Cooper: NC prosecutors will drop opposition to challenges to state’s same-sex marriage ban

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.
Data pix.

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Attorney General Roy Cooper said at a news conference Monday prosecutors will drop their opposition to challenges to the state's same-sex marriage ban.

The announcement comes in the wake of a federal appeals court decision affecting a similar prohibition in Virginia.

Cooper said the decision means North Carolina's constitutional ban on gay marriage likely will be overturned.

He added it was time for attorneys representing North Carolina to "stop making arguments we will lose."

Cooper said judges have heard "about every legal argument imaginable" and the same-sex marriage bans still haven't stood up in court.


  • sinner 3

    Who did not know cooper would go this way !! He had discussed his action for months with his LGBT backers !! He will be running for higher office soon !!

      • Hobbes

        Do you then support polygamy? How about 4 men and 3 women marrying? Can a household of men claim marriage benefits? Do you believe in any restraints that an individual state can place on its marriage laws?

      • Wally the Engineer

        There is lots of Polygamy in the Bible. Some of God’s champions had multiple wives and concubines.

    • Chucky

      It’s called checks and balances. Black people would never have had rights had it not been for similar decisions. It took the courts and the executive branch of the government to give them the rights they now have… there is no difference here. It is something that will happen.

  • Sisposs

    Stop arguing against what they believe in? That is why they were elected by the people who voted for them. TO HAVE A VOICE!

    • Donnie

      The voters of NC also voted against this and obviously that was a waste of tax payers money to even put it on the docket. NC is going downhill just as fast as the rest of the country. Can’t say God, can’t pray, everyone thinks they can do and say anything they want and there are no repercussions to their words or actions. Keep watching the demise of America and the entire reason for its existence.

  • grover

    Why should we decide or judge other people. If we only went by bigoted voters decisions, women would not have the vote and people would still own slaves.

    • j r nance (@rnance1950)

      I didn’t know owning slaves was solved by Voting I actually Believed the Civil War was the end of Slavery, uh oh you must be a Bigot because you must have voted against Slavery back in the day or at least you thought you did, does that mean I’m Judging you????

      • ncturd

        Lincoln was elected by vote in 1860 on a tickect of no new slave states. The Thirteenth Amendment was passed by the Senate in 1864 and the House in1865, which both consist of elected individuals. Both of those are the results of voting. The war was just an unneeded part of the process.

      • Hobbes

        The US Constitution was amended to end slavery, etc. That’s a very specific and difficult process which involves both the US Congress and individual state legislatures. Curious historical note, the Confederate States, as a condition of being readmitted to the Union, had to ratify the new amendments. Alabama argued that if they never actually left the Union, as the union argued in its justification for the war, why do they need to be readmitted to something they never left?

    • joe

      Could it be because we are suppose to live in a democracy? And what gives YOU the right to call people with an opinion other than yours, bigots?

      • dewey

        for the last time…this is NOT a democracy….we live in a constitutional republic….similar but not the same

  • Kaffie

    Why should we bow to the pressures of the gays? As far as I am concerned they should still be locked in a closet somewhere far away!

  • joe

    We need to remember, all this ban did was put teeth in a Constitutional Law that is still there. All we are doing is making these snake lawyers richer by fighting this. The voters were made fools of by putting this to a vote by our corrupt and broken system.

      • joe

        Only in your small liberal world is it misspelled. I’m not saying I agree, but it IS a fact. What makes in unconstitutional? Convince me.

    • Eric

      The law is unconstitutional because it discriminates against a group of people due to sexual orientation, which is seen as a quasi-suspect class under the 14th Amendment. To give you a quick crash course, there are three classes: Suspect (Race, National Origin), Quasi-suspect (Sexual Orientation, Gender), and Non-suspect (Age). Due to sexual orientation being targeted by this law, the State must show that the law is substantially related to a governmental interest that can be deemed important. This amendment does not have an important government interest, and as such, immediately fails under Intermediate Scrutiny.

      • JT

        You are correct, Eric. Further, many posit that the legal precedence was set in 1961 (Loving v. State of Virginia) which struck down the south’s anti-miscegenation laws. Further, I actually spoke to one of the champions of “Amendment One;” in a rhetorical question, I asked, “You do know that this will be struck down if it ever goes to court, don’t you?” Her response was, “Of course–this is just gerrymandering to energize our base.” Looks like it worked–the homophobes are out in force here…

  • Tonya

    Why even vote anymore? It doesn’t matter what we think because the government will just overthrow it if they don’t like it! It’s a shame our country has come to this.

  • Hobbes

    Roy has a duty to uphold the NC Constitution. He can’t just decide that he’s now the judicial branch. Regardless of how he feels about the constitution or its eventual viability, it is not for him to decide which laws he will prosecute and which he will not. An AG does not get to prosecute or not prosecute based on the laws of other states or court rulings in regard to other states.

    • Chucky

      He is sworn to uphold the laws of NC… that is true. Once similar laws in other states have been declared “unconstitutional” in Federal courts though, the state assumes a risk if enforcing it. I for one as a tax payer do not want to pay out money to people who have been denied a civil right. That is what can possibly happen much like in the Eugenics cases. Mr. Cooper could blow a lot of money defending a law that is unconstitutional but the state has a need to spend the money elsewhere.

  • sinner 3

    Holder set the Federal precedent by choosing which laws to enforce and defend Cooper is just another Dem!!

  • Charles Baker

    This guy should do the honorable thing and resign. Whether he agrees with a law or not is inconsequential. His job is to enforce the laws passed by the legislature, not to decide whether a law is good or bad. The courts are the place to go for a decision as to the constitutionality of a law. He took an oath to uphold the laws not to make the laws. Our system is broken by men who think they are dictators over their little kingdom.
    One of three things should happen.
    1. He should enforce the laws regardless of his personal opinion, that’s his job.
    2. He should announce that he is no longer willing to do his job and quit.
    3. The people of NC should rise en-mass and demand his removal and he should never be even considered for any other political office.
    Will one of those happen? Probably not. Our system is broken and we’ve become used to it.

Comments are closed.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.