MARION, N.C. - A North Carolina law once again is being reviewed by a federal court.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., today is to hear arguments in a lawsuit challenging Senate Bill 2. Also known as the "Magistrate Recusal" law, it allows magistrates who don't believe in marriage equality to renounce their judicial oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Meghann Burke, who is representing the plaintiffs in the case, said allowing the law to stand also opens up a host of other problems.

"Even though we know Senate Bill 2 was passed as a response to marriage equality," she said, "this law, the way it's written, would allow a magistrate to exempt himself from doing his job if, for example, he thinks people of different races should not marry."

Burke also is an attorney for the Campaign for Southern Equality, which has spoken out in support of plaintiffs Diane Ansley and Cathy McGaughey, a married couple from McDowell County where at one point all magistrates had exempted themselves from marrying the pair. Magistrates were brought in from other counties to fulfill the request.

Supporters of SB 2 have said it's a matter of religious freedom for state employees. Burke argued that being denied services by a county in which you live and pay taxes has a destructive impact on those involved.

"Laws like Senate Bill 2 impose an immeasurable amount of stigmatic harm on the people who are the targets of these laws," Burke said, "but it also brands these marriages with a certain belief these marriages are not equal to other marriages, and we think that violates both the First Amendment and Equal Protection clause."

Burke said the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental right to marry under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. She added that SB 2 also costs taxpayers when other magistrates have to come into a county. In recent years, federal courts also have reviewed - and overturned - North Carolina's Amendment 1, which stated that marriage was intended between a man and a woman.

Information about the case is online at southernequality.org.

Reporting by North Carolina News Connection in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the Park Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

By Eduardo Miranda Strobel / Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi reporting for the Kent State NewsLab-Ohio News Connection Collaboration.

Concerns of transgender Ohioans and advocates have heightened since the passage of the "Bathroom Bill" last month.

TransOhio condemned HB 183, which passed as an amendment to an unrelated bill on June 26.

"Hate mongers in Columbus want to see trans and gender nonconforming Ohioans stripped of their right to exist in public spaces," said Dara Adkison, executive director of TransOhio, in a press release issued after the vote. "They can make our lives harder, but they can't make us not a part of this state."

If the bill becomes law, it would have tangible consequences for Ohio's trans students.

"I started testosterone just about two months ago now, so I plan on using the men's restroom and stuff at school, and HB 183 would make it quite literally illegal for that to happen, which is not fun," said Robin Baradarvar, a sophomore at Centennial High School in Columbus.

Sponsored by Rep. Adam Bird (R-New Richmond) and Rep. Beth Lear (R-Galena), HB 183 would require trans students in Ohio K-12 schools and colleges to utilize bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their assigned genders at birth.

The bill, also called the Protect All Students Act, passed out of the Ohio House Higher Education Committee with a 10-5 vote on April 10. It was awaiting further consideration until HB 183 was added as an amendment to SB 104, a revision to the College Credit Plus Program, which allows students in grades 7 through 12 to earn college credits. The amended College Credit Plus bill passed by a 60-31 vote, mostly along party lines.

The Ohio Channel recorded the debate on the House floor.

"Our schools are places to provide academic instruction and protection for all kids," Lear said during the debate. "No young girl who's uncomfortable with her body and thinks that she might be a boy is safe going into a boys' locker room or bathroom. She's just not. And it's up to us to make the choices to do what's best for all kids because this will protect all of them."

Rep. Jena Powell (R-Arcanum) urged others to vote yes on the amendment.

"I hope that my little boy one day is going to grow up in a world where he does not have to think, wow, is a girl, or is a boy going to come in my bathroom? And they have a safe space in the state of Ohio," Powell said during the debate.

Bird's proposal was met with opposition from Democrats.

"It is when students know that they belong in their communities that they are best able to learn and reach their full potential," Rep. Beryl Piccolantonio (D-Gahanna) said during the debate. "This bill actually makes life more difficult, even for school district staff who are already under immense pressure and stress. The language that is in this bill is overbroad and is unclear, and there's no funding provided for any building modifications that would be required."

Rep. Joseph Miller (D-Amherst) said he was disappointed Ohioans are putting efforts into shaming trans children and young adults for wanting to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.

"I would say that 183 is problematic because of that, it doesn't protect all students and their rights to use a facility that recognizes their gender," Miller said in an interview before the vote.

HB 183 would also restrict students from using overnight accommodations with those of a different gender.

It would not restrict cases of assistance of young children and people with disabilities or emergencies in bathrooms and locker rooms.

"Trans kids just want to go to the bathroom and pee," Adkison said in an interview. "It would be great if our legislators were more focused on their education and less what their genitals are."

Both sponsors of HB 183, Reps. Bird and Lear, were contacted but did not make themselves available for an interview.

Eight percent of the trans population 13 and older live in states that ban them from using bathrooms and facilities that align with their gender identity in every government-owned space, including K-12 schools, colleges, and more. This includes trans people living in Florida and Utah.

Ten other states have implemented restroom bans of some kind.

For androgynous people, there can be conflict in the bathrooms between girls thinking they are too masculine or boys thinking they are too feminine, Baradarvar said.

"It's a very scary thing being a trans person," Baradarvar said. "Especially if they don't have a single-sex bathroom, which isn't very common in schools right now, or at least high schools. So, it's kind of traumatizing."

The Senate is expected to vote on the amended bill after returning from summer break. If it passes there, the bill will then be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine.


This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

Twenty years after Massachusetts became the first state to permit marriage equality, a majority of same-sex married couples say it had a profound positive impact on their lives. A new report finds it strengthened couples' relationships, provided legal protections, financial security and greater acceptance among family and friends.

Abbie Goldberg, Clark University psychology professor, said marriage equality is part of a public health agenda.

"They have access to health insurance. They are physically and mentally healthier. They're able to share the sort of challenges and work of raising children," Goldberg said.

Still, Goldberg noted nearly 80% of couples surveyed worry about the future of marriage equality. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have both suggested the high court revisit Obergefell v. Hodges - the decision that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015.

The report reveals same-sex married couples are also concerned about what they consider to be an increasingly hostile environment in the United States. More than 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced since last year - including bans on classroom conversations or books about LGBTQ+ people.

Concerns are forcing couples nationwide to consider relocating to more-friendly states, including Massachusetts, or even out of the country, Goldberg said.

"It's creating not just legal uncertainty but propelling them to think about the future in ways that require time, money, planning," she continued.

Goldberg added marriage equality created families, and the report reveals the positives to ensuring people are protected. Almost 60% of participants said marriage provided more stability or security for their children, and often created new in-laws, who could help.


get more stories like this via email

For some LGBTQ+ voters in Nebraska, the state's new voter ID law brought up issues in the May primary election and could again in November's General Election.

Johnny Redd, communications manager for OutNebraska, said the group has used Pride Month to focus on voter registration and what the voter ID law does and does not mean. Redd explained one concern they have heard is, what happens if the person's ID picture does not match their appearance or gender expression?

"There is no requirement that requires you to look like your photo. It just has to be a photo ID," Redd noted. "I mean, obviously, if it's like someone of a different race, or something like that, then there's a problem."

Redd pointed out it is not unusual for people to look different from their photo ID, often because of a different hair color or style, or weight gain or loss. But for those who have changed their name, she stressed the name on their ID and their voter registration must match for them to be eligible to vote.

Redd urged people to make sure their voter registration is up-to-date. At the Secretary of State's Voter Registration Portal, people can register, change their address and even change their name in some cases.

Redd added voter roll purging is another reason people should double-check their registration. She said although it is usually billed as "upkeep," in some cases it may be more targeted.

"Specifically, BIPOC and LGBTQ people end up being a huge number of those folks that are purged from voter rolls, for whatever reason," Redd observed. "That's another big one, just showing up and realizing, 'Wait, I'm not even on the list because I haven't voted since 2017,' or something like that."

Nebraska law requires people who've moved to update their voter registration by the deadline indicated by their county election commissioner or county clerk, or they will be dropped from the voter rolls.

A 2022 study identified members of the LGBTQ+ community and their supporters as one of the fastest growing voting blocs in the country.