A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | May 27, 2015 | Chamber | House Judiciary Committee

Full MP3 Audio File

I'm from [xx] area That's a big area alright. Who's your sponsor? Josh Dublin  Okay, that's why it's good I'm from Charlotte North Carolina and my Representative is Charles Jetter. And what grade are you in your school? I'm in ninth grade. Glad to have all three of you. We have our Sargent At Armed, Mr. Berry More, BH [xx] and David [xx]. Today we're going to take up Senate Bill 2. This is not a new Bill to our committee, we've heard on March 4th we met for about an hour and a half on this bill to seek and get public comment on the bill and at that time we had a number of speakers who spoke against it 1 2 3 4 and then we had 1 2 3 4 speak in favor of it. So today, we will have the bill explained again by the staff, and then we will have debate among the members. Miss Churchill, if you would go over the bill. Right now with marriages, the Register of Deeds issues all Marriage Licenses so the two individuals can marry. The magistrate's office in each county can actually perform a civil ceremony or a marriage. The bill would allow all assistant registrar of deeds, all deputy register of deeds and any magistrate that has a sincerely held religious objection to performing a marriage to recuse themselves from that portion of their duty and reccusal will be active for at least six months then must be receded in writing. If all of the magistrates in here  will recluse themselves from the civil colony process, the teachers and organizers will demonstrate off the report the twin sisters record [xx] record most of all they walk out of plan to make certain [xx]. There is a master   available in that county [xx]. Representative Ayotte will be the one to carry the bill and explain the bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm a poor substitute for the Bill's sponsor so be bear with me. I was informed just a short time ago about this. This Bill, let me establish the need first, the administrative office of the courts has issued a letter stating the disciplinary action from that registered deeds for magistrates who fail to perform these civil services even in-spite of their religious objections there were several members who attempted to get clarification and the AOC stood by their ruling. That's what prompted the need for this bill and what this bill does is provide a delicate balance that accommodates the religious needs and the religious sincerely held convictions of magistrates and assistant register of deeds with the law that requires them to perform these civil services. This is the framework which I believe was in the purview of AOC to issue but has not done so and that's why were here today and what this does is, we've heard a lot of talk about this being discriminatory, in fact it is not discriminatory what it does is actually ensure that the marriages and the civil ceremonies, that the marriage licences are issued. It ensures that the civil ceremonies will be performed, and it outlines the process by which we balance the sincerely held religious beliefs of the employees and the duty of the state to perform the civil service in marriages. This is exactly what's required by the constitution of the United State, I have state constitutions in several federal statutes even. What this does is allow us to move forward in a thoughtful way, with a narrowly tailored solution to provide

for these balances and with that, I will take any questions. Are there any questions for the bill sponsor? Representative Bill Martin. Thank you Mr. Chair, Representative you mentioned that the U. S. Constitution would require this. Where would you contain the source of that constitutional mandate comes from? Well, I think first numerator writes, in the first amendment. Primary religion. Follow up Mr. Chair? A follow up?  Sure. Thank you Mr. Chair. Are there any court cases that were backed up that are searched in the Supreme Court and interpretation in the constitution? I'm not Can you answer that? I think So a comment, staff has confirmed that the first amendment does apply for freedom of religion, we all knew that, a more practical question Mr chair? So I'm trying to figure out how the session plays out on the ground, in the margin's office, same sex couples come in and wants to get married, is it possible that they would not be able to get married in the same time frame as an opposite sex couple? I think the law envisions that argument and provides for a minimum, a set number of hours to be performed. It anticipates that this religious objections that are put forward by the magistrates, has to be done so and it's time to refuse to all marriages and so the process and system is in place and I think that you know the chains of the laws that ineffective it is that homosexual couples seeking to be married, heterosexual couples seeking to married Would be treated the same, and this law goes real far into trying to achieve that, by setting down procedures ahead of those instances where they present themselves to ensure that. Follow up Mr. Chair. Follow up. Related to that procedures in advance, I am concerned actually that same sex couple could show up and all of a sudden the magistrate in question could decide that he or she did have a sincerely held religious objection to that and recussed themselves on the spot. Does this bill permit that reccuse, instant recussal. This bill doesn't mandate the conscious action of the magistrate. I don't think we can pass a bill that tells a magistrate at all what to do. When they have those false convictions I wouldn't dare to venture to say. Follow up Mr. Chair. Follow up. Thank you Sir, so it sounds like Same sex couple could show up say where I think the problem would be more acute in a counties with fewer magistrates more than sparely populated counties but potentially in bigger counties. Same sex couples can present themselves asking to be married and the magistrate assigned from that marriage could decide that they did in fact have a sincerely held religious objection to performing the ceremony and recussed themselves on the spot. It seems to me that if that was the only magistrate there, performing marriages that the same sex couple that came in would've some practical barriers to getting married under the same time table that a same sex couple would. So you're saying that you believe that the heterosexual couple will be treated differently than the same sex marriage couple. I believe that we're setting ourselves up for that to be the practical effect. Yes sir. But the bill has an accommodation in it, to allow the same sex couples to be married in the county. It may not be at that instance, but it will occur in the counties, so t's not like they're been turned down, they're as I understand Ms. Churchill, they're times, how does that work? [xx] welfare secure the couple

religion objection and then that recusal is in effect for all marriages preformed by that magistrate for a minimum of six months. In the contrary, anyone presenting the hearing to the court magistrate, is accorded the right hearing before magistrate So the accommodation then would allow the couple who comes in to be married the matter be made that instance that the District Court Judge knows that particular magistrate isn't going to be able to perform, will not perform the ceremony we have this case all the time, I would love that the government would, I work in the construction industry and we submit plans where I would love to get an answer right away, but the government has the time to react but its not [xx]. I think I'll comments on the Bill Mr. Chairman. So I think we have established that under the bill as written. The magistrate could make the decision to accuse him/herself in the instance represented with the same sex couple today would they object the exercise to legal right to get married and there it is possible, more likely in a smaller county but it is possible that there will then not be a magistrate available to perform wedding for that couple if at the same time as magistrate will be available for a heterosexual couple so it seems to me there's really two problems with the Bill. One is that that is clearly discriminatory, but two [xx] that, I wonder if we could look at ways to tweak the Bill, not in a form that I think is still, not discriminatory but at least could mitigate some of this type of discrimination that, with prior planning, could be avoided. Representative Monarch I think your premises is on the floor, once the magistrate refuses themselves they refuse it for all marriage, so homosexual couples seeking to be married at that time as well as heterosexual, are equally disadvantaged, there is no discriminatory act there, under the law, when the magistrate refuses, he'll be accused of all marriages? Respond to that Mr chair, I didn't see any other hands, I don't want to [xx] the floor so, You're doing fine, so If I'll respond to that then happily should happen, I should wait my turn, but the problem is that I think, we will all have to the other [xx] who were there, you have not [xx] to recuse themselves are almost certainly going to be available to perform heterosexual marriages even if their not, same sex marriages. I mean, I think that's the reality of the circumstance and goes to the intent of the bill. Wouldn't it be available to do the homosexual marriage [xx] If I may Mr. Chair Sure. The concern, I think, the intent of the bill is to address magistrates who want to recuse  themselves because they do not want to perform same sex marriages, and I think folks on all sides of the bill would agree that that is a practical matter as to why magistrates are going to choose to recuse themselves if anyone wants to deposit some other reasons why they might want to recuse themselves I'm happy to hear what realistic objections they might have. But say we have a small county, where there's only one magistrate who has not recused him or herself out of the few magistrates that are there and then they're presented with the same sex couple, and then they choose at that time, which the bill allows them to do, in that instance, that they're going to recuse themselves. same sex couple does not the same ability to get married at that time as heterosexual couple. Neither does anyone else have the same opportunity because if he recluses himself, that he cant marry anybody for six months. So, no one can get married? No one can get married. That where the district courts steps in and ensures that happens in a normal positive governmental business and upper for business during those days and so, there's no disproportionately burdened class of people. Representative Paul. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I've got several questions, and I guess I'll follow up on Representative Martins question just on the availability of magistrates to perform ceremonies and I think you said they can perform them for heterosexual couples immediately, in the Bill that seems to say that if a magistrate in a county recuses himself then that seems to trigger a procedure that says, from that point

on there would only have to be 10 hours a week that magistrates would have to be available to perform same sex marriages, so it, can you explain to me why the 10 hours per week was put in, and if that is not in fact triggered once a magistrate says, I have a religious objection, then doesn't the bill say from that point forward the requirement is that they provide 10 hours a week, not 8 hours a day, or 10 hours a day, or whatever the normal time is available for heterosexual couples? [xx] I apologize if I was creating confusion. The requirement for the 10 hours per week [xx] [xx] okay, followup. So you are saying this Bill says that you only have to provide same sex couples the opportunity to be married 10 hours a week over three business days, and there is no greater   It is applicable to all civil fair it is just not same sex couple it is heterosexual couples as well. It is setting a base line minimum for every magistrate in office to provide 10 hours per week every three business days. Right now there is no such minimum that the general assembly can set (xx)  for when it is available for the margistrate to perform across the state. Okay follow up. And I do have a serious question Mr. Chairman. You may ask. So, let me understand this, now we have said that even though we were paying benefits to staff offices across the state for 40 hours a week or whatever. The marriage ceremony access only has to be 10 hours a week their [xx] it's same sex couples, in other words, as long as they're provided 10 hours a week, of same sex couple, [xx] civil ceremony, offer security since it involves the whole ceremony. And there's no requirement that they provided during a regular business day, five days a week. And at least three business days per week. Does the administrator of the office of the courts control this current schedule? Report, someone from the administrative courts, might be better suited to answer but my understanding is it's very bi court district that, there really is no that minimum versus maximum standards [xx] from morning till 10 AM, it is a pretty much [xx]. Is it true true that the chief district court judge would sentence Follow up. How did we come up with the magic 10 hours? Was there some survey done, did it confer to. Did you check with the senate? I think the idea certainly is to provide a minimum flow of hours and days, and I don't know that that's unreasonable, with what the senate has chosen to incorporate in this bill. Alright, continuation Mr. Chairman, I've got a question of the oath, and of course the people who are listed in here as having not to do the duty they took an oath to do, all took an oath, are we changing the text of the oath so that they can say I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of this office except for when I don't feel like it. I mean are we changing that or. Is that a rhetorical question or.   I'm asking, are we changing the oath? I'm reading the oath, it says, I would faithfully and impartially discharge all of the duties and so I'm asking, are we changing the oath now to say I'll discharge faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties except when I don't feel like it. Let me ask you a question says I do solemnly swear and affirm that I will support and defend the constitution and in United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic I'll bear true faith and allegiance to the same and I'll obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of officers appointed over me going into the regulation of code of military justice so help me God. The oaths that our soldiers take, and yet in our federal law we allow for conscience is objectors do

we change geo's for that do we come back they can be designated as classified as annoying combat and I don't agree that to adhere to your sincerely held religious beliefs violates those that you take the federal law already accommodates for conscious objectors to sincerely held beliefs and to accommodate that and not perform certain job functions on that, it's got the whole point combination. So when does a person have to disclose this sincerely held belief surely when they are taken to oath, they will be triggered to understand that hey I have taken a job for a judge or a magistrate oath that I have to perform this faithfully and impartially, and you are saying but if you have a sincerely ill belief you don't have so when they are taking the oath, shouldn't they stop the oath right then because they know they are not going to faithfully and partially discharged because they know they have a sincerely held belief that would not allow them to faithfully and impartially discharge, when they've taken the oath? right then wouldn't they have to stop and say I can't do this because I can't comply with those. So wouldn't they stop right then? Well, the way the magistrate is appointed. He must be vetted by I believe the clerk, and then those names of superior court judge selects a district court judge supervisor I suspect that in the future that the clerk will ask them, did you have beliefs about marriages. I suspect the Superior Court judge will ask some of that and I don't know that they have to select someone who may have sincere religious beliefs. I know that DA's hire assistant district attorneys and some of them do not believe in the death penalty, but they still may hire they're on because they have a significant ability to do other things. So I think that this will work itself out because, they'll be vetted like everybody else and if they choose to appoint them then they'll be appointed but they have the accommodation of 10 hours a week anyway. But and thank you Mr. Chairman in quotes, my question then goes to the process of selection of vetting bills for their personal qualifications, it goes to this question of them taking a personal oath. They individually after they are selected and they're scheduled to be appointed they raise the right hand to take an oath under which they say they will faithfully and impartially discharge these duties. And my question is since they are taking a personal oath and they know that they cannot faithfully and impartially discharge these duties if they have their sincerely held belief, are they required to then stop and not take the oath and not take the position or is it the bill sponsors intend for them to not be able to not tell the truth while taking the oath but then, invoke this sincerely held belief clause at some other point in time. In other words, they are getting a job that they take an oath for that they know that they are really qualified to do, and they get to sit in their jobs until they get to this point where they didn't have to reveal. I'm not going to faithfully discharge and impartially discharge, Representative Hall, I appreciate your comments there, I think even the religious, the conscience objectory on federal statutes anticipates and says that its after the fact. After you've even signed up that you have a change in beliefs and thoughts. But more importantly to your point is the law was changed on the magistrate. The magistrates didn't change the law  this civil ceremony was promulgated to the court against the passage of the constitution amendment by other citizens of North Carolina and their are still in their jobs. These are faithful men and women who've dedicated and the law changed on them. That's really the instant that we're talking about, and really they were threaten with firing and discipline action too,

and so what we have to do is try and balance that.  And my question doesn't go yet because it's stated later in this statute, my question is not going currently employed or previously employed, I'm talking about people who are going to be sworn in going forward, who are going to take this oath going forward, not ones who are currently under oath, people would generally take this oath for the first time or may be the second time or every time they have to renew because of change circumstances, when they are getting ready to take the oath then, and they start down this oath and get to that point where they know they have a sincerely here belief that they are opposed to same sex marriage, if we are not changing the whole, then they require that point time to start and complete dose because if they completed their penalties for them to commit perjury and taken this oath and not discharge, so I'm asking that question, And the answer is the answer is, there is a passing out, if they chose to take the oath they take the oath, if they don't choose to take their oath, they can't emerged, so is up to the person. Good, and so my question then is there is no change in the hope as a result in   No because this doesn't affect the evidence, just the factors that presently exist. Follow up. Let me ask you do you think that a persons conviction and belief is static over their lifetime? That no body is allowed to change their personal convictions and today? I'm still hoping you'll come around to this republican side. I have hope and faith. I prefer to be an American but besides that point and I'm glad you brought this because my question is when is this disclosure being required is it when this person found out that they have that belief as you say or is it at that point when such person presents themselves for the marriage ceremony [xx]. Is that the point they present themselves? According to the bill its says that, they have to present themselves over that.   [xx] look, Mr. Chairman,   [xx]. I think I answered your question. Once we pass this good bill, it will be law, so when they it will be more [xx]. And Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman I want to follow up on that same question, be cause I understand there are eight [xx] resigned or have left their position as a result of the bill do we know, and maybe this is a question for staff, do we know if all of those magistrates were confronted with the situation where same sex couples asked to be married in front of them and then the resigned, or did some of them resign because they has a sincerely held belief that they were in opposition I have [xx]. Okay. One more question. Representative martin.comment, is that's [xx]. Thank you Mr. Chair. I do want to go back to the bill sponsors or bill runners, they all just isn't your dog. You're just walking it. I support this Bill by the way. You like to dog The comparison is to the conscious objector status in the military, and the two really are not [xx] at all in order to be granted concious subjecter statues in the military you have to be opposed to war in all forms, not just a specific war in question. So if you oppose for example, United State involvement in Iraq, you don't get to be a consciousness  objector. When I took the same oath that you recited there, I signed up to defend the rights of all Americans. Not just straight Americas, not just gay Americans, not just black or white Americans, but all Americans. I didn't get to  pick and choose and the salary that I get paid to do that, comes from all the tax payers gays, stray black, white male female whatever. In that respect, the Magistrates are just the same. So if we wanted to grant the same sort of conscious objective status here, it would only be for margistrate suit or whatever reason, were opposed

to marriage in all forms, not who were willing to accuse themselves from doing  marriages in all forms sincerely held objection to marriage in all forms, that's not what we're doing. So, this is completely distinct from the Conscientious Objector status in the military. Representative McNeil.   I just want to touch on, kind of speak briefly on this[sp?] [xx] and can in reference of Representative Martin's theory earlier that somebody will show up at a magistrate's. I think in practice now, most magistates if you want to get married you have to make an appointment. I think very few magistrates just accept people walking in and [xx] and I want to get married. I think in practise in most magistrates' offices around the State, that you have to make an appointment to get married. And further, I just to go back and touch on Representatives talking about the oath. It's ironic in the oath, and I've the letter that you're talking about today obviously[sp?] send out, and it's ironic in their letter that they state the oath against the marriage [xx], and it does start when I do solemnly swear to support and maintain the Constitution and the Laws of the United States and Constitution and  Laws of North Carolina. So, at the very least you're putting the magistrate at a Catch-22  situation because if they're going to take an oath to do their duty, their first duty is to the Constitution of the United States and of North Carolina, and that very specifically speaks to religious freedom. So in taking the oath, to talk about duties I can see where they're in a Catch-22 situation for that, and I think this bill will straighten that out. I think after its pass[sp?] it will be the law of the land, so when a magistrates sits and takes his oath he will be doing his duty as this new law, this is the law yes, and I think it's a good bill and at the appropriate time I'd like to make a motion. answer your questions representative Mona, I think that's part of the problem is that, somehow there has been debate and brought it forward and I think it's a problematic and I think that you can custom design, the majesty that you want to marry you, we don't provide that in government. You can't custom order who reads your ultimate here, I cant demand that a male heterosexual Republican mall vale can read my water meter, but if my water meter doesn't get red because of my belief or somebody else discriminatory, but this Bill doesn't read that. This actually provides for and hourly process and you can't demand that the government personnel take actually can get custom order from the public service. Thank you Mr. Chair, first I think normally Representative Miguel and I like to sit together so I guess you knew we were going to disagree on this bill so you separated us but I hope we'll be back together next meeting. Well in my mind it is possible to make an appointment, actually makes this worse that the same sex couple can actually make an appointment, to go see a magistrate, clear up their schedule and take time from their work and family schedule and wherever else go down down at the appointed time and then that magistrate could all of a sudden, under this Bill, make a decision that instant that they have a sincerely held objection to performing same sex marriages and maybe there's a magistrate in the building who'll be willing to step down, maybe there's not, so that might actually be worse, I think if I wanted to [xx] Republican to come set my water meter Representative [xx] would be [xx] male and giving in, I'm not suggesting that anyone, any North Carolinian has the rights to demand what the profile, who's going to perform their ceremony is, but at the end why I oppose this Bill is because a same sex couple pays exactly the same taxes to spot that magistrates salary as heterosexual couples, and they do I think have a right to expect they are going to get the same service of marriage when they go, and it doesn't have to be someone, they don't have a right to have someone who approves of their lifestyle or their marriage choices at all, but I think they absolutely have the right to have, to expect that the person who's salary they

are paying, is at least going to do their job and perform [xx] My point is why do you I think they are not. This Bill provides for the civil ceremonies and it explicitly provides for in an orderly way Representative Malone I calmly agree with you that we should get to the point and day, where when a citizen wants the government to solve the problem for them that they are able to do it that day. I don't know any place wherever else that the government can solve a problem at the first asking and at one time, I hope we get to that point but we're not there. I don't think it's unreasonable, I think the protections and and the way that the bill is fantastically constructed actually, it meets constitutional matters explicitly and provides for that delicate balance between the religious beliefs of the employer, employee and the need to perform the several functions such as the homosexual couple, or heterosexual couple, there's no distinction in there. I think the bill accomplishes that end which we didn't have to have it before us but the decision of the AIC force did this upon us and and this provides a reasonable bafowet to balance this. [xx] Representative [xx]. Thank you Mr. Chair not being in a turn up have this one of our repretake of the law but once it becomes law I think the underlying assumption is probably incorrect and the underlying assumption being the magistrates in the AOC aren't going to do their job. I think that this, when they're told of this being passed in to law, I think common sense would tell me that I know the District court judges in my county and the magistrates knowing many of them, that they are going to think this through before hand. There're good public servants as it has been pointed out and it's a nobody best interest to cause issues at any particular point in time for whatever reasons they have, so I think the underlying assumption is everybody is just going to ignore this until a homosexual couple walks in or makes some pinpoint for this. I think that your assumption is fraud, at least I have enough confidence in our Judicial System that they will take this bill seriously when it becomes law and it will work that problem out internal to that, so that no system is put a disadvantage in any case. Representative McNeil do you have a motion? Mr. Chairman I have a couple of other question, thank you if you recognize. Yes sir. Thank you, and I want to go to the part of the bill that deals with, again those magistrates who resign or were terminated, I think the number was eight at least as far the information we have, and I guess two per question. If a magistrate stated they are resigning because they're opposed to and will not perform a same sex couple marriage, they have then apparently, determined that that is a  firmly held belief. They have said they cannot do the duties duly required by this office, would that same magistrate then be eligible for rehire without certifying somehow that their firmly held belief has now been changed? You have to go through that process before the clerk. If he's resigned he'd have to be reappointed so you have to go through that process again. But He's different from our new magistrate. He's already stated he has a family high belief and he's resigning because he refuses to do all the duties that are offered so, if that person thereby disqualified him unless they provide proof if they've changed what was previously their family high belief. You're asking if there's a religious there Sir. I'm not sure what it is said to be of high prove your high family belief so, am just asking, whatever the idea is whenever they figure that out there is a person who resigned because they aren't going to do it. just as I just said, well, I am going to do it and I don't have to provide any additional prove other than my word. Is your question because you don't understand the provision of how they will be reconsidered again? Well, specifically they resigned they're not going to do one of the duties required under their oath so my question can they be rehired without showing that they have changed their personally held belief so they can perform the duties of what do they get to get rehired, and just not do marriage ceremonies for the rest of the time there [xx]. Let me ask you this if you put that religious test in there you're advocating to put a religious test in there

to say you can only have certain religious beliefs to be hired as a magistrate or not? No sir very specific answers when you have articulated that you have this firmly held religious belief that prevents you from doing it do you get to get rehired without certifying that you no longer have that belief? That's completely up to the clerk and the superior court judge the to rest a superior court judge and the chief court judge. They will make that decision and if it tells them I assume I have a religious belief whoever they interview they take that in consideration and whether they hire them or not, it's up to them, it's their business. Just to be heard on the bill. Yes sir Thank you Mr. Chairman and Representative Alpert appreciate your efforts in trying to bring this bill forward. I think it has some significance problems and lack of specificity that's going to cause us problems down the road, it appears is that were creating a situation where people can discriminate against other members of our society at their own determination and not be removed from the position they are in where they take an oath to not discriminate. The clear message that ends up getting sent when we do this is that certain people have full rights when they present themselves to the government that they both pay for and vote for and other people don't have those same full rights to treatment on an equal basis. I think that's a a problem we're going to run in to if we keep going down this, a lot of people refer to it as slippery slope, I think it's a bad bill. I don't think the issues I questioned are specified in the bill sufficiently. We're going to put people in a position where they're not sure whatever their religious belief is what they're supposed to do, do they tell the truth and not take the job? Do they not tell the truth and hope they escape the full responsibilities during the job? Do they quit, and then come back? I think there're too many problems in what the actual specifically held religious belief is, and the proof on that. So, I'm not going to support the bill. I think it has too many problems, and I'm not going to be in favor of legislating second class citizenship to our citizens, I think we should be trying to help all people treated as Americans without that. Well quite frankly, what I think you've heard presented was a straw[sp?] man's argument, and the concept of discrimination is very serious in fact it's important that we understand that, but I think in this debate that term has been thrown around too cheaply because this is not discrimination. What this does is provide an explicit way to ensure non-discrimination, and that those homosexual/ heterosexual couples do in fact obtain a marriage license to get married. You can't design the public servant that you want to serve you. You can't do that. You can't demand that the government respond and meet your needs at that instant that you ask, I wish that we were at that point, but we're not. This bill is crafted, is constitutionally sound and solid in fact. In fact it's very well drawn, to provide for the constitutional protection while balancing the same constitution we protected religious beliefs. Now the talk here today is being about how we have to have a static believe system and how they can evolve over time and we know that that is not the truth. All of our beliefs a different time and to try and mandate a certain belief or even a religious test for the rehiring of these magistrates is unconscionable we don't do that in any other way. So this bill is narrowly drawn to address a specific problem, I think it balances the and now that's [xx] sport May just set bail to [xx] of the Chair your intent that this bill start our normal procedure and be heard on the floor the second reading tomorrow. That's about my [xx]. All in favor say aye? Aye. Oppose no? No. The ayes have it. Motion carries. Thank you very much think

you did it right