Valerie Burrus, senior magistrate, said June 29 that she has advised her fellow magistrates that they may, on religious grounds, recuse themselves from performing same-sex marriages in Tyrrell County.

Tyrrell County Register of Deeds Gene Reynolds said she and her assistant will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Burrus and Reynodls were asked about the local policy after the the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, on June 28 rejected an appeal of the lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s Senate Bill 2, otherwise known as the “Magistrates Bill.”

“If they feel uncomfortable because of religious beliefs, they can ask another magistrate to preside at the ceremony,” Burrus said.

Reynolds said she and assistant register Sheryl Reynolds have issued, and will continue to issue, marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

“I issue the license because I was elected by people to serve the people and uphold state law. So, regardless how I personally feel, we will serve the people.” One same-sex couple obtained a marriage license there, she said.

Reynolds explained that, if she or her assistant recuse themselves under Senate Bill 2, that individual is prohibited from issuing any marriage licenses — to same-sex or other couples — for six months. “Our staff is so small we can’t afford to do that.”

The 2015 state law allows magistrates and registers of deeds employees to recuse themselves from performing duties related to marriages due to a sincerely held religious belief.

The most recent same-sex marriage ceremony in Tyrrell County that Burrus said she could recall was one she presided over in late 2016.

In the lower court decision the plaintiffs argued, in part, that Senate Bill 2 violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution because it authorized the “expenditure of government funds in order to facilitate the recusal of magistrates from marriage ceremonies.” They contended that these expenditures represent taxpayer money being used to unconstitutionally “further a religious belief” and that they have standing as taxpayers to sue.

U.S. District Court Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. of Asheville, appointed by President Obama in 2011, rejected this argument noting, “the court fails to see a logical link between Plaintiffs’ taxpayer status and the legislative enactment attacked.”

Cogburn concluded that the plaintiffs “have not alleged, let alone submitted affidavits or other evidence, showing any injury in the form of direct harm that might allow the court to find standing other than taxpayer status.”

The appeals court decision concurs with the lower court, noting “In light of the Supreme Court’s admonitions on the narrow scope of taxpayer standing, we affirm the judgment of the district court that plaintiffs lack standing to press this claim.”

The ruling concluded, “The outcome here is in no way a comment on same-sex marriage as a matter of social policy. The case before us is far more technical —- whether plaintiffs, simply by virtue of their status as state taxpayers, have alleged a personal, particularized injury for the purposes of Article III standing. Based on a century of Supreme Court precedent, we conclude that they have not.”