Please return to chamber, the house in session. Thank you. BLANK] The house will come to order, the members will return to their seat. visitors will retire from the chamber, the sergeant at arm will close the door. Members of those are asked to please turn off all electronic devices. this morning's prayer will be offered by representative Bob Steinburg. We would ask that all members, and all guest in the gallery, please stand for the prayer, and also remain standing for the pledge of allegiance Representative Starball. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Good morning ladies and Gentlemen. This morning is supposed to opening with prayer, and official prayer, I've taken the liberty to share with you the 23rd Psalm and I hope that any of you who knoweth in my heart or would like to turn to your proworks to page 441 we can certainly say that in unisome, so we would be doing Psalms 23 this morning the Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want, he make us me to lie down in green pasture he leadeth us may be side the still waters, he restores my soul, he leadeth us may in the path to righteousness for his namesake, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou heart with me, thy rod and thy stath they comfort me, thou prepare us a table before me and the my enemies, and so anoint us my head with oil, my cup run us over, surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life and I will dwell in the house of the Lord, forever Allegiance to the flag of the United states of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The gentleman from Harley, Representative Louise is recognized for a motion Mr. Speaker the journal for May 27th has been examined and found to be correct, I move that it stand approved as written Representative Luis moves that the journal for May 27th be approved as written those in favor will say aye, those opposed no, the ayes have it the journal is approved as written. Edification of bills and resolutions, the clerk will read. The following clerk reports, the following deals duly gratified the presentation to the governor, senate bill 114 enact to a private department of provision and human services to develop a plan requiring custodial of a parent or other related or persons with primary custody of child receiving childcare subsidize payments to work properly with county child support profram as a condition of receiving childcare subside payments, as recommended by the child support subcommittee of the joint legislative programs and over site committee. Senate bill 311 an act to ensure the integrity of marriage records presented for registration. House bill 113 an act to protect North Carolina the students by increasing the criminal prone tech for the commission of certain sex offenses committed against the student by a person. who is in school personnel into established procedure institution or higher education to obtain a list of students and employees at the institution by which with sex offenders. House bill 294 an act to make a criminal offense to provide a cellphone to a delinquent juvenile in custody of department of public safety, house bill 513 enact to make technical corrections and other performing changes to the general statute concerning real property. house bill 597 an act to amend the provisions required mediator settlement needs to be signed by parties against them, enforcement, assault, and the following bill and resolution during [xx] properly law and prepare for presentation to the office of secretary of State House Bill 892 an act to appoint persons to various public offices upon the recommendations of Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President [xx] of the Senate. House Bill 189, an act to revise for the referendum, to reduce the size of Rockingham count of board Education over four years from 11 year members to seven [xx] our drawing, redrawing the election districts to reduce number of districts from six to four, so that four members are elected by
district by reducing the number of members elected at large from five to three, to change the method of election of the board of [xx] and to clarify the appointment of vacancies to the board Senate joint resolution 421. A joint resolution expressing gratitude and appreciation to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces chapter Bills would be noted. Members, Senate Bill 291 which is the overnight risk that can't bill the chair to the committee on rules, calendar and operations, last week or the week before, chair is going to rule that bill be removed from the rules committee counter 36 B the chair would also ask that the bill be added to today's calendar that was at the request of the personal Represent [xx] who has handled that bill in the senate is there any objection that Bill being added to the conclusion of today's calendar? Hearing none, so ordered. Representative Brawley is saying hastings martins recognised the unforth committee the clerk will read Representative Brawley saying Hastings Martins Finance committee report, House Bill 385, [xx] fine changes favorable calendar and without objection with today's calendar seeing none so ordered House bill 698 David Carol bill favourable Calendar and without objection today's calendar so ordered. Representative Cheddar is the gentleman is ready to proceed on house bill 698? Nope I don't see him in the chamber areas. Representative Cheddar are you ready to proceed on house bill 698 sir. Yes sir. House bill 698 clerk will read. representative Cheddar Lamberg head cores house bill 698 appeal to be entitled and acting crescent to faithful laboratory performed by the state laboratory or public health under the new born screening program adding a screen test for severe combined immune efficiency to the newborn screening panel and appropriating funds for the Department of Health and Human Services, division of public health to purchase necessary equipment and upgrade the State Laboratory of Public Health for newborn screening and all other laboratory operations. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts The gentleman from Nucklemberg, Representative Jitters is recognized to debate the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker. This is the baby [xx] bill. [xx] was born in 2000, 7 months later she passed away amongst kids which is a severe combined Immunol deficiency more commonly known as the Bubble boy disease. What this bill has passed health unanimously, finance almost unanimously one person mistakenly voted the wrong way I feel confident he'll do different on the floor today, but this bill really already having funded as part of the budget depending legislation and so in essence what this bill does is two things, it raises the fee when the blood work by $5 that will be administered to every babies not of new blood work is not new blood drop a new charge part of the blood drop we still have one of the cheapest fees in the Nation I think there's only three or four states that are more less expensive for us in our initial casting for newborns it also foot 466 $1000 in the implementation of the testing machine the testing machine is not even agreed to by the state lab by grant more I got that so these implementation applies to one time fear so for the state is a one time fear $466000 I think the key for these is if this bill passes today for a blood test we can cure 93% of the cases with the simple bon mirror of please plant from the parent's or sibling's these is a bill that will truly save lives at a very marketable reduced amount of money and I will strongly encourage your support and happy to answer any questions For what purpose does the lady from Wake representative Hrdcok rise? To debate the bill The lady has the floor to debate the bill thank you Mr Mr speaker I wanted to thank Representative Jitra and representative Lindus for asking me if I can sponsor this bill with them it's always a terrific opportunity when you can do the right for an individual child for their family but also for a medical budget because by treating these children before before they become ill from scid, we can save a great deal of money. Yesterday in Health committee, Dr. Barkley testified that of
the three medicaid babies that she had successfully transplanted who were ill by the time they needed there bone marrow transplant or had it, was a cost of $10 million when typically the marrow transplant would only cost $100, 000, so we had good outcome all around. I commend this Bill to you and ask you to vote green Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question for the House is the passage of House Bill 698 on its second reading. Those in favor will vote I, those who oppose will vote No. The Clerk will open the vote Clerk will lock the machine to record the vote. 109 having voted in the affirmative and one on the negative, House Bill 698 passes its second reading and will without objection be read a third time General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Further discussion further debate, if not the question the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 698 on its third reading, those in favor will say aye? Those oppose will say No, the I's have it so House Bill passes 698 its third reading, so oredered be sent to the Senate. messages from the senate, the court will read. House bill 691, I saw it on their guard member. Calender. House bill 795 SEPA reform. Calender and without objection in today's calendar is there objection? Objection. And by way of explanation representative the chair is informed that representative Torbet is going to the house, not concur with senate changes and will be appointed copies. Does the general wish to withdraw his objections? Withdraw objection. Any further objection? Hearing none they will be added to today's calendar the clerk will continue. Senate bill 141 annexation referendum. Finance. Senate Bill 218 Franklin, [xx] satellite annexation. Finance. Senate bill 356 during volunteering an excession of jasson streets Finance senate bill two the clerk will read. And before the clerk reads madam Clerk the chair directs that House Bill 698 be sent by special messenger to the senate, Clerk may continue. Senator [xx], senate bill 2 a bill to be entitled to allow magistrates, assistant register of deeds, and deputy register of deeds to excuse themselves from performing duties related to ceremonies due to sincerely hail release subjection What purpose does the gentleman from union Representative Hope rise? To speak to the bill The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill ladies and gentlemen I appreciate we had a very full serious and debate yesterday, I appreciate the time the effort and the comments won't be late with a point, I just wanted to recap again and again I respect everybody's passionate and thoughtful positions on this bill, this is a tough one for sure, and I understand that but what was so moving to me was, everybody spoke so eloquently about their personal religious beliefs and I sincerely believe that, that you hold that as I do and they're really the question is, should you be fired from a job, or be subject to disciplinary actions because you choose to live your life by those sincerely held convictions and beliefs. What this Bill does, is provide a balancing act, a balance if you will, that ensures that the marriages across the state are performed in a blunt fashion, that all marriages are performed, all valid marriage licences are issued and yet provides a balance for those who have sincerely held religious beliefs, to be acomodated. This is a very narrowly crafted and reasonable solution that does not intrude the government into the conscience of the employees by the state. What this Bill does is allow the magistrates and employees of the register to state their sincerely held religious objection and beliefs, and they will be excused from performing all marriages the Bill further goes to provide an explicit solution to make sure that all marriage licences
are issued and all marriages are performed in a non discriminatory fashion. And I will quote from the the Bill. It says Administrative Office of the courts, shall ensure that a magistrate is available in that jurisdiction for performances of marriages for the times required in the general statute citing. Let's see it, it's just that simple. And ask for your support on this Bill and I thank you for your patience. For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Luckie rise? speak on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate bill. Hi Mr Speaker and members, I thought a lot about this bill last night and make several points. The first is that, some of you way know when am not here as a [xx] representative [xx], I'm a college teacher. I teach at UNC Greensboro and I try to imagine what we will be like if I as a teacher there UNCG announce that because of my sincerely held religious belief, I was not going to teach a group of people in my class and following upon that I would say let's have a bill that only in the general assembly that would excepted those nice but seriously held religious believes about certain students in our classroom that will be exam from having to teach them. It's really unimaginable think of a bill like that going through and a bill like that shouldn't go through. Because all of us teachers at college, at university college in NC system are paid a salary by the people of the state. We are state employees and as such we have an obligation to teach everyone, we cannot discriminate as to who we will teach, and really what is in this bill is parallel to that. That we would simply say as teachers, we don't want to teach that group, give us an exemption that's wrong to have something like that, and it's wrong to have what we have on this bill. The second point has to do with the question of whether the bill, it was a good idea that the bill is before us at all. And I submit to you that it's a very bad idea that the bill is even before us, and I say that because thinking about jobs and well paying jobs for our state, and our interest in trying to bring national or international corporations to our state. These corporations do not want in any way to be associated with discrimination and there is no question that this bill really fundamentally is about discrimination against gays and against gay marriage. If you think about [xx] involving has been equal between North Carolina and South Carolina and North Carolina has passed by this general assembly the bill that before us North Carolina would loose. The corporations don't want to be associated with discrimination and so they'll be inclined to stay away from the state because its just what I said they don't want to have that association and be the employees who would resist a transfer to these state because of legislations will not will approve you in North carolina and that's really what we face a smaller piece but short term in real is that there are people out there in the United States international people over particular states who will hear about these bill and they will say I don't need to take my vacation in North Carolina I can go somewhere else I don't want to be associated with is state because of a legislation that passes so really in terms of job economic development it's a shameless bill even on the calendar and for those reason's among others I hope you'll join me in voting agaist the bill thank you For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake representative Martin rise? To debate the bill The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill Thank you Mr speaker members let me again begin by commending and expressing my appreciation to the bill presented to the gentleman from the Union and simple term that he's debated these bill both from the floor and committee it's a model for us all. Members we spoke yesterday in depth I think about the practical effect discriminatory effect these bill will have as a plays out in court houses
throughout the state of North Carolina. Even on the bill surface, it doesn't have any explicit discrimination in the text of it. We made clear the debate yesterday I think that it is without a doubt going to have a discriminatory effect on certain citizens in North Carolina, I think is actually that it came out in debate yesterday though that in fact that is in the end, the intent behind this bill. Many members here express their disapproval of same sex marriage that is now legal in North Carolina and that, that was the reason for supporting this bill, one member even expressed that it would be just fine to have this in effect because same sex couples could go online, apply for ministerial licence and have a marriage performed that way, essentially I have been [xx] for setting up a separate system by which same sex couples could get married so even while the bill text in and of itself does not on its surface, contain discriminatory language. It's very clear the discriminatory intent and the practical discriminatory effect that it's going to have. I will make sure that we all knew about this and we're all on notice about this before we cast our vote on third reading. In the end, what this bill is about, is, should North Carolinians who pay taxes that go to the salaries of public servants be able to be discriminated against by those very public servants who their taxes go to pay. I think that sir is clearly not. And in the end what this bill does, is set up the possibility as a practical effect that in North Carolina we are going to have a separate system of marriage. Now the proponents of the bill might suggest that it is an equal system of marriage or contest that point I think we shouldn't debate yesterday. There is a no way shape reform in the equal system but it's not in doubt at all that the system of marriage this sets up is a separate system of marriage. We've have tired separate but equal before in this state, it did not work then and it will not work now. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam rise? To speak on the bill. Gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Mr Speaker, Members of the House briefly. Representative Luebke and Representative Grier Martin prove my point. Representative Luebke as an employee of the university in North Carolina and Greensboro is covered by title seven of the civil rights act of 1964. He is entitled entitled if he has a sincerely held religious belief against teaching some group of students, I can't figure out what that belief might be but supposedly and he's entitled to state that to his employer and subject to disciplinary action to at least explore whether reasonable accommodation could be made. As a teacher, he has that right under Federal Law These Clerks of Court, Register of Deeds are also covered under title seven. They're entitled to accommodation. Magistrates are entitled to accommodation under government employee federal law. Let me give you a counter example to represent Luebke that is more directly on point. I cannot imagine a sincerely held religious belief that would say he doesn't have to teach some particular group the students but you might not want to teach a particular course, for example, I don't know if this is religious but he might not want to teach a course on the merits of free internet system or sub search, but I would throw the exact withdraw the question. I withdraw that example, Representative Luebke, but take a teacher in one of the that still has corporal punishment, not capital punishment but corporal punishment, and a policy in those districts, I don't know. I think they are 10 or 15 of them that says if you're engaged in a fight, a fist fight you will be corporally punished, and we have rules on how that should be done. But a particular teacher says to the principal I have religious convictions against hitting another person, I would like to be excused on that duty under title seven, I'm entitled to be accommodated. Certainly in that school I will yield after my paragraph. The gentleman wlll spend the, for what purpose does the gentleman from Vance, Representative Baskerville rise?
Inquiry to Representative Stam. The gentleman I believe has indicated he will yield to conclusion of his remarks, thank you. The gentleman from Wake continues to have the floor to debate the bill. Under title seven, that teacher would be entitled to be accommodated, but the opponents of this bill say no, you must fire that teacher because that teacher signed up to teach in such and such a school system. They knew the policy, they're not going with the policy they got all the duties so, teacher [xx] you must be the one to hit that kid against your sincere, no you wouldn't agree with that you would argue that that feature should be accommodated, and that's all this bill does it applies the principles of title seven, and the principles the government, employees rights act, to a particular circumstance that we have here. I wish that they weren't necessary it is necessary I encourage you to vote for it and I'll be glad to yield any question Does the gentleman from [xx] Representative [xx] wish to propose a question to the gentleman from Wake? Yes Representative [xx] And does the gentleman from Wake yield? He yields. Thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you Representative Stamsey, you got to a little bit towards the in there my question is does those teachers have to put their hand on the Bible and swear an oath to uphold the laws of the state of North Carolina or do those teachers have to swear an oath to teach a particular student whatever subject matter you're saying, concerns the religious [xx] religion but sincerely [xx] Thank you for the question I want to answer it, I was thinking of answering that argument point yesterday and things just went on too long, and the argument is, that the duties were they know the duties today there really is not consequential whether they sign an oath or not, they're entitled to a whether or not the oath, but let's say they've sworn oath. The logical fallacy in that argument, I don't even remember the Latin name, but that's called assuming the consequent. That is you assume the conclusion of your argument and then that become the premise of your question. The premise being that the magistrate has a duty to do every thing in such and such a statute, therefore, if this bill doesn't passes, the magistrate still has the duty to do that same thing logical fallacy we've known for 2500 years. But guess what? We are the general assembly, we can change the duty or as Representative Steven says, we could have changed the authority of the magistrate. And that's what this Bill does, it says the individual magistrate doe not have such and such a duty, the duty is changed hope I've answered your question? Mr. Speaker. For what purpose the gentleman from Orange, Representative Meyer rise? To ask a question of Representative Stam. Does the gentleman form Wake yield to the from Orange I do He yields First of all I think representative Stam that is [xx] professor Hawk that you are looking for from the latent that's not that fallacy, that's a fallacy created many time on this floor which I translate as, the rooster thinking the sun rose [xx] that's a different one. Should have known better than go after. Does the gentleman wish to try another question? Have you have a question? And does the gentleman from Wake yield? I yield. He yields. Another question. Representative Stam you say that you could not imagine a case where a teacher would hold the sincerely held religious belief that will cause them to recuse themselves from teaching the students in this classrooms. Can you imagine a case magistrate would hold sincerely held religious believe in which they would excuse themselves from marriage because they don't believe it's appropriate to marry header couple and if you can't imagine that please tell us what religion belief that would be. I can actually imagine that because we had a former member of this house and to express that idea on the floor and actually caught about 40 votes for that side for his amendment and then the next primary he got 13% of the were he thought the government should not get involved in marriage at all. I think that on this point words of Russian Martin is conclusive. And I know the things he said, The bill text does not not contain discriminatory language. Remember that? And he complimented representative Up on the way he presented the bill, totally non discriminatory. The principle of law is in running legislative intent.
The random comments of individual members like myself in this particular case don't count, but the remarks of the manager of the bill do so text the bill does so representative Martin has told us that the bill does not contain discriminatory language. For what purpose does the gentleman from Richman, Representative Godman rise? Ask Representative Stem a question. Does the gentleman from Wake yield to the gentleman from Richman? Yes He yields. Representative Stem I heard you try to explain to Representative Lucky and others that there is accommodation available in the constitution for teacher that don't want to teach a certain course because of some religious convention or teacher who does want to provide a corprol punishment because of religious conviction and I thought I heard you say that there was accommodation the same rule apply for magistrates and registers deeds is that correct? Yes I believe you we were yesterday I will go through it briefly, but were you here? I was here for most of it. Right let me just briefly explain tittle seven applies to most employees including government employees but it excludes a particular class of employees which alot very complicated but it does include magistrates a few years later the US congress passed the Government employees right tax which does cover people like magistrates the remedy is a little different they don't get a jury trial they can't get punitive damages but the same right to have reasonable accommodation applies to government employees such as magistrates. Follow up. Does the gentleman here ask an additional question? I do. So if they have this right to raise accommodation already what's the point of a bill? To save us from a lot of lawsuits that we're going to lose. For what purpose does the gentleman from Camborne Representative Glacier rise? To debate the bill briefly a seond time. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker I rise simply to revert several points made yesterday and today and not with new argument for myself first representative Stan talks about the federal acts and Representative Gooaman made an extremely important point for people to think about. The second is no statue federal state can overide a constition what we have at issue here is a constitutional issue not a statutory issue second as to discriminate discrimination can be proved by intent or impact a d sometimes both and again what we have here may well be both in 10 I agree with representative Stan there's no any individual legislators in maps, but it can be focused on a solidification of those remarks but here we need rely on that because the intent of this bill form by the sponsor of the bill is very clear publicly made clear publicly stated on the courthouse steps on his county publicly made clear on the senate there's no debate there's no debate there's no question about why the bill is here and an application I think the argument yesterday to the discriminatory application will occur as the board and particularly in smaller counties but need rely on that we want to know is only one state of the union as passed the bill remotely similar to this ad I they get you talk and Texas refused to pass the bill similar to this passed the bill accormodating a religious ceremony not the public ceremony we are doing something the even Texas refused to do, forth there is not any case law on the country on this direct point because there hasn't has to be since only one state has passed the bill remotely similar but there is actually the international case law what is worth to add the record, in 2009 court of appeal for England and Wales rejected a claim of religious discrimination by a magistrate a marriage registrar who is discipline for refusing the register a same sex sensible partnership under English law similarly a year later Canadian court held a preventive marriage commissioner may be fine to refusing to perform a same sex marriage, the problem here in my fifth point is that we through these bill we store a special benefit on people who's religious or moral or ethical or otherwise personal beliefs
compel the to deny us service, were completely absorbed on the consequences of their choices that's fundamentally as many representatives on this side of the aisle has said is unfair and frankly my last the lessons of our constitution history are clear. Inclusion strengthens rather than weakens our most controlled institutions. When we integrated our schools education and proof, when we open our jury's to women and our poles to women democracy becomes more vital. When we allowed gate soldiers to serve openly in uniform it actually enhanced most unit cohesion and today in this state and soon to be I suspect nationally when same sex couples are married just when opposite sex are married they service models of commitments to all of us. The responsibility of magistrates and regisrars is to uphold the constitution to everyone and they must do so and we have no entitlement and no right to try to create a different segment in a different year depending on who you believe ought to be in a relationship and who ought not thank you for what purpose does the gentleman from cabear gentleman Hitman rise? to ask Representative Stan a question Does the gentleman from Wake yield to the gentleman from [xx] I do He yields Representative Stan, I'm looking at article 14 section six which was placed in our constitution as resolved the votes on the marriage amendment and I know that its been ruled on constitutional but I'm a little unclear on what's going on with the courts right now and I'm wondering has that actually been removed from our constitutional is that still undecided since it hadn't gone to the supreme court? Representative Pitman that's currently on our appeal [xx] whatever it is to the U. S supreme court three judge panel of the four socket only three judges rule to the one against this Speaker [xx] and President [xx] were allowed to intervene for the purpose of appeal they've perfected an appeal when the supreme court rules in the case whereby it says in June will know which way is the wind is blowing there but our case is actually on appeal does the gentleman from [xx] to a second question? How do you feel? Well as that being the status at the moment would that mean that ruling this has not been decided as being unconstitutional it's just opinion of that lower court at this point No, I wouldn't say that because that law of court decision of the three judge panel before circus stands unless it's reversed but and they've issued or proved that injunction. I wouldn't say it's nothing but it's not final May I comment Mr. Speaker The gentleman from [xx] is recognized in the debate bill. Well am sure your varing opinions on this point will [xx], but my understanding is these magistrates, by refusing to this are seeing to appall the constitution, the law of the state of North Carolina as chosen in an election or enacted by an election among the people of the state of North Carolina, I will consider this matter I've decided since it's still on appeal, and to me however that turns out, I do not feel that this people who are seeking to appall what our people have enacted as law in this state, she be punished for doing so and that what this bill is really all about. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham representative Mitchel Do ask representative Stam a question. Does the gentleman from Lake yield gentleman from Durham. I do He yields. Representative Stam, could you give me your opinion as to an accommodation stature overwriting a constitutional provision? Well stature representative Saul, cannot overwrite a constitutional provision, but there is no constitutional provision that says, every magistrate has to marry everybody that doesn't exist. Another question? Does the gentleman from second question? I yield. He yields. But there's a constitution amendment giving people protection against the law, against making constitutional law, right?
in other words, you cannot make a statute, accommodation of statute that's unconstitutional? That's correct. But you do have the Does the gentleman wish to ask the third question? And as the gentleman with the [xx] with the third question? He yields Then, does not would not this particular stature as accommodation answer, violate the 14th amendment of the constitution? Absolutely not it upholds the 14th amendment May I ask another question? Does the gentleman yield to a 4th question? I do. How does it uphold the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment provides for due process of law, I would guess that when title seven of Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, that the stated constitutional provision that it was pursuant to was probably the 14th amendment maybe the 15th as well, and it's been upheld hundreds of times. Another question. Does the gentleman yield to a fifth question? I do. He yields. The LGB team tight marriage that this seem to attack, is this not legal at this present time? Hello, any marriage, I deny the premise of your question. The premise of your question is that this bill attacks a certain type of marriage, Representative Martin assured us that the words do not. If you read into it something more than there [xx] The gentleman from [xx] has the floor to debate the bill. I had not plan to say anything about this again today but let me tell you something this is the problem that we have with. We've got lawyers sitting all around even from curve stone lawyers sitting around here trying to figure out what's going on. First of all got understand that the 14th amendment of the constitution guarantees everybody to have the privilege, a right you can not do an accommodation statute that overrides a constitutional amendment. You can't do an accomodation it overrides the constitution. No way, and this has been brought out in several types of cases for instance, and I was going to speak on this a little bit later, this is the 61st anniversary of brown verses the board of education where it was stated very simply separate [xx] and everybody has the right to protection and not legal as depending on so depending on [xx] you were doing in a commendation statute that right now is totally unconstitutional. Based on 14th of marriage in constitution a year in [xx] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wade, Representative Martin rise? To speak a second time on the bill. The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill second time. Mr. Speaker let me first address the comments by the gentleman from Caberes aware he explored what the effect of still having a provision in our constitution from amendment one would have it's clear that the court so far in this process have held that provision to be against United States constitution back to same sex marriage are carrying in North Carolina as the speaker Patem noted. Let me go back to the gentleman from Camplin gracious debate yesterday where he mentioned the supreme court's love intersession in loving decision in interatio marriage. the United States supreme overturn bars against interaction marriage, but not until 10 years later did North Carolina finally get around to repeatc the discriminatory statutes, I guess the interrelation marriage, so we may find ourselves and in fact do currently find ourselves in North Carolina same circumstances, just because those words are in our constitution, don't be in any doubt that they have been held unconstitutional right now that is in no way, shape or form a basis for public and police to discriminate against the citizens of North Carolina. Let me now turn to the remarks by the speaker pretend gentleman from Lake. He's demonstrated today and many other days his mastery of the Latin language, but he seems to have some trouble with my usage of the English language. It may be my Southern accent or
perhaps it's the cold and cough that I find myself suffering right now but first of all in my complementary comments about the Bill presented today, at no point, at no point did I use the words non-discriminatory. I commended him for his civility and for the fine demeanor with which he's presented this Bill. Furthermore, in my comments, I said that while the superficial language of this Bill does not appear to be discriminatory, there is no doubt about it's discriminatory effect and its discriminatory intent. Let me read you from another bill passed by this general assembly that is in that way similar to the provision we have before us today. It's from the public laws of North Carolina 1899, Chapter 218, Section four. Every person presenting himself for registration shall be able to read and write any section of the constitution in the English language, before he shall be entitled to vote. Does anyone see any superficial discriminatory language in that Bill? I don't. Does anyone in this room have any doubt as to what the discriminatory intent and the discriminatory effect of what that language it is. There was no doubt in 1899 about that law and there's no doubt in 2015 about don't do For what purpose does the gentleman from France, Representative Ascorbyl rise? To debate the bill the second time The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill Thank you Mr. Speaker. Representative Michaux hit the nail on the head there saying we got a bunch of law he's trying to figure thing out how this is possibly constitutional and so Representative Stam pointed out to us that there there's no discriminatory language in that particular bill. So I want to talk to you briefly about the language and the 13th Amendment that was written way back in 1865. Here's language just say sexual and neither slavery lowing solitary servitude shall exist within United State. That's pretty clear, that was 1865 now three years later we came back with the 14th amendment to the United State constitution. That was in 1868, that was the equal protection amendment because we realize even though we had out law slavery and that amendment was very clear there still folks when without receiving equal protection under this barely constitution and so we had to come back with the 14th. I will read to you the 14th amendment that says that the United State no shall any state deprive any person of life or property without due process of law no deny to any person within jurisdiction that equal protection of the law. [xx] if an gay couple goes and ask to be married you find this magistrate are they being protected equally under the constitution. When they're not getting treated the same as when a straight couple goes and tries to get married infront of a magistrate here in the state in North Carolina. That is the opposite of equal protection that gay couple is not receiving the same protection under our constitution, that is 42 they have to come back at a different time. They have to go before a different magistrate, they have to, that's not equal protection. Now you talk about reasonable accommodations, how is it reasonable to accommodate one party that results in and undo burden a hardship on another party I can tent to you it is an undue burden an undue hardship for the gay couple to have to come back in a different day for the gay couple to have to go in front of a different magistrate for the gay couple to have to like to represent Mon say yesterday they've been waiting for that partner to come home after they've been fighting overseas they come home they want to get married on the first day back shiw them love for each other no no no gay couple come back next week when the gay couple magistrate is up here where is that equal protection under our constitution is not and it wouldn't be too long before the judges tell us that. For what purpose does the gentleman from Representative Callef rise? To debate the bill. Gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. I've just heard so much nonsense I was going to speak o this
everybody got their mind made up before we start we would say yesterday but some of the comments are so outlandish number one what we just heard is not in this bill at all what this bill states is that the county to have the offices open a certain number of hours on a certain number of days a week for whoever comes one group is not left to come one day come back later that's just totally poplastarus completely made up, the other example that I heard just a few minutes ago was comparing this to the old leadersy law well that obviously discriminated in the very words if you couldn't read you couldn't vote and if you can't tell that by reading the words just write I the words I don't know what's meant by superficial language of the bill I don't know what part of this writing is superficial or which part of the whatever's none superficial it's the bill it says what it says this is just other nonsense For what purpose does the gentleman from Union Representative Oak rise? Speak find time on the bill The gentleman's recognized to debate the bill I just think it's ironic that some of the arguments pop forth about jobs against this bill because of not promoting jobs by insisting that you fire somebody for holding their sincerely held convictions and holding religious beliefs I say we keep our jobs by keeping the ones who are employed employed and try to accommodate good employees who spend their lives many of these are good men and women who spend their lives in public service and these is a simple accommodation. I'm glad to the opposition has admitted that there's no facial discrimination in the text of these bill there's none whatsoever in fact provides a specific and explicit direct way to perform all marriage and ensure that they're all done by accommodating the time and manner, and final declaration that all marriages will be performed. All marriages will be performed all marriage licenses would be issued. And some of the arguments has been porpoted if you don't agree with 100% of what the government is doing somehow your tax dollars can't go to support that. I think that's a great concept, I wonder if we can do that with our Federal Government. I wonder if we can use that same argument with a Federal budget and their choices of expenditure, maybe we should just hold back that which we disagree on basis of that government. I'm surprised you would even suggest that. But make no mistakes, there's been a lot of strong arguments about how this is not going to allow gays to be married, or heterosexuals, or interracial couples. I don't get that anywhere at all in the main text of the bill, it they share, let me read for you again, maybe you've missed this. The administrative office of the court challenges you that is available in the jurisdiction for the performance of marriages, for the times required under that section how is the marriages not going to be performed? What we're talking about is allowing the marriages to be performed and providing a reasonable narrowly tailored focus to the magistrate and register this employees that can incaminate their religious convictions. Thank you. For what purpose does the, Further discussions, further debate? for what purpose does the gentleman from [xx] Representative Hollo rise? To speak on the bill. Gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen the house appreciate the discussion that we've had I know that we've heard this before, this is a field good deal. So I'm challenging Representative [xx] now and this is a field that deal for some people, but for other people this is designating them as a second citizen in the United States, in the state of North Carolina. I heard a comment today that said, it doesn't matter if you're state employee and take oath, oath doesn't matter any more. I probably taken as many oaths as any one in here and some of you have taken very serious oaths not for just this office, but in the service of your country. And for us to now say your oath is no consequence, no significance that you're affirm, that you require to affirm before
taking this position, that you're administer justice without favoritism. And you're faithfully and impartially dispatch the duties of your officers and magistrates, we've now been told that doesn't matter. You pick and choose what you want to do for whom you want to do. This is attacks on all North Carolinians, why is that? Because by this discrimination, you create an inconvenience and additional duties for other members who might be magistrates. But not only does it do it at the magistrate level and we've really done a disservice on this bill, because we haven't even talked about the fact that when the same sex couple goes for a marriage license, that they can be subjected to the same delay and obfuscation and misdirection. When they go for their marriage license they can be turned away, so only is it going to be one day like some people see it, it can be two days or three days because you have to come back. Well now, we're not issuing marriage licenses today to your particular group of segments now whatever that might be if I can explain are religiously heal belief later on, then you have to wait until someone else is available to do it on that day. That's in the bill. This bill exempts, registers the deeds as well magistrates. and so we have to understand it, look at the bill a little bit closer though because it's important for us to understand what else we do surely North Carolina has bragged about how well we have reduced our unemployment debts and we've cut the number of weeks that people get unemployment compensation or access to it. In this Bill what it says is if you resigned from the position of magistrate after you took the oath. You resign because you say there are some closely held religious belief to prevent you from doing your service. This Bill says despite the fact you resign, and state it you will not discharge those four duties to all North Carolinians. This Bill says you can be hired back after you've already said you will not do it, that you can be hired back, that you can take that hope again, and misrepresent after you clearly said you won't fulfil your oath you get to take the oath again and get hired back, and then give the notice again and say, I changed my mind, I'm not going to do it. I don't want to have to do marriages for six months. Not only that, the bill says you can do that over and over and over again, there's no limit in the bill, so every six months once you just come in and say look, I won't do any marriages. I know the marriage bill, I know that's one of my duties, I'm sworn to do it without favoritism, do it faithfully and impartially, but I just decide I'm not going to do it, and so under this bill, you just, every six months you just submit it, I'm not doing it. Although the magistrates have to take up this lie, although the magistrates have to adjust their schedule, and sure you might be transferred to some other duties, but you are creating an inconvenience for all the other folks, who want to come and have a regular schedule. understand what else we do in this Bill. In order to go through all the contortions we have to go through to legitimize this discrimination that we're now trying to provide a safe haven for. We say, which is something we've never done before, we say, we're going to establish you're only required to be at [xx] of the week to have whatever types of marriages in the magistrates office. You only provide 10 hours. We set this baseline that says you don't have to try to provide the service, the citizens can't expect that flexibility. But in order to be able to accommodate this kind of discrimination, we need to shrink the window in which you can get your marriage performed by a magistrate, and by that canode we can try to make it so, we can legalize this discrimination, you never seen it before, think about all the hoop we tried to jump through, to legalize this discrimination in North Carolina, is ridiculous. We should be above that, I don't even know if this falls in representative specialty. There is a few good bill category, I don't know if we are fooling somebody, this is so clearly about we should know the law, we know what the court going through, this would be number 12 or 13 or 14, I'm not sure which one of the recent years of law that we passed, knowing that unconstitutional we just say, as I had someone say, well legislature we can just make a law, we can just change the law. I don't say we can pass a law that
is legal or constitution, that's not constrain that was put on it just did on the table, we can make a lot. Yeah we can make a lot. We made about 12 or 13 or 14 albums that we knew were constitutional and the court said they are and we haven't learnt and so we got a novel. We are going to say, we are going to change this law, we going to do something we know is unconstitutional, we going to bind and shape ourselves so that we can get through this obstacle cause, this call full access to your government and full access on your race and then we're going to pay the Lawyers that we've always created statues for so we can hire outside council to evacuate it, and at the end of the day we will be right back here where we are saying, well I guess we have to abide by the constitution after all. Slight inconvenience, I know it is, but we're better than this so we should have learned what we done before, there's always the right time, to do the right thing, but is never the right time to do the wrong thing, this is the wrong thing to do I will ask, you think about that, I understand that people have cast their votes and made their decisions, but this is also for the people of North Carolina to hear the discussion and know that some people have a difference of opinion on this matter and hold their rights close and dear. Finally, it's interesting that we had armed forces there yesterday and we paid tribute to our service men and women throughout North North Carolina, heard a reference to how the military has gone past this issue and understood that all human beings are valuable and they provide a richness and a quality to our lives and our society but yet and still, we continue to try to swim backwards and go backwards in time. That won't be allowed that won't happen even under this Bill. North Carolina is going to continue to go forward despite people's attempt to take it back and I hope that North Carolinians will listen to this and understand. They need to work on us, they need to let us know more so responding to a poll is not enough. Apparently they didn't call more of us, they need to email more of us, they need to make us understand personally their desires for this State to go forward and not be trapped in our history of discrimination against its citizens here in North Carolina further discussion, further debate? If not, the question for the house is the passage of the Senate Committee Substitute, The Senate bill two on it's third reading. Those in favor will vote aye, those who oppose will vote No. The Clerk will open the vote. clerk will lock the machine to record the votes. 66 having voted in affirmatives and 44 in the negatives the senate committee substitute senate bill two passes it's third reading will be sent to the governor by a special messenger. Members we have a couple of groups I want to make sure we introduce on behalf of representative Johnson, Blass, Boston hares of Guilford county the chair is happy to extend the courtesies the gallery to and then present in the North Carolina works services are you all still with us? They may have left it appears. And the chair will also like to welcome a very special group to the chair a group of folks from Kingsmouth that also go to my church including my pastor and a number of my members and relatives including my mum who are all seated in the gallery to the right join me in welcoming them with us today too. Also our nurse of the day came in midway through the debate and I want to make sure we recognize her [xx] from Durham North Carolina we're also glad to have you with us today, thank you. House 795 the clerk will read representative Turbid Hungry and Millie's house bill 795 a build of entire act to reform and amend the states of Johnson of North colonial X the gentleman from Aston representative Torbid is recognised for a motion thank you Mr. Speaker I move the house do not concur. The gentleman from his mood that the house do not can go with house bill 795, further discussion further debate if not the question before the house is the motion not to conquer if not those in favor will vote all those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote in the interesting of a vote changes the chair notices a couple of members having noted no these is a motion not to conquer which should be a
green vote if the house does not wish to agree with the senate position. Representative Graham, does the gentleman wish to record? Graham of [xx]. The gentleman has not voted. Does the gentleman wish to vote? Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 106 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative the motion is adopted. The senate will be so informed. The chair appoints the following conferees representative Torbett, Chair, representative Millers, Hagel and Ray will be the conferees, the senate will be so notified. Senate bill 291, the clerk will read. Senator Hadso[sp?] senate bill 291, a bill for the enact to extend duration of overnight respiratory program into providing more comprehensive evaluation of a power program, general assembly of the North Carolina act. for what purpose does the lady from Wake representative Ailer rise? To debate the bill The lady has the floor to debate the debate Thank you Mr. Speaker the reason we're asking for this extension o the pilot program is simply to allow rules to stay in place as we begin to role us out as state wide program that has been included in our budget without these rules the people who were currently will be offering the service that there residents will have to stop and it's very confusing so we would just like to have the rules stay in place untill everything is established for the state wide program I would appreciate your support,. Thank you Further discussion further debate? If not the question before the house is the passage of senate 291 on the second reading those in favor will vote aye those oppose will vote no the clerk will open the vote The clerk will lock the machine record the vote 107 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative senate bill 291 passes it's second reading and will without objection be read the third time Johnson of North Colonial X further discussion further debate if not the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 291 on its third reading. Those in favor will say aye, those opposed will say no? The ayes have it. Senate Bill 291 passes its third reading bills ordered in road and sent to the governor. House Bill 385 the clerk will read. Representative McNeill, Presnell, Shepard, and Waddell, House Bill 385, a bill to be entitled An Act To Increase The Portion Of Court Costs Used For The Sheriffs' Supplemental mental patients fund, and to allow unused sick leave under the local governmental employees retirement system to be applied to eligible service in the sheriff suffering mental pension fund. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. For what purpose does the gentleman from Randolph, Representative McNeill rise? Debate the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, thank you house members for the opportunity to represent this bill to you today. Section one of House Bill 385 increases those portions of call cost that fund retiring sheriff pension plan, seeks to raise those court cost from a dollar 25 to 250, section two of the bill allows retiring sheriffs the option of choosing the use of sick leave either in the local government retirement plan, or in the sheriffs pension plan, but not both. I just lets them choose, and then the rest of the sections of the bill just established the effective dates of section one and two. It's been 10 years since the caucus has been increased to fund this. It received, it's been through two committees pensions and retirement where it got unanimous support and the Finance Committee today where it got unanimous support. I would appreciate your support for the bill 385. Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the house is the passage of house bill 385 on its second reading, those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote Representative Hollo does the gentleman wish to record on this? Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 108 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, house bill 385 passes its second reading, and this is a roll call bill and we'll roll over to 99. For what purpose does the gentleman from [xx] Representative Zachary rise?
Ask you to change my vote on the senate bill two to an aye. Gentleman wish to be on senate bill two, the gentleman will be recorded as having voted aai on senate bill two. Representative Davidson forward recognized the committee record the clerk will read. representative Davis for local government committee report house bill 411 founder of [xx] play for the real of finance. The bill is referred to the committee on finance House Bill 412 city Dine annexation favorable and be re-refereed to finance Bill re-referred to committee of finance Senate Bill 77 looks for retirement sketchure to pictures and retirement bills refer to the committee on pictures and retirement and the chair direct that senate bill 291 be delivered by special messenger Notices and announcements for what purpose does the gentleman fro Durham Representative Hall rise? A point of personal privilege Mr Speaker. The gentleman is recognized to speak to a point of personal privilege. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen of the house, I want to take this opportunity to recognize a couple of our members who've had outstanding achievements, and have been awarded special recognition. First of all we wanted to recognize members Robert Reeves, Greg Meyer and Joe Sam Quinn for their recognition as advocates for the environment here in North Carolina by being awarded the green tier for the year 2015 so please them a hand. And finally Mr. Speaker I wanted to recognize one of our long standing members who's widely recognized authority not only on budgetary matters but on criminal law and constitutional matters here in the house of representatives. Representative [xx] MShaw has been awarded the designation as the liberal lion of the house by the data hand maker and I'd ask that you give him a hand as well. For what purpose does the gentleman from Rutherford, Representative Hager rise? To see if Representative Hall answered the question. Does the minority leader yield to the majority leader? Will do the best. He yields, Are you sure you read that right did I say Jitra or I said Mr Harley ratification bill on reservations clerk will read The willing vote placed to gallery presentation to the governor, senator bill two an enact to allow magistrates and system register deeds and deputy register deeds to himself from performing duties related to marriage ceremonies due to sincerely hare religious objection just wanted to make sure before folks start leaving we'll have some votes on Monday night we know at least one bill maybe a couple for what purpose does the gentleman does the gentleman from Dam Representative Michele rise Just to let representative Cheddar know had shared with it Alright noted Further notices and announcements, we're going to thank our pages, pages if you would come forward please, our pages were earlier introduced yesterday the course of the schedule, and then today we already saying goodbye. As the pages are making their way here, I would submit they have seen an interesting week of debate of interesting issues and
have seen the General Assembly, have seen some debated some of us find it awesome very contentious issues but they have same members address each other with respect and [xx] think it's a lesson of how we can be very strong that not be disagreed on I hope that's lesson that's taken away. Members I hope you'll join me in thanking our pagers for their service this week Thank you, again you are all excused further notice and announcements if not the gentleman from Hardick, Representative Louis is recognized for a motion. Mr. Speaker, I move the subject to the referrals in deals and resolutions and ratifications fields of resolutions that the house adjourned are reconvened Monday, June 1st at 7 O'clock P. M representative Louis More second of our representative art and the house will now adjourn subject to ratification bill of resolutions and we'll be four bills of resolution Jim Foster 7 P. M those in favour will say aye those opposed no they ayes have it we stand adjourned.