North Carolina has been given a lot of attention in recent months because of its “religious freedom” bills, acts of legislation that would provide leeway for North Carolina magistrates and business owners to refuse service to homosexual individuals who wish to marry.

Senate Bill 2, “Magistrates Recusal for Civil Ceremonies,” passed both the Senate and the House, before it went on to be vetoed by Governor Pat McCrory.

In this case, our governor was 100 percent justified in vetoing this bill. In a statement, he said, “I recognize that for many North Carolinians, including myself, opinions on same-sex marriage come from sincerely held religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, we are a nation and a state of laws. Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath; therefore, I will veto Senate Bill 2.”

For far too long our state legislature has been seemingly focused on doing everything it can to undo same-sex marriages in our state. Never mind that, as the governor pointed out, this particular piece of legislation violates the constitution.

When Anson County’s first legalized same-sex marriage ceremony was performed by Magistrate Weaver Thomas in October, one of the women being married to her female partner asked the magistrate what he felt about same-sex marriages. Thomas responded that he couldn’t say, but that he was obligated by law to marry any individuals that have a marriage license.

That is the simple truth in this matter. As a magistrate, he and all other magistrates in the state of North Carolina, vowed to uphold the law. The law says two individuals of the same sex can be married, and so they shall be.

The same goes for the other “religious freedom” bill, which has yet to be voted on, that would allow business owners to deny services to homosexual couples, according to religious beliefs.

The example is often given of a baker who may be asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Under this law, the baker would be justified in refusing to bake such a cake if he or she felt it violated their religious beliefs.

This whole argument is a waste of time, quite honestly. No matter what, laws such as this will continue to fail because they are simply legalizing discrimination.

As a journalist, if you have to interview a neo-Nazi, for example, you can’t just opt out of doing it because you don’t agree with his or her beliefs. Because you are against genocide on the basis of your religious beliefs doesn’t amount to a whole lot. If you’re assigned to do a story, you do it. The same goes for any other profession. You cannot refuse to do something just because you don’t agree with it.

And there are so many, much more important issues we should be focusing on, like increasing teacher pay, increasing the number of teachers, reducing unemployment, fixing our healthcare system, the list goes on and on.

When it comes down to it, whether two men who live on the same street as you decide to get married or not, it does not affect your life one iota. It will not destroy your heterosexual marriage. It will not destroy the entire fabric of society. It will merely be two people who love each other deciding to make a permanent commitment to each other.

There are a whole lot worse things out there, people. It’s time we focus on fixing those, not trying to impede other people’s rights or happiness.