This article is from the archive of our partner .

Same-sex marriage bans have faced a number of legal challenges over the years, but a new lawsuit from the United Church of Christ is apparently the first challenge in the courts to invoke religious liberty. The suit will ask a district court in North Carolina to strike down the state's laws barring same-sex marriages, in part because a provision that makes it a misdemeanor for clergy to perform the ceremonies violates the church's religious freedom. A number of same-sex couples have also joined the suit, petitioning for the right to marry. 

This is the 66th challenge to a same-sex marriage ban currently making its way through the courts, as the Charlotte Observer explains. It joins many of those other challenges in also citing the equal protection and due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment in its challenge against state laws.  The suit reads: 

"By denying same-sex couples the right to marry and prohibiting religious denominations even from performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, the State of North Carolina stigmatizes same-sex couples, as well as the religious institutions and clergy that believe in equal rights." 

Attorney John Martel said in a statement that “marriage performed by clergy is a spiritual exercise and expression of faith essential to the values and continuity of the religion that government may regulate only where it has a compelling interest.” In other words, a North Carolina law that makes it a misdemeanor to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony violates the religious freedom of clergy members who believe those unions are an expression of faith. In other other words, conservative opponents of same-sex marriage aren't the only religious people in the country.
 
This is something that has been thoroughly demonstrated in North Carolina, where religious leaders organize Moral Monday protests against policies enacted by the state legislature. The UCC is joined by other clergy members in bringing this challenge, including a North Carolina Rabbi, a Baptist minister, and a handful of Unitarian Universalist churches. A number of couples seeking to marry also joined the suit. 

We're used to seeing religious freedom arguments in the courts these days, but they're usually on behalf of conservative groups, in favor of conservative or traditional restrictions on social issues. For instance, "religious freedom" was the reason behind a bill in Michigan that would have allowed adoption agencies to discriminate on religious grounds against families looking to adopt — including the ability to refuse to place children in the homes of LGBT couples. And "religious freedom" also brought us the anti-gay bill, ultimately vetoed by the governor in Arizona, that would have allowed businesses to refuse to serve gay customers. And of course it played a big role in conservative opposition to the contraceptive mandate in the health care reform laws.

In other words, the UCC's lawsuit represents both an expansion of the legal arguments against same-sex marriage bans, and a challenge to the conservative supporters of religious freedom. Although the UCC's complaint here is genuine, the suit itself is also something of a troll on religious liberty champions who consistently cite the protection to limit LGBT rights. 

That challenge to religious liberty invokers was noted in a piece over at Slate, titled "Religious Liberty Hypocrisy." In response, at least one writer on religious freedom — Ramesh Ponnuru — has said he supports the argument that the North Carolina law should be struck down, based on the same religious liberty arguments he uses to oppose the contraceptive  mandate's application to religious groups. 

Of course, as the Charlotte Observer explains, the UCC's challenge to North Carolina's anti-marriage equality laws could become moot before it makes its way through the court. There are already two federal challenges to the state's ban filed in federal courts. And if the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decides against Virginia's same-sex marriage ban (as many expect them to do), that decision could also strike down existing bans in North Carolina, West Virginia, and South Carolina. 

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.