October 15, 2014 1:00 pm -

A North Carolina Magistrate refused to marry a same-sex couple on Monday based upon what Chief District Court Judge Christopher Bean determined to be Pasquotank County Magistrate Gary Littleton’a “religious or moral principles.”

On Friday,  same-sex marriage became legal in North Carolina after a judge struck down the state’s ban.

[su_center_ad]“My understanding is that a couple came and asked to be married and he refused to marry them based upon his, I guess, religious or moral principles,” Bean said. “I suppose that it can be construed that he broke the law because that is a duty that the magistrate has, to perform marriages. I think, though, you have to temper that a little bit with the confusion and the quickness of all of this.”

According to, Bean said the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts sent a preliminary memo to the magistrates late Monday saying, “magistrates should begin immediately conducting marriages of all couples presenting a marriage license.”

“I believe the final memo will say, without any question, that that is the duty of the magistrate,” Bean said.

When Bean was asked if the magistrate would know that he would not be able to deny a same-sex marriage based on personal beliefs, even without the memo, he replied, “You would think that.”

Bean said he will meet with all of the magistrates in Pasquotank County on Tuesday about the issue.

Bean went on to say that Littleton could possibly be removed from his position if someone files a formal complaint and a judge makes that decision.

Another magistrate, Leonardo Custis, said he later married the two men who were first turned away on Tuesday morning, according to WAVY.

“They cried, the couple and the witnesses, for the most part, so, I think they were happy that they were finally able to be married,” Custis said.

It sounds like Mr. Littleton is in the wrong business. As for the couple who was initially denied, Williams Locklear and his partner Randall Jackson, we wish them many happy years together.

Watch courtesy of WAVY:

H/T: The incomparable @CarlaAkins with thanks.[su_csky_ad]

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

13 responses to NC Magistrate Refuses To Marry Same-Sex Couple Due To ‘Religious’ Beliefs

  1. tiredoftea October 15th, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    No, we are not a “Christian” nation! Keep your f’ing personal beliefs out of our laws!

  2. M D Reese October 15th, 2014 at 1:48 pm

    That’s right up there with the pharmacists who won’t fill prescriptions that they disagree with. Get a different job.

    • Intolerantcentrist October 15th, 2014 at 2:47 pm


  3. Bunya October 15th, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    This shouldn’t be tolerated and he should be fired if he doesn’t quit voluntarily.

  4. uzza October 15th, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    “Leonardo Custis, said he later married the two men”
    See, we’re already starting down that slippery slope, we’ve barely made gay marriage legal and already we’ve got polygamy. What’s next? Cars? Toys in Walmart?

    • Anomaly 100 October 15th, 2014 at 2:26 pm


    • M D Reese October 15th, 2014 at 3:47 pm

      Thanks for the belly laugh!

  5. Guy Lauten October 15th, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    I am a policeman who sincerely believes all women to be no more than chattel. I witness Mr. Littleton’s daughter being assaulted by 5 men with obvious bad intent. Mr. Littleton pleads with me to step in and stop the unlawful assault. I tell him “No, it seems fine to me so I am not going to enforce the assault laws in this case.” I wonder if that would be okay with Mr. Littleton, and if not, why not?
    Step down before they wipe the floor with you, Mr. Religious Bigot.

    • GreatLakeSailor October 15th, 2014 at 9:02 pm

      Step down before they wipe the floor with you, Mr. Religious Bigot.

      I share you sentiments wholeheartedly. However, your example lacks standing in that Marriage Equality is new and the law against assault is not. Additionally, stopping an assault calls for an immediate response. Since another magistrate stepped in after the fact thus rectifying this AssHat’s (in)action, justice can playout over several hours, even a whole day, without harm beyond the initial discrimination.

      • Guy Lauten October 16th, 2014 at 10:28 am

        So the misogynist cop can allow the 5 thugs to toss her around for a while, then step in just before they rape her, and justice is still served? No harm beyond the initial affront, right? Balls.

        • GreatLakeSailor October 16th, 2014 at 12:44 pm

          Your response indicates you didn’t understand my point. Maybe reread my post?

          Additionally, stopping an assault calls for an immediate response.

          You know what immediate means, right?

          The situations are not analogous.

          The stopping of the unconstitutional discrimination of the magistrate is measured in hours; the stopping of an assault is measured in seconds. In your example harm builds almost instantly and after-the-act relief does little to rectify the trespass. I thought that point was clear…maybe not!?

          (My other point was the difference in well established law (your example) vs the current situation of a law in flux and this chuckleheaded magistrate not keeping up.)

  6. Dave October 15th, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    He knew EXACTLY what he was doing……FIRE HIM…..then sue the crap out of the County. The only way these idiots respond is when there’s money involved…THEIR REAL GOD!

    • Spirit of America October 15th, 2014 at 5:46 pm

      No to ‘sue the county’, this is new for them, give the county(and the tax payers of that county where the money would be drained from) time to enforce the law. Start with telling the mag either do your job, or be fired.