did you think of that amendment? Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman violating our rules and that he's presenting arguments under the form of a question both made sense as incorporating our rules
prohibit that. You don't have to answer you don't want. I'm trying to figure out exactly how to answer it, and I'm also trying to figure out the relevance and I think you could use his, one of his two times to speak on the bill to talk about that but I'm happy to try to answer a question about conscious subjected provision or magistrates also. Anyone else? Mr. Speaker I'll like to propose my amendment. Representative Arp, do you yield to a question representative Arp? Yes sir, gladly. I think the point I'm trying to clarify your distinction in the conscience of objectors status after, the point is being that the federal government makes accommodation for sincerely held religious believes in the aspect of the millitary service without violating any conviction of a soldier, but the question is, you said that it's different, but it's not different in terms of duty or effect. In this particular case on this Bill, the magistrate in fact does recuse themselves for a period of not less than six months and carrying forward indefinitely until they put in writing, to refuse to perform all marriages and so the effective is the same and the federal government has accommodated those sincerely held religious believes and interjection and I don't understand why you think that that's different in effect. So the difference is in the military with a conscious object to provision in order to be eligible to be granted that accommodation you have to have an objection and actually in the military doesn't even have to be a religious objection it could be a moral or other interjection to warfare completely, their is two different classes this is more than you wanted to know but objecting the work here completely or just participating in the war fair as a combat in which case she would serve as a medic or some other capacity the difference is the objection has to be the warfare in it's entirety you do not get to pick and choose their is something in the essence of being a soldier, sailor airman, marine extra that in the end if you going to be a fighter you don't get to pick and choose you have to agree to support the course their is a provision for religious accommodation to it but it's balanced, the same thing with the magistrate, if you want to be a magistrate if you want to have your salary paid by the taxpayers gay and trait of this state in the end just like being a soldier, in the end you have to do your job, and so again the difference is in the military with conscious and this objectors, you are only granted that after after an extremely exhaustive investigation by the way, that's not provided for in the bill we have before us today and I don't think any one would support something like that. If you can prove to the military that you do have a sincere objective to warfare and entirely, the couple provision would be allowing magistrates to not perform marriages if they are disagreed with institution marriage completely. The cap provision of the bill we have now where magistrate just get to opt out of performing marriages, if they disagree with same sex marriage exetra, would be a service member opting out of serving in the military because they disagreed with the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan but not warfare entirely. The military's come to a pretty reasonable compromise, one that's not at all reflected in this Bill. Mr. Speaker, see the gentleman we yield for before we're done, I want to give him a one warning, we have one minute left. Mr Speaker I'm going to regret for one yield to the lady, use my one minute to finish up, then apologize for that. Members in the end, in spite of all the legal talk about canjence subjector versus magistracy which is all discrimination, the legalities of all that and we are going to get to that accordance at some point. In the end what this comes down to is the point that I've talked about. That night shift salary is being paid by all North Carolinian's equally. Gay North Carolinian's, straight North Carolinian's, black North Carolinian's, white North Carolinian's, native American North Carolinian's, native North Carolinian's, immigrants etcetera., all citizens of the state of North Carolina, and it is uncounsible to say that someone who salary is paid for by all those citizens can turn around and deny they the services of the state.
I urge you to vote against this bill. For what purpose does the lady sorry arise Representative Stephens? To speak on the bill. The lady has the floor to speak on the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker and I thought maybe if I got a couple of questions I wouldn't have to speak. For me this bill comes down to something very very different, and I don't know how many of you are aware of this. But there is a difference in the word, Authority and the word Duty. Magistrates have certain duties, thing that they must do everyday in their job, but they're given the authority to marry. They don't have to exercise it. They never had to exercise it. I'm the magistrate before any Bill came up, that never married people 10-15 years ago. They just don't perform ceremonies. It wasn't a requirement of their job, it was something they were allowed to do. They were given that authority but they didn't have to do it. So when this Bill came up, I was part of the discussion with Judge John Smith is here saying, they only have the authority to do it, they're not required. He said that if they've ever done it, they now have to do it for everyone they're only authorized to do it, they're not required to do it. So, all will do is to testify and if you look at page 3 of the Bill. That's one thing it's clear, that the authority to marry, but that's not imposed as a duty. Something is always been done and something's always been required then there was some discussion about well, if the magistrate who won't marry them, then who will? An interesting sort of a side. My son-in-law came to me not long ago and said I have some former students who would like me to marry them what can I do is there some special circumstance in which I can marry people. You can go online and it's a non religious affiliated situation in which any one of us any citizen out in the world, can become a minister and marry people and it be valid in the state of North Carolina. So it's not going an issue that this people can't get married, that any person can't get married. I can go to my best friend and say would you become this ordained minister I'll be happy to give you the website anything else you'd like to look at pay this little fee and your best friend could turn around and perform your marriage ceremony. So it's not an issues that people can't get married, the question is we given people authority to do something but not required them, and now you want somehow to construe this you are required to do this. Yes if you decide you're going to perform marriage ceremonies you got to treat everybody exactly the same, but if you choose not to perform marriage ceremonies as a magistrate, you don't have to, your simply given that authority and that's what this bill is making clear. So I'd ask you supporting the bill. What purpose does the gentleman from Oldenburg Representative Alexander arise? To debate the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. First time I read the bill it was like jumping into the old way back machine and going back in time I'm old enough to remember the debate about interracial marriage and I'm also old enough to remember the sophisticated maneuvers that this legislature made right after the supreme court 54 pronouncement about change in the way we handle schools in the state so our legislature had say very long history of being extremely sophisticated in ducking, and dodging, and moving in ways that it would like to, to avoid the larger changes in our law. I also remember reading a newspaper, I guess it was in the late 60's maybe early 70's, where magistrate I believe who was in either Guilford or Forsyth County was presented with an interracial couple that wanted to get married in the state and that magistrate refused to do that. The magistrate was ultimately told that you couldn't do that, you couldn't refuse to marry somebody based upon their race regardless of how deeply held your belief was, and some folk in here are probably so young that they don't remember that there was a time when folks from the pulpits
talked about how deeply held the notion of separation of the races was in their religious beliefs, and then for some of the members who might have been magistrates also carried those beliefs to work with them, but we don't live in that time any more. So, the wayback machines should take us not back into the past, but should take us into the future by way of the present. In the present, any citizen of this State should have the expectation that any employee of this State who is empowered to do things that the legislature have indicated that they should be able to do, that any citizen should have expectations that that person whether it a magistrate or registrar of deeds, the police officer, whomever, that that official of the state should treat them equitably. Now if we were back in the late 60s and the legislature was presented with measure and it was couched in such a way that we were trying to give magistrates an out who didn't want to marry folk for based upon the interracial nature of their love, we wouldn't have any hesitation to come to a conclusion that, that didn't make any sense, it wouldn't pass constitutional mustard[sp?] and it would have been wrong I submit to you that this is just a modernization of that thought process. A way to create, and I don't mean to insult any magistrate, but it kind of reminded me a little bit of the old Jim Crow hero. Where in a sense we were about to create a classic Jim Crow magistrate. That didn't make any sense, that tends to go against the expectations of citizens of being treated right. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just an old urban undertaker, and because I'm not a lawyer, I cant engage in that sophisticated and aerodite discussion about what we did in 18th century or what's happening with millitary justice now at all like that I can just tell you that I was taught that in this bill of rights if it wallows a little bit and if he was maybe yellowish, is probably dark. This duck don't lie. We don't need this piece of legislation. It's not going to take me 15 minutes to tell you that I plan to vote no, I hope you'll join me in voting no, and I hope you'll decide that we don't need to go way back to the payers we don't need to create a class of Jim Crow magistrates that what we need to do is get on with the business of moving into 21st century. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier rise? To debate the bill Mr. Speaker. You have the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker and upfront with respect I do not yield any of my time to questions. Alanis Morissette has an album that says in a song isn't it ironic don't you think a little too ironic? The majority today seeks to pass a conscience clause bill giving special rights to two sets of public employee magistrates and assistant register of deeds as it relates to a single job duty, function, or responsibility. The performance of civil marriages of gay people. Well they say timing is everything but apparently not today on the House floor. This bill is put to a vote less than two weeks. After 62% of Irish citizens voted to become the first nation in the world by popular vote to make same sex marriage legal. And that it occurs just weeks before a highway likely decision the United States Supreme Court mandating the same resolve under the constitution of United States throughout the this Nation. If here we are engaging in what can only be described as a legislative rare guard action desperately seeking to fend
off history intensifying resistance for law and encouraging and continuing conflict of the issue of same sex marriage. How sad for all of us. because the result here will be nothing less than greater polarization of our Nation, another way under suit filing and injunctions, a continuing hate to the reputation and potential economy of the State, and most profoundly an inevitable diminution of the respect of the law. We got it wrong, legally and morally when we put amendment on the ballot. We got it wrong legally and morally when we passed it, as a State. Today we have the chance to partially correct those mistakes and get it right, but the deck is stacked. The outcome politically preordained on the floor and the institution hatrick will shortly be in effect. The issue before us today is which legally recognised marriages to be subject to an exemption so that a public official with sincere religious reservations about such unions would be entitled to refuse to facilitate their celebration without penalty. The answer for a variety of reasons is none, the proponents of this bill argue they posses no animus towards same sex couple seeking marriage services nor is this bill an attempt to veto their choice rather goes the argument the religious individual is unable to provide the service without violating his own conscious But where does one begin with that? First the fact that the objective that there is no animus even if it is true highly negates all of the harm, dignitary and otherwise caused by the refusal. In that sense proponents fail to appreciate the intent of liberty at state here the proponents of this bill just [xx] when they fail to recognize the dignity harm of being denied service, delayed service or simply having one magistrate set aside or another can take his place the policy behind senate bill 2 countenance is all types of and dignities creating the all too real possibility of turning gay couples into citizen [xx] with important government services being made more difficult to obtain because of the religious view of others. Second class citizenship is as unconstitutional as it is intolerable senate bill 2 just as amendment 2 years ago in Colorado struck down by the supreme court in Roma versus Evans is [xx] credicated on citizens here pubic officials at least in the amendment two in Colorado it was private citizens public officials religious objections to gay marriage but in [xx] the court rejected that rationale stating quote, amendment two classifies individual homosexuals and it does so not to further a proper legislated in, but rather to make them unequal to everyone else a State cannot do. A State cannot deem a class of persons a stranger to its own Laws. And neither today does a government judicial official get to deem a class the persons insufficiently equal to be served by him or her. In the end the government official has a classic choice to make. Indeed it's a [xx] choice do his job fully and fair under the law resign. Whether it is caused by his choice to be employed at the taxpayers expense by the state which means a [xx] has a duty to serve and uphold the constitution for all and not for some. Second official claiming to have religious qualms about performing of variety of ceremonies might make similar claims, about a lack of enormous. For example, in 2009 when the justice of the peace(xx) Luiciana, refused to marry an interracial couple, Beth Humphrey and Terrence [xx], and later resigned from his post when he was asked to so by the government of Luiciana, he said it did not stop the couple from marrying and certainly not to (xx), but because we believe such marriages were simply bad for children. Indeed similar argument have repeatedly been offered to justify this state refusal to recognise interracial union and same sex unions. And courts up holding (xx) laws used to base their decisions on the view of how children born to such unions would inferior children born in interracial unions, and were littered with arguments invoking God's will further recognition of the marriage. Indeed and loving versus Virginia, the trial stated court Almighty God created the white,
black, yellow [xx] and red races he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows he didn't intend for them to mix. And as a reminder of our state history, not for nothing, loving was decide in June of 1967 in our constitution wasn't amended until 10 years later. Suppose one ignores the [ XX ] arguments that have been used to justify the refusal to recognize interrelation marriages as Representative Alexander eloquently pointed out, well a separate question would still be, how does one justify an infighting and exemption for once and sincerely religious believe but not for others? The emplacement argument here is same sex marriages unlike interracial marriages, is a matter of right reason and easily distinguishable. But such me, if I can find any difference between that argument and the one advanced by the trial code in loving.government is required to be neutral among all religions and this argument fundamentally requires the state, here a state actor to live it's patch of government neutrality and decide which claims of conscience are better, which ones are truly immoral. This strikes me as nothing more than a majority rules test and that the constitution explicitly forbids. Third. For individual citizens as Representative Arp says are guarantee our religious freedom to believe as we wish enshrined in the first amendments, that amendment is a co-vision against governmental intrusion and coercion of that of the private belief. Here the majority stunningly seeks to completely invoke the amendment and to give government a first amendment protection against private conduct with which the government acting through its government officials disagree. How extra ordinarily bizarre. the founders must be turning in there graves. Magistrates are judicial officials, they are government officials and they swear on an oath to up hold the constitution to issue equal justice for all, and not to tear or reserve there services for preferred classes. Public officials authorised to solemnize marriages are like health care providers Representative Stephens, providing care to there patients. They are held to higher duty and the well being of those who seek the care of the services come fast magistrates and assistant registrar of deeds are state actors performing duties of their official capacity not in their individual capacity the judicial system is dependent on public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of our judicial officials and magistrate of the face of that system to hundreds of thousands of our citizens a magistrate swears to faithfully and impartially discharge all of the duties of the office at some not those that are preferred not those duties that mesh with magistrates personal views of justice or religion as the supreme court said in the employment division verse Smith. To prevent every individual to decide for himself which valid rational law can be ignored due to their own personal religious beliefs would essentially turn every citizen into a law himself times a thousand for a court official. Public officials simply cannot be allowed to pick and choice which part of the job they want to perform on the peoples dime and which they do not. For example could police officers decide to investigate crimes or not if the victim was gay, for an immigration official refuse to enforce border laws because his religion teaches him all strangers are welcome. Could public health officials decline to inoculate gay couples going oversees on a trip, could DSS workers decline to investigate domestic violence once because the couple is gay and how about a catholic church deciding he cannot under good conscious grant a divorce, the bill sponsors to say this bill is limited and the language is but the writing it creates is not and no confining principle exists to do so. When public officials do not make when public officials do not make solemnization of marriage available to all intentionally or by this partitive impact and application particularly more counties the resolve is constitutionally discriminatory this is exactly what this bill's intent is, to say this bill was designed without discriminatory [xx] is to forget its origins on an county court house steps, immediately following the four circuit[sp?] decisions to allow same-sex marriage for decision to provide legal covering opt out capacity for resigning magistrates. The point of equal protection is after all equal treatment and equal dignity to suggest everyone is treated equally under this statute, to suggest everyone is treated equally this stature, ignores the constitution mischief that is afoot couples just as it
does to gay couples is akin to saying in 1898, the law in issue Plusie versus Ferguson burden the right of white citizens to sit in the back of a railroad car. Senate bill two was no more designed to afflict heterosexual couples, than the 1898 law was designed to stop white citizens from sitting in the back of the train and to suggest otherwise conflict to the victim with the perpetrator and make some mockery of the legislative process in our history. Fourth and finally, some will said that this is akin to religious objections, an example not used on the floor but elsewhere is with abortion and the abortion analogy is particularly an opposite here because the doctor doesn't refuse an abortion for members of a particular group, he refuses to perform it as to everyone What is the issue here today, is a bill created and intended to allow refusal to provide a particular service from members of a particular group. All eyes as I conclude are on us today, as this bill is far more important than its title suggests. It speaks volumes about us a people. We are authoring history, and our decision today is of how this chapter will read. Show me who you work with and I'll tell you who you are. We as legislatures too often create laws that conflict and constrain yet the constitution comprehends the rights of all people. Regardless of sexual orientation to love and to marry individuals they choose. It demands not really toleration, rather whenever the state is in the business of marriage it's officials has affirm love and commitment of all couples in equal measure. Recognizing that right dignify's them and so doing it dignifies us all. Adversely, when we burden that right intentionally, or just despaired act of laws we enact, we diminish our fellow citizens, tear their equality, denigrate ourselves in the constitution under which we all live. In the end this bill does not resolve conflict, it heightens it. It does not prepare us for the Supreme Court decision to come, it begins the process of subverting it. It does not harmlessly accommodate, it destructively violates human dignity. And instead it chillingly reminds us of a not so distant past when the government could and did directly and indirectly create two lines of justice. By my vote today I will play no part in this newest abandonment of equal justice under the law. Thank you Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does Cabarrus Representative Pittman arise? To speak on the bill. You have the floor to speak on the bill. I wrote this down so I wouldn't take as long as I might otherwise. The thing I don't like about this Bill is that if a public official refuses to participate in a wedding for people of the same gender, that official is then not allowed to conduct any wedding at all for a time. I don't like that a bit. However, in spite of that objection I will vote for this Bill because it at least provides protection for certain officials against government coercion to participate in the celebration of something that they consider perverted, and morally unconscionable. It will allow such, excuse me, if we allow such coercion to prevail against public officials, how long will it be before the same coercion is applied to pastors or other clergy? This Bill attempts to pull us back from that slippery slope. I assure you that if such coercion ever applies to pastors and clergy, I'll suffer whatever penalty is incurred. if it means I go to jail, well, been there, done that. We must obey God rather than men, and I'll always shall To equate so called same sex marriage with all marriage is the point here. They are not the same Biblically and anyone who accepts the authority of God's word on the subject, can never accept the idea that marriage can never be anything other than as God created to be between a man and a woman. Interracial marriage is an irrelevant subject here because there's no biblical objection to it. In fact I object to the term anti-racial because biblically there's I believe only one race, the human race, and I reject the idea of separate races. That God created and defined marriage as between a man and a woman and no country, and no government, no court, no government entity I believe has the right to change it or to coerce anyone to disobey God in regard to it. We need to stop worrying about what other nations or corporations think of us or where we stand, and where our reputation is with them,
and get back to caring about what our reputation is in the sight of God. There's no way taking the authority of God's word seriously that anyone could support anything other than what He made marriage to be, and if will God be forced to allow this thing to happen, I don't know how much we can do about that, but we least not or not to be forcing people to participate when they believe that to do so would be to betray and be traitors against the kingdom of God, thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Rockingham, Representative Jones rise? To debate the bill. you have the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House I recognize that this is a very deeply held, deeply held views about this particular issue, and I don't believe that anything that I say or do or frankly that anybody says on the floor today is going to change anyone's mind. I think everyone got here today and they knew how they were going to vote on this bill. So the purpose of my speech is not to try to persuade, I don't know that anybody here is persuadable, but I am going to speak for myself and I am going to vote for this bill and I'm going to say why, and in doing so, I hope that perhaps there are others out there who share my beliefs in this state, who sent me here recognizing that I will vote the way that I'm going to because of my deeply held beliefs. And so maybe we can speak a little bit on there behalf as well I just cannot remain silent as the institution of marriage and the God who ordained marraige or subject it what I believe is a mockery and I'm not going to sit silent and allow the other side to try to claim the high ground the moral high ground. You have your detailed faith and your beliefs and I understand that and I'm not going to change that but I'll say that they are sincerely held religious objectives that ought to be taken seriously and not to be made a mockery of here. Now section one of the North Carolina constitution says that we are in doubt[sp?] by our creator with certain inalienable rights in section 13 says that all persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciousness no human authority shall in any case whatsoever, control or interfere with those rights of conscience the senate bill two attempts to protect the jobs of magistrates and assistant registers of deeds who sincerely held religious beliefs, prevent them from facilitating a so called marriage between persons of the same sex and I understand that the votes that are cast here today are going to be cast largely because you either believe that the so called same sex marriage is a good thing or is not a good thing and if you believe it's a good thing you belief the that magistrates ought to be forced to do it regardless that their sincerely held objectives. I didn't think that is so sad perhaps some have a low opinion of what a sincerely held religious objective is. I don't think it represents anything about baptists marrying Methodists or Presbyterian is there anything like that have never heard of such, I just think it is unfortunate that race has been made an issue here the in racial marriages analogies say what my friend from Cabanas said earlier, there are other service that can believe what the bible has to say that we are all of one blood and I think that God was right in that debate and prevailed and I think God is right in this prevail. If we are doing the war between the state President Lincoln was pointedly asked if God was on his side. And his answer is one that I hope we would all take to heart. Lincon said, my concern is not whether God is on our side, my greatest concern is to be in God's side, for God is always right. And so ladies and gentlemen and standing here and I will vote the way that my conscience leads me today, because first of all, I assert that there is a God. If you don't agree with that, then I don't think that anything I say from here on now is going to really matter. but I did believe that the vast majority of the citizens of North Carolina would assert that there is a god, and I would assert that God matters. You know founders for Michin, and it was said earlier. One thing I would agree with
that I've heard earlier from the other side, is about the founders turning over in their graves. I think they would turn over in there graves to recognise that here in 2015 we were even having to have, this debate after 6, 000 years of recorded human history, marriage pre-dates the state of North Carolina and pre-dates the American Union, it pre-dates Western civilization, although it has been a hole mark. But what we have seen in my life time, quit frankly, in the last 50 plus years, is an all out assault on the family, and on marriage in particular. It has been asserted that marriage is a right, just because you have someone you love someone, you ought to have a right to marry that person, and I would assert that marriage to someone that you love is no necessarily right. Most of us here, we would say that we love our mother, we love our father, we love our sister, we love our brother. but yet marriages to those are not a right, we don't allow that. Not yet, that will be the next thing. We don't allow polygamy so we might say that, I've worked more than one person, buts that's right. In fact what we are doing here is just part of the slippery slope against the family were against marriage that if you can water down or if you can change it in a certain way that it means nothing because once we go down that slow that you can just marry anybody and everybody then why not just have a group marriage and that's kind of what we will see and I think that is the goal not necessarily of any [xx] in this room but I do believe that it's the goal the circular last to destroy the family and to destroy the institutional of marriage. We've heard a lot about discrimination and I want to say once again wrongful discrimination is wrong. Most of us here we didn't need a vote of the people to tell us what is right and what is wrong. For some of us we find that in God's word, for other of us maybe we find it according to the dictates conscience, but you don't need to hold your finger up to the wind, you don't need 61% of the people of State of North Carolina to tell you what is right and what is wrong, but I will tell you that the term discriminate means to recognize a distinction. We are told that for instance that small infants can discriminate very early in life between people's voices, that's discrimination that's not a bad thing. If you are married and you're in this room you discriminated. You discriminated your spouse when you chose that person against every other person that you could have married, you made a discriminate toy choice that's not a bad thing. There are many forms of discrimination and we have seen forms of discrimination in our history, not only this nation's history but in world history, that were very wrongful forms of discrimination and I think every single member of this General Assembly would condemn that and say it's wrong, but to try to say that what I being done here today is equivalent of something like that is a fallacy. It's a fallacy to compare this issue with other issues from decades ago, centuries ago, times of human history. Ladies and Gentlemen we spoke earlier and some of you spoke very eloquently today about liberty and freedom. We talked about those who gave their lives, gave their last full measure of devotion to protect liberty. Ladies and gentlemen liberty is not just doing whatever you want. We read about that in God's Word word where it says that there's no God in Israel and everyone does what's right in their own eyes. That's not liberty. Those people didn't give their lives just so that everybody could do whatever they want, but in a society that has been grounded in a Judeo-Christian tradition, and that includes marriage, and if it offends anybody for me to say this I'm sorry, but God ordained marriage. Marriage was not established by the laws of the State of North Carolina, it was not established by the federal law of this land, marriage was established by God, and there are at least 500 references to marriage in the bible, and every one of those is for a man and a woman. If that offends anyone, I'm sorry, but it's true. As I said as a society, we seem to be moving further and further away from God, and his word, and his ways and that disturbs me, and I know it disturbs a lot of the citizens of North Carolina that are listening and watching this debate today. I will simply say the constitution of North Carolina is you read the preamble makes it very
clear that we assert that there is a God, and that he is the sovereign ruler of nations, and that we are utterly dependent upon his blessings. There are a lot of people that will get up and give a lot of lip service to God and they want to sing about God bless America. I believe in my heart that as we move further and further away from God, and from his word, that we can expect to see his blessings disappear. He has greatly blessed everyone in this room, and he's greatly blessed the state of North Carolina. As mentioned earlier that we needed to be concentrating on unemployment we don't need to be doing things like this. It's always interesting anytime we come up with a Bill that somebody doesn't like, they span something else that we should be doing. I was simply point out that the latest, I wish that there was a zero percent unemployment rate, and I think everybody in this room does. The unemployment rate is 5.5% today in North North Carolina. That's the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2010, it was 11.3 it has been more than cut in half. I think this General Assembly has devoted great attention, and many other policies that have been passed here that were so condemned by the other side of the Chamber have now paid off, and we've seen the unemployment rate more than cut in half and I think that's a great thing. But we've been told that this is a job killer. We heard the same thing, ladies and gentlemen when we passed the marriage amendment. How, it's going to be terrible for jobs in North Carolina even though nine of the top 10 employment states in the country had already passed such a marriage amendment in their constitution. We continue to hear such arguments and I don't know about you, but well I do we can look and see what has happened since that was passed in this state and unemployment has continued to come down. So we hear a lot of strong arguments we hear a lot of arguments that really don't or are not grounded in fact but I'll just close with this. There is a God, God matters I know that I'm accountable to him for my votes and I think there have been 2000 bills or close to it fault probably most of those bills most of the vote that I cast I don't know that I am going to have to stand before God and explain but I do believe I will in this one that marriage is important I believe that family is important I believe if we actually paid more attention to this that a lot of the issues that we deal with on a daily basis physical issues social issues are all the same the greatest marriage has been proven to be the greatest anti poverty, the greatest welfare system but yet we want to continue to see marriage degraded in our society I can't be a party to that I respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are going to vote opposite from me today but I just couldn't stand here and remain silent and listen to some of this arguments without at lest saying why I will cast my vote yes and why I believe that many citizens of the North Carolina will agree with that vote today so thank you. For what purpose the gentleman from Riley Rep. Reives arise? To debate the bill, You have the floor to debate the bill thank you Mr. Speaker and actually my debate was just going to have some practical issues and concerns I had about the amendment I mean the bill but I the issues would be greatly appreciated I wont stay on the issues definitely that Mr. Speaker I just struggle sometimes and I hope that the although 119 not friends on one side or the other but the other 119 understand how difficult it can be at times when we have discussions about bills, and you begin to hear the if you do not agree with my position or point of view then suddenly you don't believe in God. Suddenly you don't believe in a family, suddenly you don't believe in supporting the American way as opposed to maybe you have a differing opinion about an interpretation. So I would just ask the other 119 members to understand that it is a very delicate thing to challenge a persons relationship with his or her God based on a vote. Their is nothing more disturbing to me than what is happening in the last 10 years in is this country and this state, and our discussion about certain issues and suddenly it becomes those people over there, which gets me to the point of the bill Though the Representatives Alexander, Glacier and Mishell brought that. I understand that for some it has been decades ago, when there was an issue of race and it was being brought up and it come up in situations like these.
But some of us that's a pretty damn fresh memory, and so I do believe that it's a little disingenuous to just deflect by saying I'm not racist so therefore nobody will ever interpret this in a racist manner. Whenever you can go on google right now and if you type in interracial marriage, one of the first options it's going to give you is against God's law. And that doesn't mean anybody here feels that and I'm not one of those who would again say it because of your political position, that has something to do with your religious believe but I didn't want to say that. Now to what I wanted to talk about is, my concern is that this doesn't do away with the states performing marriages what it has done and from reading the bill correctly and we happen to be corrected, if a magistrate assign not to do this under this bill then they recuse to do more marriages for at least six months and at least being an officer this could be more, at that point in time the chief district court judge, is responsible for making sure that somebody's there doing marriage, which that's no problem in Guilford, [xx] and White County. There are smaller districts one of which I represent a lot of us represent about 83 of us probably represent but in smaller districts, we just don't have that many magistrates to choose from, so if two or three magistrates make this decision, not only are you undully bothering, burdening couples who at the beginning of this conversation this bill is not supposed to be about, you're actually undully burdening all couples, because at that point in time, any couple that wants to come in now has no magistrates to go in front of and they got away for ANC to bribe those magistrates or chief district court judge to perform the wedding. And I can't speak for all Chief District Court Judges, this came up in my dicussion with some chief report charges about some other issues that I think someone will like to see addressed with their relationships with magistrates, but the court judges I didn't have an opportunity to speak to our very against that decision because at this point in time if AOC doesn't provide them with a master pretty quick then the chief district court judge, him or herself has an upper hand on marriage, which unduly burdens the judges who already don't have enough resources that we've heard from our chief justice of supreme court, and so I would ask that we all take a note of the fact that the court systems are already overworked and we're now taking our chief district court judges away from very important issues, and this is an extremely important issue, but other important issues that they have been tasked directly to take care of and then now having to get to the marriage business am not sure what that bill does, and this bill to my reading again does not keep judges from performing all these masses along how many weddings as they only addresses magistrate and therefore I do think that is going to cause a burden on the system as intended, answer therefore the bill in this particular form I was suggested it may not be good to have a goal forward to this time, but again I would emphasis any position at anyone of us takes on the bill I think it's pretty difficult if you are truly a strong religious person or whatever believe, faith or denomination for anybody to attack you and say that if you don't believe as I believe or praise as they praise they say there's something wrong with you and your faith, and thank you and I hope we'll take these things into consideration for what purpose the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Floyd rise? To debate the bill Mr Speaker. You have the floor to debate the bill Mr. Speaker when I first arrive here this session I was singing the melody of jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs in district what my constituents send me up here for is to look at jobs, jobs for equal pay for equal work performed. Equal pay for equal work performed. My question is and it lies with, well if you have four employees in an office, and three employees or two employees are not to do a test, then will that place an undue hardship on the other two? Equal pay for equal work. Now, Four is going to be evaluated for a pay rise. Three and Four is saying that, I have picked up a large portion of One and Two workloads One and Two has not. So therefore, when it comes down to a pay rise I should receive a higher pay rise because I've taken on added and additional responsibility. When we talk about reasonable accommodation
the question lies within the CEO or whoever will it place an due hardship on that organization if we accommodate this belief will it, as Representative Reed has mentioned, but his district is a very small district, will that place an undue hardship on that particular court system. The other concern that I had when I read I was really impressed when I went over and read lines 9, and then 9 and 10 in Section 5 where it mentioned about what they could not do, and as I continued to read I look down there and see the best portion of the bill, I can resign but yet still get all my accommodation back towards my retirement. Now that's ideal for any person, that's ideal. I'll take that anytime. It's just like last night in Fayetteville looking at a hern and the question was asked, Would you rather have a doll pen next door or would you rather have a club? My response to the person, that's the main cloth lease a club that could be open from 10-2 the doll pen will be open all day, and so that's the choice that we have, equal pay for equal work, that's what my constituent is concerned about. They don't care about whether or not you're gay, straight or whatever, they certainly want equal pay for equal work If all of us are going to perform to perform certain tests, then all of us should receive equal pay for equal work. That's my concern. If the magistrate isn't going to perform the wedding, that's okay, that's okay, but look at the pay scheme that particular magistrate or magistrate that hasn't performed versus the one that is going to trigger that particular work load. And in my community that sent me up here for work they don't care too much about anything as long as the money run through their hands, thank you Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the member from Orange representative [xx] rise? To debate the bill. Lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members I have a really hard time not saying something when there's an implication that those of us who oppose the bill don't believe in God, and that the left has a goal of destroying the family and marriage, I've said before on the floor I'm a Baptist, and one of the doctrines in protestant churches in general is the priesthood of the believer, it means that God can lead me, I don't have to have anyone standing between me and God, telling me what's right and wrong or Holy and evil. I belong to Binkley Baptist Church, which is a welcoming and a affirming congregation in Chapel Hill, and I believe that those people who are members of that church also have the right to have our born being able to communicate and with God, to touch God to have God touch them, we are born creations of God. I believe that every one of the people, the members of our church who are gay. I had that experience too that they are in touch with God they worship in our church, they lead our church, they are religious leaders, they open our hearts and our eyes to what God loves. I think I said I think we are creations of God, and I said this at this committee one time, I don't think God makes mistakes in the way God creates a I think children are born either gay or straight. And now we're hearing more about children who are born with one body who know that they are another sex, another gender. They are babies and they
know, and I can't let this go by without saying we each have a right, we each can find our own way. We are told that we are created in the image of God. We are very limited human beings, and I think sometimes we create God in our image, and I'll vote no on the bill. For what purpose does the gentleman from Forsyth, Representative Hanes rise? Speak on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to speak on the bill. The constitution of the State of North Carolina. There's a part, some of you all have this on your desk, there's a part on maybe the third or fourth page, I just want to read it to you very briefly. During past 172 years, the organic law of this State has contained the solemn warning that a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. That's from the Declaration of Rights. When the representatives of the people of North Carolina assembled in Congress at Halifax on November 12th, 1776 the express purpose of framing a constitution, they possessed an acute awareness of the long and bitter struggle of the English speak in grace for some substantial measure of dignity and freedom for the individual. They loved liberty and loathed tyranny and were convinced that the government itself must be compelled to respect the inherent rights of the individual if freedom is to be preserved and oppression is to be prevented. In consequence, they inserted in the basic law a Declaration of Rights designed chiefly to protect the individual from the State. The individual, in this case gay couples, from the State, that would be us. Article 1, Declaration of Rights. Section 1, the Equality and Rights of Persons. We hold it to be so evidence that all persons are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights now among this are life, liberty the enjoyment of the fruits of their labor, and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution of the state of North Carolina thank you. What purpose does the gentleman form Wake Representative Grier Martin arise? To debate the bill a second time. You have the floor to debate the bill a second time. Thank you Mr Speaker members I spoke earlier about the essential unfairness of treating North Carolina citizens who pay the same amount of taxes for an employer at the state, but yet to have that employer turn on around and discriminate them. Something the gentleman from Rockingham's comments that wanted me talk about further on fairness, and let me first of all state that how much I appreciate the gentleman from Rockingham he and I the same faith it's lead us to opposite but equally passionate points of view on this issue and the constructive and civil way we've achieved debates initial which is so pasionate as a model to all this and when I seek to emulate what he talked about on this day on which we honor with armed services who have fought to protect our right and I agree with them on that but I want to talk about that a little bit further as it applies to this matter. I talked earlier about taxes and it's an obligation of every citizen to pay their taxes and we do it we don't always like it. It is fair for us to expect though that the services of government treat us equally. It's my personal belief that I don't necessary think it should be incorporated in law but it's my personal belief that every citizen in a free society has a morale and sacred obligation to serve in the armed forces of that country again just my personal belief, and whether you agree with it or not, think it's right or wrong, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are serving openly in our Armed Forces, and are fighting for our rights, and are in fact dying for our rights. So forget the unfairness of just
paying taxes and being discriminated against. How about risking your life, putting your life on the line for your country, and then showing up at a magistrate's door, all for that that magistrate will not marry you and your partner who waited for you while you were fighting, and perhaps getting wounded over seas. That is a moral wrong. For what purpose does the gentleman from Vance, Representative Baskerville arise? To debate the bill. You have the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill is regarding strongly and closely held religious believes, and I've got some strongly and closely held religious beliefs just like everyone else. Chief of them is to love my neighbors. To love them like I would want them to love me. I just think if on Sundays, folks get together and they go, wherever they decide to go. What if you walk up to the building of where you wanted to go, and they said, no, no, no no. We are not going to let you come in here because we don't accept your kind, for your sin is a sin that we won't allow in this building here on Sunday mornings. is that in line with all of the others teachings and beliefs that we [xx] spouse that we hold ourselves to? My religion says love people, says be accommodating to people, we had a coach that was here last week, that was, we admire and we talked a lot about coach Cecesk[sp?], and coach Cecesk[sp?] says that one of his folks that he looked up to is John Wooden. This is the famed basketball coach. Okay? Wooden came through decades ago and he had to deal with, he was one of the first coaches that he able to deal with athletes from different backgrounds different perspectives different creeds, and this is what John Wooden said he thought about in order to bring that diverse collection of athletes together, see that was just a bunch of athletes from California, New York, Texas, North Carolina all over the country but he brought them together, and this the idea that he said he quote, considered the rights of others before his own feelings and considered the feelings of others before his own rights. Now, I just do't think that the bill that we're about to vote on does any of that I don't think that bill is going to bring all these 9 million people in North Carolina together on one team so that we can be on one accord. I don't think that this bill is showing other people that we know how to love our neighbors here in North Carolina, and so for that reason I'll be voting No. For what purpose does the gentleman from Scotland, Representative Pierce rise? Speak on the bill. You have the floor to speak on the bill. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentleman, that we've heard a wonderful debate on this bill. I Just wanted to ask the bill sponsor a couple of questions first. Will the gentleman from Union yield to a question? Yes, I'll attempt to. Representative Arp, is that correct? My name? Yes. Yes. Representative Arp? OK, I just wanted to make sure I pronounce it right. Does the gentleman have a question for Representative Arp? Yes, sorry, Mr speaker. You may I ask the question. Representative, I just wanted to ask you you a question, you don't have to answer if you don't want, but, would you attend a marriage of same sex couples? I was invited and they were my friend and I wanted to be there. Do yo have another question? Yes [xxx] thank you [xxx] speak on the bill You have the floor to speak on the bill. Thank you.
Mr speaker, ladies and gentlemen, being a baptist minister, I'm put in a position sometimes that you've got the really waste subjects [xxx] when you discuss or talk about them and I will admit to you that before I make any decision, when it comes to spiritual matters one has to pray about it and there's no doubt about that and I know that you all realize that. When I think about our sons and daughters and that's why I wanted to ask the member a question that our sons and daughters come to us and tell us that they choose the lifestyle that many times many of us do not agree with Be told, but we've to support them with their parents, a lot of things we don't agree with, but they've the right as human beings to choose of for their lives and the thing that I've come to the conclusion, that I know that God is the ultimate Judge. He judges you, He judges me and He's the ultimate judge in any decisions that we make. Another point is that when magistrates put their hands on the Bible, like we do. They swear to uphold the constitution, of the state, United State or whatever, when they put their hand on the bible. Those who were heard once they put their hands on the Bible, I don't want to suggest to you that they're not lying. Telling a lie when they wouldn't uphold the constitution, because they raise the head and nobody made them, nobody put the gun to their head and they said I am willing to uphold the rules constitutions that are valid. These the vow that we pass here are for the citizens by the citizens which we don't want to use it. So we have our obligation, we might not like it, but just that's the reality of what we do here. When you look at this matter secondly, as a got in this minister, somebody borrowed that form well this ministers what happen to do with will. There are some ministers no doubt who do it even now. But if the church has by laws and constitutions as we talk about, that church decides basically, what can happen in the church, that minister has to write as some say it, to object to it, to do or not to do it so we do have the right I don't think we will ever come to the point, where a minister have to do this, I just want to spill that milk. But I think we deal with a very difficult decision here this afternoon, and I agree with everybody all over suppression of the issue. But I think when I think about the individuals I get to believe as I said, that God is the ultimate judge, he's going to judge each one and everyone of us on do your life what you feel to do and for us to think some way that we know was best for every individual. Although I want to stand with this 666 books talked about, cause I know the man who wrote the book talked about it, so I understand that, but at the end of the day anybody can change that, I know God is the God of law, and I know that He's a forgiving God. Yes we make decisions the truth be told, many of us have made some decisions, that we trouble ourselves and ask ourself, will God forgive me. But what I read since we all really have critics this afternoon, we've had some really preachy debates. I know when he went to Calvary like you guys said, He forgave for all of our sins and our transgressions. So I would say this afternoon ladies and gentlemen, let God be the ultimate judge on this behavior. He's the ultimate judge, but I think those who were elected to any position, we have to uphold the constitution of this state. We cannot pick and choose because I know discrimination, and I know religious practice. I know discrimination and I know religious practice. This is a form of discrimination, it's worse when you start choosing what you're going to do if you're a state employee. Now, if you're so well in doing something else, you can make that decision. It would be ugly if we decided this afternoon that if you don't want to do the job quit. I am not going to say that because that would be, I don't want the press to print anybody said that, but we do know you never know when what's going to change in your position, the job it can happen, and that's where we are this afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen I hope that we would just really consider this matter, I'm like my colleges, I hate that we are on the floor talking about a discussion an usual like this today but this year we all have to make decision, but I would hope the child would pigeon hole the God that I serve and tell me what He's able to do and not to do, none of
us in here knows the mind of God, if you are that great, I don't know what to tell you but none of us really knows the mind of God, we don't know his plans for anybody's life, we just don't know that, but thank you all for allowing [xx] thank you Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does gentleman from Illinois representative [xx] prepare for rise. Speak of second and final time of the bill. Briefly. Thank you I'd like to close by [xx] that this bill was rushed through, this bill had come to committee in February, we had a firstfull of it in March, and we had a second poll here and in committee today and then we've had several times to hear this over, it's almost three so, it's just not founded on the fact that it has been rushed if [xx] But in terms of the substance of the bill, this bill simply provides for the marriages to occur in a systematic and blind way, it's a neutral way, and in fact I'll read from you from the bill, and says the administrative office of the court shall ensure that a magistrate is available in that district for performance of marriages for the times required under that law. I see it, it's as simple as that. It balances the test between accomplishing the stated purpose of the government to deal with marriages, and provides for those who have sincerely held religious objections. It provide for the assistant and deputy registers to recuse themselves from issuing lawful marriages, if they have sincerely held religious beliefs. It provides for magistrates to recuse themselves for having sincerely held religious police while providing that those marriages will be performed, those marriage licences will be issued, and it seems like someone has stated that we have the right to pick and choose who our public servants are. We have no more right to order that our water meter reader, be of a certain caliber and character, than we do order up a magistrate. The end function is the function of government, that is the performance of the marriage done in a blonde way and this bill accomplishes that. Finally, as representative [xx] eloquently articulated and I appreciate your comments and several of you who were talking about their sincerely held belief, I'm a baptist, that merely matters, I'm a believer in the Lord or God, but that's exactly the point. Do you want to be fired because of those beliefs that you hold? Do you want to subjected to disciplinary action because those are passionately a part of who you are? The public absolutely understands and agrees wide spread agreement that employees should not be fired or be subjected to disciplinary action because of those who held beliefs and which is better, that we try to accomodate those beliefs in a rational non-buyers neutral way, or that we penalize people for holding those very religious beliefs that we all owe dearly. My friends and colleagues, I know I'm not going to change your point of view or anything, but I ask you to vote for this bill, and I ask to give it it's full support to balance, the test we have here, thank you. Is nearly five o'clock, before we dismiss the page, all the pages please to come forward at this time when the clerk calls your name please step forward and raise your hand Senator Apodaca, Yadkin County sponsor Rep. Zachary Carl Corbit, North County, sponsor, Representative Boles. Merlyn Doughlin, Camden County sponsor Representative Broady. Christine Hakney, Wake county,
sponsor Representative Robinson, Hobble, Wake County, sponsor Speaker Moore. Emily Ives, Orange County sponsor, Representative Mcgredy, Tom, Wake county, sponsor Representative Gill for south county sponsor representative Lambert, Emilly Neville Wake county, sponsor representative louise Harly Rid, [xx] Rick Ria, Wev Candys money, Sponsor Representative Dobson, [xx] Small, [xx] county, Sponsor Representative Steinberg, Jerk Stocks, More Candy, sponsor representing vows, Grand Ice-scream, Reconback Candy representative [xx]. We thank you all [xx] for being with us this week and your now dismissed for today and we look forward for seeing you tomorrow as this debate to debate Good day, Thank you for what purpose says the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Lucas rise? To speak truth on the Bill Gentleman has the floor to speak on the Bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker as I understand the juristic of this bill is about recluse from sown duties on bases of real religion, allow me to say that I hope that I've a religious background but for the same token I plan to vote no on this bill, and it's because of my religious background. I don't think that my vote is a definition of the importance of God and certainly not the destruction of family. I don't say this normally but I had a set of parents who were married to each other for more than 50 years is. I have been married to the same woman, in August will be 47 years, have three children who have been married to the same spouse for better than 20 years each so we believe in family, it's vitally important to us. But I also recognize that every individual in the society comes from somebody's family. I think we are missing that point and I don't have the intention of God I don't know if anybody has a way to see on the intentions of I do know that everybody who is supposed to get married is a God's creation, that I know so, I resign myself to the fact that there may be A difference between what God intents and what God allows. If we think about that let it, digest that. What God intents, and what God allows, I've heard a lot about the institution of marriage, and how it's really ordained by God. God in my opinion desires that we all get saved and enter into heavens gates, but I believe there is a hell somewhere, because God knows that not everybody is going to do his will. If there's a sworn duty to uphold the law, to me that's sacred, you uphold the law. Given that you decide that you can't do that, then the order of business is to resign, that would be the grateful thing to do, that would be the honorable thing to do so don't assume, I hope that I'm not just preaching somebody, because I know it changes my mind of votes but when someone cast his or her vote it's a
strong deliberation and it is hot quality that when does that an I certainly want diminish anybody else opinion and I hope that you would respect mine but I will conclude by saying that we are all but sinners and except for the grace of God there we all go. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland representative Floyd Rice Assist the the bill sponsor to yield for a question, Who is the Bill sponsor? Does the gentleman from [xx] Representative. Arc, does the gentleman yield to a question from the gentleman from Cumberland? Yes. He yields? Representative, given that this Bill only space is neutral but it has an adverse effect against a certain population of our state will you at some point in time not in statute, but in the first course hearing at some point print a document would be given to the adverse late person so he or she could understand what is taking place within this process? I didn't know what your question was. Will something be posted and in a way individual can view this statute, time, date, place, those types of things, just a synopsis, so when in that the person that applying that may have to come back would understand why he or she may have to make more than one trip. Well, I disagree with your premise, that this is discriminatory on the basis and I don't know if it's not going to be printed or not. Follow up Mr. Speaker Does the gentleman from Union[sp?] you too have an additional question for the gentleman from Cumberland Yes Given the test here I would like to suggest that something be posted in our verse course, houses to provide the person that applies the test of this Bill, Thank you for your suggestion but For what purpose does the gentleman from [xx] Representative Hager rise? To speak on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. The ghost in this room is unintended consequences. The phrase sincerely held religious objections is legally vague. There are other books, other creeds in this state, freedom of religion is granted to us by our constitution, this very body has spoken out against sharia law as something to be worried about. The can of the legal worms that this bill opens up is reason enough to vote this bill down For what purpose does the lady from Irredell Representative Turner rise? To speak on on the bill The lady has the floor to debate the bill. I tried no to, but as a retired clerk of superior court, I worked very closely with magistrates and I think we are selling them very short and [xx] county we have nine magistrates one has expressed the concern about presiding same sex marriage. She is been able to work through that process and has not been a problem she has done all all of the other minor duties that magistrates have, this is such a minute part of magistrate duties, and excuse me I din't, I shouldn't have said duties, should I? but this is such a minimal part of what they do. I've been a part of interviewing magistrates who will be nominated for the superior court, I've supervised the magistrates, I've been involved in their scheduling, met with them monthly, hear their concerns and resolve their concerns with other, with law enforcement agencies or whomever had complaints with them, and they are an honourable group. They try to do their jobs, and their job is like none other. We complain about one night, working after mid night, they do it on a regular basis. They work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Somebody has got to be there. They are ministering to law enforcement, bringing defendants before them during their first appearances.
Their salaries were frozen for six years too, and finally we were able to reward them in the last couple of times. Now we discourage their service and we sell them short. I've always tried to treat them fairly and I appreciate their expertise and their willingness to serve. Magistrates have asked for our help. As I said, one of nine in my county have expressed concern about this issue. There will always be went there to perform marriages they do have a schedule people cannot go for a marriage ceremony certainly in North county 24/7 they have to set up a time there are hours when they will perform ceremonies and that will still be the case case but there will always be someone to perform whomever wants to get married. This bill treats them fairly and I encourage your Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gillford Representative Blast rise yield for a question. Does the gentleman from Union yield to the gentleman from Guilford? Yes. He yields. Thank you Representative Mark I actually had one of the same questions is I think Representative Edgar had about the working of the bill and on 911 based the opt out is based upon any sincerely held religious objection yet the opt out is totally from all marriages does that religious objection have to be an objection to marriage in general or it can it be religious objection only to certain kind of marriages? Based on my understanding the bill in plain language it doesn't matter the is that you hold it and the reason for the objection is, you're sincerely held belief is your sincerely held belief the state does not intend to define what is acceptable or not is just that you hold it. Second question Mr speaker. Does the gentlemen yield to an additional question? Yes he yields. Then representative [xx] might be a can then to our, I think rule 24 that you can get pout of voting, no one is going to look over your shoulder and question whether it's a sincerely held religious belief simply you're stating that you have one as the basis for your opt out is sufficient? Yes, the sure answer is that is correct, and I that follows the legal precedents that I think we have in our court decisions is that, we are not trying to interject ourselves into that person's conscience and really say, Well that's rationally and reasonably held, but that's an irrational religious belief. We assume and take it on it's merits that that is a religious belief, and that doesn't entangle government into those private convictions. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak on the bill please. The gentleman from Gilford has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House. A lot has been said today, and when I came in I did not intend on speaking on this bill. I really didn't know we were going to take this bill up today. and I disagree with representative Johns when he said that everyone came in here with their mind made up on the bill, I sincerely did not and I on the scramble been trying to we the particular bill and as much as I would like to debate, the subject of gay marriage in general or whether some discrimination are not what we have, is this bill before us and not the generalized subject, it is a rather simple bill, I think I have been able to digest it and I didn't still have some quorums because I think is not the way I will address the situation and I think there is going to be some problems to walk through, but I would point out to the body, this is not something a lot of us wanted to deal with and have thrust on us, this is a reaction to something that came out of the blue, I think last over the last September and the court suddenly said, you guys are going to do this! Like it or not, you are going to do it, in fact you are going to like it, is the attitude of one side of this, and Representative Fischer and Glazier, I would rather not be dealing with this Bill today, but I would point out to you, the Left is
the aggressor in these culture wars and they are pushing, pushing, pushing and basically saying anyone who has any philosophical religious objections to it, tough you got to get over it, and you got to participate in this ceremonies, and I think we could reach some good accommodations moving forward given what the court said, if there were a willingness on both sides to actually reach an accommodation, that, you could, and I think this is an attempt to reach an accommodation. You'll be able to have your marriages regardless of what anyone else in the state or the majority opinion in the state might be, but we are not going to force those with sincere beliefs to participate in the ceremony. And I do think that's been denigrated into some sort of hatred and discrimination that some people don't want to be forced to participate in the ceremony. So, they would be unsatisfied now that there will be some way for someone, a couple that wants to get married that is recognized by the courts now, even though I may disagree, it's recognized by the courts, there would be some reasonable and reasonably easy method that they can move forward with that ceremony. So I think some of the history onyx and the doom saying are not opposite for this situation again, I will not be surprised if there are not some difficulties. I do think some of the smaller register of deeds officers have a legitimate worry what happens if everybody opts out, I don't think that will happen but that we'll see going forward but this is some what legislation on the fly[sp?] because the courts suddenly came here and over turned 3000 years of human and it's going to take some time and. The gentleman will suspend. For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Michaux rise? Will Representative Blust yield for a question? Yes, I will from Gilford yield to the gentleman from Durham? He yields. Representative Blust, the court came in and made some other folks do some things they didn't want to do too several years ago you think that was wrong? No, let me not say that's wrong or right even though in some I might disagree with the court, but whenever the court simply made small like that and sometimes when we do there's a period of time when it takes time to get used to things and it takes some effort to figure out how we actually going to implement this law. One follow up. I yield. Does the gentleman yield to an additional question He yields. Well, then the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Voting Rights Act of '65 were forced upon a lot of people who didn't want to do it, and it took some time for it to be worked out. Don't you think maybe that we're moving ahead a little bit forcement to just not do anything with this until people get used and I agree with you on that very issue but I would point out that those were done by the people's duly elected representatives in the Congress. That was the legislative branch changing the law, not the judicial branch, and in this instance we have a judicial branch suddenly saying this is going to be the law, so it's going to take some time to work things out I think. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond, speak on the bill. Well, the gentleman has yielded the floor, so the gentleman from [xx] would like to debate the bill. Yes Sir. The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. There's two version for everything and several other cases that came down through the years collonated and those laws being passed, no it wasn't, it was court action that caused a lot of those to be passed and didn't originate in the congress. Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland Representative Floyd rise? To see if Representative Louise or the bill sponsor will yield for a question. They do not yield. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg, Representative Canningham rise? To speak on the bill. Lady has the floor to debate the Bill. Thank you, if I was sitting Here, and thinking about the conversation that was going on in the chamber, I thought about what I saw on television the other day while I was at home, and it said that, this coming year, that the Millenniums would be the largest population. So, sinners would no longer be the largest population. So, as forward thinking I'm, I thought about how I'm hearing people talk about God
and religion, and I thought to myself I don't even allow myself to be called religious, because I consider myself spiritual in nature, and I've a direct contact with God that no one else can possibly give me that. So, I consider that very personal. That's very personal entity part of my life, when I discuss those things is personal, I don't discuss them with everybody. and I think the next generation come along is going like they're going be just like that, they're going to say this is my body this is what I believe and this is what I'm going to do whether you like it or not and we've seen that happen across the country and I don't consider that a left or right I'd consider that the next generation are thinking independently and are making personal decision about the direction of their life and where they want it to go. Now I listen to a lot of Doctor Duane Dwyer and I have mentioned him before if I look at self and can see me on the ground we are nothing but ants when God look down on us we are ants, we're little of nothing but when he created an habour and you have to think about The nerves. The nerve endings in every little detail he did to Albo. He did that to all of us. Not one particular group, not one particular individual, but all of us have something intrinsically different, intrinsically special about us. So that other people that we say those people, it's not of those people, we're those people. Lastly when you start talking about people a universality, that's what make people come together and be as one. It's the creation of universality. It's not that I'm not like you and you're not like me. In 1996 when I was earning my associate degree they brought to our attention that in 20 years we will not be able to look at people and tell what their race was by their skin because that change has taken place so fast with the inter-racial mixing you're not going to be able when you look at people without safety, I cannot support anything that does not create a sense of universality. Mother Teresa stated, someone asked her, would you please come to the protest. She said no, but if you ask me to come for peace, I will be there and I do not see peace in this piece of legislation, so I cannot support it. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman speak to the bill. The gentlemen has the floor to debate on the Bill. Thank you Mr speaker. First I'm just a little frustrated that we are here, seems like, this should have been something that ASC could have accommodated and work with on, and unfortunately it's been passed on to us and Representative Baskovile, my good friend here spent some time in Indian and with, I think coming together in accommodating people is exactly what we are talking about. And so I think this Bill as Representative [xx] mentioned may not be perfect, it probably has some things lost, so thinking about but, I thought about other situations even the government situations, if I was the district attorney and and I had number of assistant district attorneys, and I had a very good one, who happened to be against the death penalty, maybe he is catholic and he says to me, I think the death penalty is wrong and I there, I think if I was the leader, I would say, hey, have got a great assistant secretary I want to figure out how I would accommodate him and I can have somebody else do that that's what accommodation is all about, is taking all of us who share different views and deeply held religious views on both sides and figure it
out how to accommodate and, although I don't this bill is perfect, I do think is a reasonable way to help us work together and accommodate different views, and so I'm going to support it. For what purpose does the gentlemen from Mecklenburg Representative Moore rise? Speak very briefly on the bill Mr Speaker. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. I've sat here an listened for the last two hours or so and I don't support this bill and I'll you my reason why, first of all, what I see with this particular bill is a backdoor way of serve-ling a very controversial policy thus now the law in North Carolina, we went into the process of amendment 1, we went to the process of appeal and now over the objections of so many in this table same sex marriage is a law in North Carolina and so if you are a public employee of the state of North Carolina you are bound to submit yourselves to the law of the state of which you preside and which you work for and that's the plain and simple factor Representative Arp, good friend of mine, he said that this is a very simple bill, it surely is. This bill is designed to subvert, there again, this particular law which many of us object to. Now let me just say this personally, same-sex marriage is the law of the land. It's not a particular lifestyle or a particular situation that I personally would choose for myself, but it's the law of the land. Our citizens of this nation and this State, have the right to be treated fairly and equability no matter their race, their religion, their sexual orientation or or anything else they are our citizens we are their representatives while their LGBs straight gay whatever the case maybe and so we have not only our moral obligation, but we have a duty as julise one representative on the state of North Carolina to protect their rights even if we personally don't agree with their life style or their choices thank you for listening. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake representative Stam Ras Speak second time gentleman, has the forward to debate the Bill the second time Mr. Speaker members of the house unlike some others I do desire to persuade you to change your vote to yes I'm not making the speech for the television cameras secondly, I don't think it is necessary or even perhaps desirable to decide this vote based upon your theology of marriage whatever it is. Instead, this vow comes down to what you think of the constitution and the employment and discrimination laws of the United States of America and what I'd like to do is just look at a couple of the profound ironies in this debate. The term magistrate in our society is the lease high judge but the term in history the term magistrate can refer to the Chief Justice as the supreme court of the governor or basically the governmental leader of the nation. What is the most solemn duty that the government does, ever and I think many of you would say, when it imposes the death penalty for whatever purpose. Murder., now with death qualified judge, we ask them before they are admitted to be judge if we show you all the evidence that's in the case can you vote for? And only those who say yes are allowed to be on the jury. Is it really the position of the opponents of theirs that we should death qualify the trial judges will, because our will says that if that jury comes back and says death, then that judge shall impose the death penalty. If there were one of
our, I don't know the numbers of pure court judges, 50, 60, 70, if one of those had a sincerely held religious belief, then that judge could not impose the death penalty for murder, no matter what. Should that judge be impeached and removed from office? Should that judge be subject to the judicial standards commission? Obviously not! We would accommodate that AOC would send them to hear civil cases, hear only robberies and rape we won't do something so foolish as to get rid of a judge just because of a sincerely held religious belief, that's one irony. Representative Brian mentioned the district attorney, assistant district attorney who could easily handle other cases, but no we are going to fire that person because they won't do one thing they can't do. That's one irony. The second irony is that the party of John Kennedy, Linda Jones and Hubert Humphrey apparently does not like the title seven of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because this Bill is based upon title seven of the Civil Rights Act of 64, let me remind you of the predicates. Sincerely religious belief, informs the employer of the belief, disciple for failure to comply with conflicting employment requirements, and if so, there has to be shown reasonable attempts to accommodate. Now, gear up magistrates are not service titled seven because they are subject to a parallel federal statute, but a sister register of these would be subject to Title 7, and we actually have a case out of all, and I didn't side it because it's a district cases only a magistrate, but, looks at a Title 7 case of assistant Clerk of court who didn't want to process partnership registrations and organ, and they looked at, did she seriously believe this? did you communicate it o the employer? Was she disciplined? Yes she was fired, and then, was their an undue was there a reasonable way to accommodate?. And they looked at all the issues that Representative Reeds and Floyd looked at, Representative Tuner mentioned this the marrying duties of a magistrate are trivial as far as the number, as far as the total duties of a magistrate. It would be easy to accommodate, but our foolish administrative office of the court refused to do it, so we have to do it today. I urge you to vote yes. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of Senate Bill 2 on its second reading. Those in favour will vote Aye, those oppose will vote No, the Clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine will record the vote. 65 having voted in the affirmative and 45 in the negative, Senate Bill passes it's second reading and will without objection. Objection. Bill having been objected to, Bill remains on the calender. Representative Brown, Jonas and Lambert are recognize to step forward the community report prepare for read. Representative Brown, Jonas and Lambert health committee report, senate bill 286 regulate the sale of e-liquid containers favorable and refer to commerce and job development Bill re refereed to the committee on commerce and job development. Senate Bill, allowing sitting for food [xx] customers, favorable house committee substitute, unfavorable of committee substitute number two I refer to farmers and job development members for your planning purposes tomorrow, the Chair believes there are a couple of Bills in local government, if those turn out to be noncontroversial, they may be added to the calendar and I believe their are two bills in advance committee that I am informed are relatively non-controversial so the chair would intend more than likely to have the two Bills from Finance and the two from the local government to tomorrow's counter, so members who have a interest in those Bills and want to peruse those would be advised to do so this evening and tomorrow the, I believe some committee Chairs may have committee announcements, I would inform the Body that the House will convene tomorrow at 11 AM. For what purpose doe
the Gentleman house committee of finance meet tomorrow at 8:30 am at room 544 two Bills, House Bill 385 and House Bill 698. To what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Torbett rise? Speak to a point of personal privileged Mr. Speaker thanks [xx] It is a real opportunity we get [xx] speaker Our state mate brings us and I want to let you know that Jord Jordan and myself have been state mates for the last five years, and he continues to bring me joy. His knowledge of the law provides me a different outlook on serious issues that we address and I respect him for his legal brilliant mind. He provides us whole area with joy. Mr. Speaker. I will not yield Mr. Speaker. I wonder if we maybe get them a magistrate. The house will come on floor, the gentleman from Gaston has the floor to for some purpose. Thank you Mr. Speaker. It's his joy that he brings the whole area over here that's obviously the same joy in the form of a bundle that he brought to his mother on the 26th day of May just a very few short years ago. So I wish you would join me in congratulating my seat mate and friend Jonathan Jordan for his birth on this 26th of May. [applause] For what purpose does the gentleman from Onslo Representative Shepard rise? Thank you Mr. Speaker for a moment of personal privilege. The gentleman is recognized to speak to a point of personal privilege. I'm certainly not going to go into all those sorts of details, but anyway, my seatmate also had a birthday this weekend and it's a special weekend, his daughter graduated from high school and she's enrolled at Liberty University where his son also will be attending, and so he's had a great weekend a great memorial day weekend and so I ask you to stand and wish representative [xx] Jonnes happy Birth day. For what purpose does the gentleman from Stokes Representative Holloway rise? For a personal privilege. The gentlemen is recognized to speak to a point of personal privilege. Thank you Mr Speaker. It's kind of difficult to have to stand up and say that we didn't bring the trophy back home with us yesterday. We did travel to South Carolina and played a very tough fought game. We lost 66-63, I would question maybe the referee a little bit and I think maybe some money may have been slipped under the table to them prior to the game, and I'm teasing. But we played well long hard fought game, Representative Dompson he lead the way, I think he had 23 points force and so we did perform well, but we just came up little shot, but we will get them next and we will be sure we pay the referee off for offside when they came up here so, thank you Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman from Rowen Representative Ford rise? on announcement. The gentleman has the floor for an announcement Thank you Mr. Speaker. Local government will meet in the morning at 10 A. M in room 643, we have three bills For what purpose does the gentleman from Transylvania, Representative Whitman rise? Announcement, The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. The Homeland Security Military Veterans Affairs Committee will not meet tomorrow, I just wanted to make sure, we will not meet. Further notices and announcements The gentleman from Hornett representative Louise is recognized for a motion. Mr. Speaker, subject to re-referrals of bills and the resolutions, I move that the house adjourn to reconvene Thursday May 28th in 11 O'clock A. M. Representative Louis moves seconded by representative That the house adjourn subject to the re-referral bills resolutions. To reconvene Thursday, May 28th at 11 A. M those in favor will say aye, those oppose no, the ayes have it. We stand adjourned.