Gen. Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Resinger

• Decision Date: 10 October 2014
• Docket Number: No. 3:14–cv–00213–MOC–DLH.,3:14–cv–00213–MOC–DLH.
• Citation: 12 F.Supp.3d 790
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
• Parties: GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Drew RESINGER, Register of Deeds for Buncombe County, et al., Defendants. and Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North Carolina, Intervenor.

12 F.Supp.3d 790

GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, et al., Plaintiffs

v. Drew RESINGER, Register of Deeds for Buncombe County, et al., Defendants.andRoy Cooper, Attorney General of North Carolina, Intervenor.

No. 3:14–cv–00213–MOC–DLH.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division.

Signed Oct. 10, 2014.

David Weiner, Jonathan Martel, Samuel Witten, Sarah Warlick, Thomas Glazer, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC, John West Gresham, S. Luke Largess, Jacob H. Sussman, Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owens, PLLC, Charlotte, NC, Mark James Kleinschmidt, Tin Fulton Walker & Owen, Chapel Hill, NC, Sean Morris, Arnold & Porter LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Philip Scott Anderson, Long, Parker, Warren & Jones, P.A., Tikkun A.S. Gottschalk, Asheville, NC, Richard Martin Koch, Law Offices of Richard M. Koch, PA, Robert Spencer Adden, Jr., Ronald L. Gibson, Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & Bethune, L.L.P., Charlotte, NC, Olga Eugenia Vysotskaya De Brito, N.C. Department of Justice, Scott Wood Warren, Roger A. Askew, Raleigh, NC, for Defendants.

Olga Eugenia Vysotskaya De Brito, N.C. Department of Justice, Raleigh, NC, for Intervenor.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

MAX O. COGBURN, JR., District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the court on its own Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In light of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir.2014), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 314, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2014 WL 4354536 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014), as to which the Mandate has now issued, Bostic v. Schaefer, No. 14–1167, 14–1169, 14–1173, 2014 WL 4960335 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 2014), the court determines that North Carolina's laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are unconstitutional as a matter of law.¹

Specifically, the court finds Article XIV, Section 6 of the North Carolina Constitution, North Carolina General Statute § 51–1 et seq., and any other source of state law that operates to deny same-sex couples the right to marry in the State of North Carolina, prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully solemnized in other States, Territories, or a District of the United States, or threatens clergy or other officiants who solemnize the union of same-sex couples with civil or criminal penalties, are, in accordance with Bostic, supra, unconstitutional as they violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Finally, in the hours preceding this Order there have been a number of last minute motions filed by interested parties. The issue before this court is neither a political issue nor a moral issue. It is a legal issue and it is clear as a matter of what is now settled law in the Fourth Circuit that North Carolina laws prohibiting same sex marriage, refusing to recognize same sex marriages originating elsewhere, and/or threatening to penalize those who would solemnize such marriages, are unconstitutional.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that

(1) the consent Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amendment Claims (# 114) is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice;

(2) the court's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, and the court finds Article XIV, Section 6 of the

...