A law that takes effect Thursday clarifies that a person can't sue for an affair that starts when the marriage is all but over.

The state's alienation of affection and criminal conversation laws allow a jilted person to sue his or her spouse's lover for interfering with the marriage. The law can make for an awkward situation when couples separate, as they are required to do before they divorce because the couple is still married and the prohibition against affairs is still in play.

But the new law states that if a couple is separated and on its way to divorce, extra-marital relationships that begin after the separation are off limits for lawsuits.

Dome wonders if Thursday will be a big date night.

Update: Post clarifies who sues whom in these lawsuits. 

Some recent Senate bills of note:

S.B. 943: Expand Film Credit, Sen. Linda Garrou

S.B. 973: Create Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs, Sen. Tony Rand 

S.B. 992: Authorize Mayors to Solemnize Marriage, Sen. Don Davis

S.B. 994: Establish State Athletics Commission, Sen. Dan Clodfelter

S.B. 1006: Withholding on Contractors Identified by ITIN, Sen. David Hoyle 

S.B. 1014: Lottery Trust Fund, Sen. Doug Berger

S.B. 1018: Reduce Plastic Bag Use, Sen. Josh Stein

State judges are a step closer to having the right to officiate weddings.

The state Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill Monday night that would grant judges the authority, Dan Kane reports.

Each session lawmakers routinely pass bills granting a certain judge the right to perform a wedding on a particular weekend. Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand said that's a waste of time.

"We've had two such bills this session," said Rand, a Fayetteville Democrat. "We've had at least 10 in the last eight or nine years to do this and these individual bills just clog up the administration of what we are about and take up our time. This would allow judges to marry people if they want to."

The bill passed by a 39-5 vote. It now goes to the House.

Sen. Tony Rand has made good on his threat.

The Democratic majority leader filed this bill today:

S.B. 59: Any Judge/Justice May Perform Marriage

Rand had said that he would file that bill if state judges kept asking for exceptions to the law that only allows ordained ministers, Native American religious leaders and magistrates to officiate weddings.

Another theory why most judges can't officiate: They don't want to.

N.C. Bar Association spokesman Russell Rawlings said he's now heard a second theory on why judges higher than the magistrate level can't perform weddings.

He said that state law allowed it at one point, but elected judges felt that it was an imposition. Since they run for office regularly, they had a hard time saying no to requests from voters, but they felt it was a drain on their time.

"They felt they would end up marrying anyone who wanted to pop into a courtroom, get married and move on," he said.

Neither Rawlings nor Dome has yet found evidence to back up this theory in newspaper archives or on the legislative Web site.

A bill introduced this session would allow retired state judges to officiate.

Why can't most judges officiate at weddings?

Dome is looking into that question, but N.C. Bar Association spokesman Russell Rawlings had a theory.

"Back when this law started, there wasn't but one judge in many areas, especially up in the mountains," he said.

That could have put a judge in a conflict of interest if one of the people who he married showed up as part of a criminal or civil case — or even a divorce — in his courtroom, Rawlins speculated.

The state law dates to 1871. 

Previously: Bill would allow retired judges to officiate 

Judges have asked to perform weddings before.

In 2001, the legislature passed a bill allowing Superior Court judges to officiate at weddings from May 19 to May 28 of that year.

The bill was written to allow Duplin County Judge Russell Lanier to officiate at his daughter's wedding.

It was added as a provision to an omnibus bill amending marriage statutes signed into law just weeks before the scheduled wedding.

Under state law, only ordained ministers, certain Native American religious leaders and magistrates can serve as officiants — not any other type of judge.

Magistrates are the lowest level of the state's judicial system. Typically they issue arrest warrants, set bail, try small-claims cases and issue subpoenas. They also perform marriages for a small fee or between breaks at the county jailhouse.

(Dome once stumbled onto a late-night wedding while doing police rounds. The bride wore white; the groom, black; the magistrate, a sweater vest behind bulletproof glass.)

A bill introduced this session would allow retired state judges to officiate as well. Like the earlier legislation, it was also written to help a specific judge — in this case, retired N.C. Appeals Court Judge Eddie Greene.

Rep. Russell Tucker isn't trying to start something.

He just wants to help a friend.

The Lenoir County Democrat filed a bill this week that would allow certain retired judges to officiate at weddings in North Carolina.

He said the bill is intended to help his friend, retired N.C. Appeals Court Judge Eddie Greene. He's not even sure of the details.

"I have no idea who it is he wants to marry," he said.

The problem comes from the fact that under state law, only magistrates and ordained ministers can perform weddings. (Trust Dome. We ran into this statute planning our own wedding.)

The bill would create an odd legal scenario: A state judge couldn't perform a wedding — but a retired state judge could. Past legislation to expand officiants has run up against opposition from judges who would rather not have the extra duty.

Tucker said he didn't care about all that.

"I just think they should pass my bill and forget about the rest of that," he said.

A few more bills have been filed in the House:

H.B. 15: Military Family Assistance Center / Funds, Rep. Cullie Tarleton

H.B. 16: Retired Judge May Perform Marriage, Rep. Russell Tucker

H.B. 17: Asheboro Satellite Annexation, Rep. Harold Brubaker

H.B. 18: Speech Language Pathologist Qualifications, Rep. Bill Faison

H.B. 19: MLK's 80th Birthday / Obama Inauguration, Reps. Larry Womble, Paul Luebke, Jennifer Weiss, Earline Parmon

H.B. 20: Compensate Eugenics Sterilization Survivors, Reps. Womble, Parmon, Ronnie Sutton and Martha Alexander

Marriage will stay at its current state of bliss, while divorce would become a bit more arduous, House Finance Committee members decided today.

As they took up the House's proposed $21.3 billion budget bill, they removed a $10 increase in the marriage license fee, and doubled the proposed $10 increase to divorce filings, Dan Kane reports.

House Minority Leader Paul Stam, an Apex Republican, offered the amendment to shift the burden away from marriages and add it to divorces. Marriage licenses cost $50, while a divorce filing would jump from $55 to $75.

It's not an even swap. Fiscal staff said there are 20,000 more marriages than divorces each year, so budget writers will now have to find a way to plug what appears to be a $200,000 hole.
In other fee changes, the committee dropped a proposed increase in the forest products fee, and reduced a proposed increase in the cap on asbestos removal fees from $5,000 to $1,500.

The House Appropriations Committee is expected to take up the bill later today, and the full House is expected to vote on the budget tomorrow.