Uncategorized

Defense Of Marriage Act Struck Down

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined a federal statute banning gay marriage to be unconstitutional – violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equal protection under the law. Passed in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA) expressly forbade the federal government from recognizing gay marriage – even though a dozen…

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined a federal statute banning gay marriage to be unconstitutional – violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equal protection under the law. Passed in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA) expressly forbade the federal government from recognizing gay marriage – even though a dozen states have adopted laws recognizing gay marriages.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” the court’s majority opinion, written by justice Anthony Kennedy noted. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others.”

This website opposes any government involvement in marriage.

While we object to gay marriage, we believe that decision should be left to individual churches.

“Marriage – as we’ve noted ad nauseam in the past – ought to be the exclusive purview of local congregations. Gay or straight,” we wrote recently. “In no instance should government (federal, state or local) ban congregations from marrying whomever they want … but similarly in no instance should government (federal, state or local) compel these congregations to marry couples against their will.”

Government has an obvious constitutional obligation to recognize gay and straight civil unions … but marriages?

Those recognitions ought to be the exclusive purview of individual congregations.

We reject DOMA as a violation of liberty, but we also reject any federal law which seeks to officialize any marriage – whether it be between a man and a woman, a man and another man or (our founding editor’s personal favorite) a woman and another woman.

It is simply not the role of government to weigh in one way or the other …

***

Related posts

Murdaughs

Buster Murdaugh Files Defamation Lawsuit

Callie Lyons
Uncategorized

Murdaugh Retrial Hearing: Interview With Bill Young

Will Folks
State House

Conservative South Carolina Lawmakers Lead Fight Against CRT

Mark Powell

133 comments

Hahahahaha! June 26, 2013 at 10:56 am

“It is simply not the role of government to weigh in one way or the other …”

It is when benefits and pensions are involved.

Reply
Nölff June 26, 2013 at 10:59 am

I think the gov should do away the benefits and pensions.

Reply
Big Brown Cigar June 26, 2013 at 11:03 am

Tell that to Sally Ride’s partner…

Reply
Curious June 26, 2013 at 2:30 pm

Do you feel that way about the “benefit” to visit one’s spouse as next of kin in the hospital in the event of a medical emergency or impending death?

Reply
Frank Pytel June 26, 2013 at 1:38 pm

No. It is unconstitutional for them to do so.

Reply
Hahahahaha! June 26, 2013 at 10:56 am

“It is simply not the role of government to weigh in one way or the other …”

It is when benefits and pensions are involved.

Reply
Nölff June 26, 2013 at 10:59 am

I think the gov should do away the benefits and pensions.

Reply
Big Brown Cigar June 26, 2013 at 11:03 am

Tell that to Sally Ride’s partner…

Reply
Curious June 26, 2013 at 2:30 pm

Do you feel that way about the “benefit” to visit one’s spouse as next of kin in the hospital in the event of a medical emergency or impending death?

Reply
Frank Pytel June 26, 2013 at 1:38 pm

No. It is unconstitutional for them to do so.

Reply
Halfvast Conspirator June 26, 2013 at 11:04 am

The issue is whether one kind of marriage exclusively gets the bennies that others don’t. Will be curious when the mahometans and the multi-mormons want theirs

Reply
Halfvast Conspirator June 26, 2013 at 11:04 am

The issue is whether one kind of marriage exclusively gets the bennies that others don’t. Will be curious when the mahometans and the multi-mormons want theirs

Reply
aksjdl June 26, 2013 at 11:05 am

How can you oppose gov’t involvement in marriage? No marriage is legally legitimate until you obtain the proper license from…..that’s right, the local gov’t. Since the beginning, marriages were legal arrangements to join families and property. In this day and age, that extends to benefits married couples enjoy from the gov’t. Every citizen should be entitled to those benefits. Now they are. Great day to be an American!

Reply
Swingline June 26, 2013 at 11:32 am

Section 2 still stands. It’s one of the last hurdles to equality. It won’t pass muster on a Full Faith and Credit challenge when the time comes.

“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

Reply
Smirks June 26, 2013 at 11:57 am

The reality is that as enforcer of laws, government has to deem what it recognizes as a valid marriage.

Willie basically wants government to call marriage “civil unions” so that church folk doesn’t have to call a gay couple “married.” It is a useless name change to prevent bigoted people from being butthurt. There’s no reason to sugar coat it, that’s exactly what it is.

Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is what a person makes of it, whether it be with a woman, man, or multiple people, that is what they define as marriage. A person’s definition of marriage can be “in tune” with a given church, and a church can not like other marriages, or even choose not to recognize other marriages (people are more than welcome to do this too, on a personal level anyways), but churches do NOT define marriage.

Government’s role in marriage is recognition of what constitutes a married couple as per the law and applying laws pertaining to them accordingly, from property rights to taxes to child custody and beyond. Also:

1) No, the government isn’t going to start letting people marry their dogs or their furniture or whatever stupid argument gets made. Marriage is between human beings from the government’s eyes as that is what laws are aimed at. There are no laws stating that custody of your children can be left to Fluffy the Poodle or that your estate should go to whatever inanimate object you specify. Someone is free to consider this marriage if they want, but there is no legal purpose for government to recognize such a thing.

2) Government currently has no structure to determine how to deal with polygamists. Given proper, fair laws, there is no reason why government can’t recognize a marriage between multiple people, if all of whom have consented to such an arrangement. Laws against polygamy should remain targeted at those who are dishonest or deceitful and marry persons who were expecting an exclusive relationship.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 3, 2013 at 4:11 pm Reply
Mario Leone June 26, 2013 at 12:03 pm

since the beginning? marriage predates government. and marriage licenses were not issued by this country for a large part of its early history. it was a health issue to issue marriage licenses in the 1800s.

Reply
aksjdl June 26, 2013 at 12:24 pm

Yes, since the beginning of human kind entering into these types of arrangements. Thousands of years before the USA, christianity, islam, etc

Reply
Jan June 26, 2013 at 12:43 pm

What is your point? It doesn’t matter when government began defining what is a legal marriage. The fact is it does. You cannot be married in the eyes of the state without taking the proper steps, and you cannot be married in the eyes of the church without performing proper rituals. They have nothing to do with each other.

Reply
Frank Pytel June 26, 2013 at 1:36 pm

Your last statement is not true.

Reply
Smirks June 26, 2013 at 6:03 pm

Separation of church and state insists it is true. Freedom of religion, and the notion that such a right implies freedom from religion, insists it is true.

Individuals and their places of worship can deem whatever marriage they don’t like as “not a real marriage,” but when it comes to equal treatment by government under the law, there must be a fair definition of what constitutes a married couple. Pretending gays aren’t really married doesn’t mean they aren’t actually married and need the same protection and rights extended to straight couples. Trying to link what government deems a marriage to what church deems a marriage erodes the individual right to be married in favor for religious institutions deciding who gets to be married. It is not any one or group of religious institution(s) that should decide what the law is or who it applies to, it is an equal, fair, secular society that should.

We do not need a theocracy.

Frank Pytel June 27, 2013 at 6:35 am

There is no requirement for fair in our society as witnessed by your, and those like you, ranting’s about how it is acceptable for the masses to thieve from those that have two nickels to rub together when they only have one.

That being said, the last statement Faux Jan made is that ‘you cannot be married without permission from both the state and the church’ (Please feel free to adjust your statement, but I’m sure I got the gist of it). Church being the purview of typically Christian society I would assume the writer meant ‘without permission from the authorities involved in your particular sect of religion and your (insert level here) government official’.

Since the state, (this country), is exclusively precluded from matters of religion, they have no authority by which to assert that you must follow their rules prior to getting ‘married’. This is a clear violation of the Constitution of these United States.

Their is however, a quantity of the citizenry that believes that the health of one can and does impact the health of many. By this very much communistic notion, there is no reason why the state would be violating the Constitution of these United States by issuing license’s/permits for the purpose of cohabitation (Civil Unions) which would grant the state (and thieve from the citizenry) the power to ensure a basic sense of keeping the undesirables from our population.

Smirks, I generally disagree with you. But you are definitely, generally, not so easily STOMPED.
Have a Great Day, Smirks!! :)

William June 26, 2013 at 4:33 pm

I doubt there is any evidence marriage predates government.

Reply
Wikiliterate June 26, 2013 at 6:59 pm Reply
William June 26, 2013 at 7:13 pm

Actually if you think that article says marriage predates government, you have chosen a very broad definition of marriage and a very narrow definition of government.

Frank Pytel June 27, 2013 at 6:36 am

The Bible? The Torah, The Koran? Duh!!

Reply
JMS June 26, 2013 at 1:16 pm

this is one big tautology.

I’m not so worried about this country because of a non-issue like marriage, as I am about the lack of logical abilities and education on behalf of its populace.

debates on civic issues get no where as long as people attempt to justify the status quo because, for all reasons, IT’S THE STATUS QUO. Government has not existed “since the beginning.” Ask Richard Dawkins of all people.

Sheesh

Reply
kc June 26, 2013 at 7:49 pm

It’s just typical ignorant libertarian blathering.

Reply
aksjdl June 26, 2013 at 11:05 am

How can you oppose gov’t involvement in marriage? No marriage is legally legitimate until you obtain the proper license from…..that’s right, the local gov’t. Since the beginning, marriages were legal arrangements to join families and property. In this day and age, that extends to benefits married couples enjoy from the gov’t. Every citizen should be entitled to those benefits. Now they are. Great day to be an American!

Reply
Swingline June 26, 2013 at 11:32 am

Section 2 still stands. It’s one of the last hurdles to equality. It won’t pass muster on a Full Faith and Credit challenge when the time comes.

“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

Reply
Smirks June 26, 2013 at 11:57 am

The reality is that as enforcer of laws, government has to deem what it recognizes as a valid marriage.

Willie basically wants government to call marriage “civil unions” so that church folk doesn’t have to call a gay couple “married.” It is a useless name change to prevent bigoted people from being butthurt. There’s no reason to sugar coat it, that’s exactly what it is.

Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is what a person makes of it, whether it be with a woman, man, or multiple people, that is what they define as marriage. A person’s definition of marriage can be “in tune” with a given church, and a church can not like other marriages, or even choose not to recognize other marriages (people are more than welcome to do this too, on a personal level anyways), but churches do NOT define marriage.

Government’s role in marriage is recognition of what constitutes a married couple as per the law and applying laws pertaining to them accordingly, from property rights to taxes to child custody and beyond. Also:

1) No, the government isn’t going to start letting people marry their dogs or their furniture or whatever stupid argument gets made. Marriage is between human beings from the government’s eyes as that is what laws are aimed at. There are no laws stating that custody of your children can be left to Fluffy the Poodle or that your estate should go to whatever inanimate object you specify. Someone is free to consider this marriage if they want, but there is no legal purpose for government to recognize such a thing.

2) Government currently has no structure to determine how to deal with polygamists. Given proper, fair laws, there is no reason why government can’t recognize a marriage between multiple people, if all of whom have consented to such an arrangement. Laws against polygamy should remain targeted at those who are dishonest or deceitful and marry persons who were expecting an exclusive relationship.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 3, 2013 at 4:11 pm Reply
Mario Leone June 26, 2013 at 12:03 pm

since the beginning? marriage predates government. and marriage licenses were not issued by this country for a large part of its early history. it was a health issue to issue marriage licenses in the 1800s.

Reply
aksjdl June 26, 2013 at 12:24 pm

Yes, since the beginning of human kind entering into these types of arrangements. Thousands of years before the USA, christianity, islam, etc

Reply
Jan June 26, 2013 at 12:43 pm

What is your point? It doesn’t matter when government began defining what is a legal marriage. The fact is it does. You cannot be married in the eyes of the state without taking the proper steps, and you cannot be married in the eyes of the church without performing proper rituals. They have nothing to do with each other.

Reply
Frank Pytel June 26, 2013 at 1:36 pm

Your last statement is not true.

Reply
Smirks June 26, 2013 at 6:03 pm

Separation of church and state insists it is true. Freedom of religion, and the notion that such a right implies freedom from religion, insists it is true.

Individuals and their places of worship can deem whatever marriage they don’t like as “not a real marriage,” but when it comes to equal treatment by government under the law, there must be a fair definition of what constitutes a married couple. Pretending gays aren’t really married doesn’t mean they aren’t actually married and need the same protection and rights extended to straight couples. Trying to link what government deems a marriage to what church deems a marriage erodes the individual right to be married in favor for religious institutions deciding who gets to be married. It is not any one or group of religious institution(s) that should decide what the law is or who it applies to, it is an equal, fair, secular society that should.

We do not need a theocracy.

Frank Pytel June 27, 2013 at 6:35 am

There is no requirement for fair in our society as witnessed by your, and those like you, ranting’s about how it is acceptable for the masses to thieve from those that have two nickels to rub together when they only have one.

That being said, the last statement Faux Jan made is that ‘you cannot be married without permission from both the state and the church’ (Please feel free to adjust your statement, but I’m sure I got the gist of it). Church being the purview of typically Christian society I would assume the writer meant ‘without permission from the authorities involved in your particular sect of religion and your (insert level here) government official’.

Since the state, (this country), is exclusively precluded from matters of religion, they have no authority by which to assert that you must follow their rules prior to getting ‘married’. This is a clear violation of the Constitution of these United States.

Their is however, a quantity of the citizenry that believes that the health of one can and does impact the health of many. By this very much communistic notion, there is no reason why the state would be violating the Constitution of these United States by issuing license’s/permits for the purpose of cohabitation (Civil Unions) which would grant the state (and thieve from the citizenry) the power to ensure a basic sense of keeping the undesirables from our population.

Smirks, I generally disagree with you. But you are definitely, generally, not so easily STOMPED.
Have a Great Day, Smirks!! :)

William June 26, 2013 at 4:33 pm

I doubt there is any evidence marriage predates government.

Reply
Wikiliterate June 26, 2013 at 6:59 pm Reply
William June 26, 2013 at 7:13 pm

Actually if you think that article says marriage predates government, you have chosen a very broad definition of marriage and a very narrow definition of government.

Frank Pytel June 27, 2013 at 6:36 am

The Bible? The Torah, The Koran? Duh!!

Reply
JMS June 26, 2013 at 1:16 pm

this is one big tautology.

I’m not so worried about this country because of a non-issue like marriage, as I am about the lack of logical abilities and education on behalf of its populace.

debates on civic issues get no where as long as people attempt to justify the status quo because, for all reasons, IT’S THE STATUS QUO. Government has not existed “since the beginning.” Ask Richard Dawkins of all people.

Sheesh

Reply
kc June 26, 2013 at 7:49 pm

It’s just typical ignorant libertarian blathering.

Reply
tomstickler June 26, 2013 at 11:07 am

“This website opposes any government involvement in marriage.”

Be sure to send us an invitation when this website decides to tie the knot.

Reply
tomstickler June 26, 2013 at 11:07 am

“This website opposes any government involvement in marriage.”

Be sure to send us an invitation when this website decides to tie the knot.

Reply
Jan June 26, 2013 at 11:11 am

Nothing in this ruling is contrary to what you are saying. But to make it exactly as you want we would have to change every state’s laws to eliminate the references to “Marriage”. State laws do not use the term “Civil Unions”, they use the term “Marriage”.

The distinction you are asking for is between a Religious Marriage and a Civil Marriage. We already have that. Nothing in this ruling changes that, or obligates a church, synagogue, or temple to perform a marriage ceremony for same sex couples or recognize the marriage of same sex couples as valid in the eyes of their respective gods.

Reply
Jan June 26, 2013 at 11:11 am

Nothing in this ruling is contrary to what you are saying. But to make it exactly as you want we would have to change every state’s laws to eliminate the references to “Marriage”. State laws do not use the term “Civil Unions”, they use the term “Marriage”.

The distinction you are asking for is between a Religious Marriage and a Civil Marriage. We already have that. Nothing in this ruling changes that, or obligates a church, synagogue, or temple to perform a marriage ceremony for same sex couples or recognize the marriage of same sex couples as valid in the eyes of their respective gods.

Reply
Bob June 26, 2013 at 11:14 am

The Court only struck down Section 3 of DOMA. Section 2 was not addressed

Section 2. Powers reserved to the statesNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Reply
William June 26, 2013 at 11:27 am

I think that is because that was the issue before the court. The section of the law you mention is squarely in conflict with Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. If the right case is brought, I cannot believe that section can withstand scrutiny.

Reply
Curious June 26, 2013 at 11:36 am

Correct. But federal marriage benefits will be affected by this.

Reply
Bob June 26, 2013 at 11:14 am

The Court only struck down Section 3 of DOMA. Section 2 was not addressed

Section 2. Powers reserved to the statesNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Reply
William June 26, 2013 at 11:27 am

I think that is because that was the issue before the court. The section of the law you mention is squarely in conflict with Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. If the right case is brought, I cannot believe that section can withstand scrutiny.

Reply
Curious June 26, 2013 at 11:36 am

Correct. But federal marriage benefits will be affected by this.

Reply
So, You Hatin'? June 26, 2013 at 11:26 am

Who’s the fag doing all the down voting? Lol!

Reply
Wes June 26, 2013 at 12:54 pm

:)

Reply
tomstickler June 26, 2013 at 1:43 pm

Maybe Disqus or Fitsnews.com should not allow”guests” to vote, only registered Disqus users.

After all, the Supreme Court said voter ID laws were OK.

Reply
Finius Nullis June 26, 2013 at 1:54 pm

There must be some logic behind allowing a “guest” to vote UP but not DOWN.

Reply
9" June 26, 2013 at 8:27 pm

No.Logic hasn’t been popular since the days of,Aristotle..(check out the blog you’re reading ,before getting excited;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeOjHtuX958

Reply
Smirks June 26, 2013 at 6:14 pm

To my knowledge, only signed in users can downvote. I’m assuming that means Disqus/Facebook/Twitter and not the gray usernames? Not sure.

I noticed it shows you who upvoted you now, still not who downvoted you. Eh, whatevs.

Reply
So, You Hatin'? June 26, 2013 at 11:26 am

Who’s the fag doing all the down voting? Lol!

Reply
Wes June 26, 2013 at 12:54 pm

:)

Reply
tomstickler June 26, 2013 at 1:43 pm

Maybe Disqus or Fitsnews.com should not allow”guests” to vote, only registered Disqus users.

After all, the Supreme Court said voter ID laws were OK.

Reply
Finius Nullis June 26, 2013 at 1:54 pm

There must be some logic behind allowing a “guest” to vote UP but not DOWN.

Reply
9" June 26, 2013 at 8:27 pm

No.Logic hasn’t been popular since the days of,Aristotle..(check out the blog you’re reading ,before getting excited;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeOjHtuX958

Reply
Smirks June 26, 2013 at 6:14 pm

To my knowledge, only signed in users can downvote. I’m assuming that means Disqus/Facebook/Twitter and not the gray usernames? Not sure.

I noticed it shows you who upvoted you now, still not who downvoted you. Eh, whatevs.

Reply
Finius Nullis June 26, 2013 at 11:30 am

Now is the time to strike:

Mr. Will Folks should immediately announce his candidacy for the next governor of South Carolina. After following this site for about a year and reading his ideas about what is best in terms of policies, governing, social, religious and so forth for the citizens, Mr. Folks should put his ideas to the test. Let us discover what the groundswell of support will be. Save your “HOORAHS” for later.

Reply
Finius Nullis June 26, 2013 at 11:30 am

Now is the time to strike:

Mr. Will Folks should immediately announce his candidacy for the next governor of South Carolina. After following this site for about a year and reading his ideas about what is best in terms of policies, governing, social, religious and so forth for the citizens, Mr. Folks should put his ideas to the test. Let us discover what the groundswell of support will be. Save your “HOORAHS” for later.

Reply
Smirks June 26, 2013 at 11:33 am

I guess Scalia can go sit on a flagpole now.

Reply
9" June 26, 2013 at 3:47 pm

What if he likes it? ;-)

Reply
Smirks June 26, 2013 at 6:04 pm

He’ll have to squeeze into the closet next to Michele Bachmann’s husband I guess.

Reply
9" June 26, 2013 at 8:12 pm

Michelle Bachmann’s husband,Marcus!!!…Now THAT is WRONG ;-)!!!!!!

Reply
Smirks June 26, 2013 at 11:33 am

I guess Scalia can go sit on a flagpole now.

Reply
9" June 26, 2013 at 3:47 pm

What if he likes it? ;-)

Reply
Smirks June 26, 2013 at 6:04 pm

He’ll have to squeeze into the closet next to Michele Bachmann’s husband I guess.

Reply
9" June 26, 2013 at 8:12 pm

Michelle Bachmann’s husband,Marcus!!!…Now THAT is WRONG ;-)!!!!!!

Reply
GrandTango June 26, 2013 at 11:36 am

So now, will the homosexuals GTFOMF…????
You got what you wanted, life should be all Wonderful, and you have NOTHING to Complain about…
Let’s see if you ride quietly into the night…and STFU…

PS: As long as my state can keep marriage like it is strong…that’s fine. Let the gays have states that think like they do, even though the voters of Cali. are AGAINST gays overtaking marriage…

Reply
Frank Pytel June 26, 2013 at 11:37 am

Why are they on your feet? (get the fuck off my feet)??

Reply
Terry June 26, 2013 at 11:56 am

I thought he was saying get off my face. He obviously has been having a problem getting homosexuals off of his face.

Reply
EJB June 26, 2013 at 12:27 pm

You do crack good ones every so often.

Reply
GreenvilleLwyr June 26, 2013 at 11:41 am

T, I thought you would be pleased. Now you and your husband can be yourselves without fear of being treated unfairly by the federal government.

Reply
Spanish Fly June 26, 2013 at 11:43 am

Have a great day, T! Don’t worry…no homos would get anywhere near you…much like straight women.

Reply
Curious June 26, 2013 at 11:46 am

Nope. As a result of the Court’s decision, same-sex marriages will be entitled
to all federal benefits that heterosexual marriages already enjoy, but
only in states in which same-sex marriage is legal.

As explained by “Bob,” Section 2 of DOMA still needs to be addressed (this ruling only addressed Section 3, which barred federal benefits for same-sex couples, even in states where same-sex marriage is legal):

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states: No State, territory, or possession of
the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to
any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State,
territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between
persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of
such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim
arising from such relationship.

As “William” said in response: “The section of the law you mention is squarely in conflict with Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. If the right case is brought, I cannot believe that section can withstand scrutiny.”

That section reads: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

So suck it, T, it’s still an issue. Also, educate yourself.

Reply
GrandTango June 26, 2013 at 12:25 pm

You are not very clear in explaining. Are you claiming you got what you wanted, and you will STFU? Or…are you now bitching and complaining that they gave you what you want, and you’re still a whining little B!*ch???

Reply
Curious June 26, 2013 at 12:27 pm

I was quite clear. Your lack of comprehension is the problem.

Reply
Nölff June 26, 2013 at 2:30 pm

If you use lucid reason and facts, he’ll call you names.

Smirks June 26, 2013 at 6:12 pm

Ideally what would be preferable is if marriage became an individual right, not a religious right, not a “states rights” right, not a first-class citizen’s right. Government’s sole concern should be making laws regarding married couples and recognizing what counts as a marriage in order to uphold laws and contracts and that is it.

Reply
9" June 26, 2013 at 3:53 pm

Does this mean you’ll swallow,now?

Reply
Thomas June 26, 2013 at 12:05 pm

It appears state right’s had a good week. The states can define marriage, status quo, and this is not good for the special rights crowd. The homosexual issue will never gain the status we see when hispanic immigrants are granted citizenship and activist federal judges are neutered. Judgement for the people.

Reply
GrandTango June 26, 2013 at 1:01 pm

I think you are closer to being correct than the current celebrants…
I’m guessing it won’t be long before they are p!$$!*g and moaning again…

Reply
9" June 26, 2013 at 3:50 pm

OK;you’ll get your golden shower..

Reply
Thomas June 26, 2013 at 12:05 pm

It appears state right’s had a good week. The states can define marriage, status quo, and this is not good for the special rights crowd. The homosexual issue will never gain the status we see when hispanic immigrants are granted citizenship and activist federal judges are neutered. Judgement for the people.

Reply
GrandTango June 26, 2013 at 1:14 pm

Giving liberals and Liberal-Tarians more of what they demand from the contributors…just makes them more miserable, disgusting and failed…

That said: This is nothing new, except more government freebies, that we cannot afford….. Any gay could get married, before. Let’s see how this curious ruling makes anyone, or anything, better…

Reply
SC Citizen June 26, 2013 at 1:27 pm

“I’m guessing it won’t be long before they are p!$$!*g and moaning again…”

Until then, we’ll have your pissing and moaning?

Reply
This just in . . . June 26, 2013 at 1:36 pm

Scalia Arrested Trying to Burn Down Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — In a shocking end to an illustrious legal career, police arrested Justice Antonin Scalia today as he attempted to set the Supreme Court building ablaze.

Justice Scalia, who had seemed calm and composed during the announcement of two major rulings this morning, was spotted by police minutes later outside the building, carrying a book of matches and a gallon of kerosene.

After police nabbed Justice Scalia and placed him in handcuffs, the Juror appeared “at peace and resigned to his fate,” a police spokesman said.

“He went quietly,” the spokesman said. “He just muttered something like, ‘I don’t want to live in a world like this.’”

Back at the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia’s colleagues said they hoped he would get the help he needed, except for Justice Clarence Thomas, who said nothing.

Reply
This just in . . . June 26, 2013 at 1:36 pm

Scalia Arrested Trying to Burn Down Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — In a shocking end to an illustrious legal career, police arrested Justice Antonin Scalia today as he attempted to set the Supreme Court building ablaze.

Justice Scalia, who had seemed calm and composed during the announcement of two major rulings this morning, was spotted by police minutes later outside the building, carrying a book of matches and a gallon of kerosene.

After police nabbed Justice Scalia and placed him in handcuffs, the Juror appeared “at peace and resigned to his fate,” a police spokesman said.

“He went quietly,” the spokesman said. “He just muttered something like, ‘I don’t want to live in a world like this.’”

Back at the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia’s colleagues said they hoped he would get the help he needed, except for Justice Clarence Thomas, who said nothing.

Reply
9" June 26, 2013 at 3:35 pm Reply
9" June 26, 2013 at 3:35 pm Reply
GrandTango June 26, 2013 at 4:11 pm

I like this Statement of Palmetto Family President Dr. Oran P. Smith.
“Advocates of same sex marriage wanted a long pass to the end zone for a touchdown today. They got a first down in a legal cloud of dust.

Nothing in the court’s tap dancing today changes the South Carolina marriage definition Palmetto Family worked so hard to pass by 78%.

In fact, by overturning a federal law (Defense Of Marriage Act) and affirming the laws in the few states allowing same sex marriage, the court has affirmed the SC Constitutional definition as well.

The court did not find a federal constitutional right of individuals of the same gender to marry, and that is a relief for supporters of both traditional marriage and federalism.
Palmetto Family is committed to continuing to stand for marriage and to defeat any efforts to redefine or weaken this essential union.”

Thank you.
Oran P. Smith, PhD
President & CEO

Reply
SC Citizen June 26, 2013 at 6:21 pm

Only a matter of time, Big Boy. It may take several years for this hick state, but it’s going to happen.

Reply
SC Citizen June 26, 2013 at 6:23 pm

Granted when we get our literacy rate up…

Reply
katlaurenscounty June 26, 2013 at 4:14 pm

Is the brain of this writer in diapers?

Who the church marries (under God) can’t be mandated or interfered with, by the state. Period.

BUT – church practices CAN’T be an element of human law under which LEGAL status is conferred.

Human law, LEGAL definition, marriage = LEGAL union (Black’s
Law) is irrelevant of faith. Essential elements include LEGAL contract. Synonym = civil union. Definition of LEGAL status doesn’t require conferring under God as necessary element.

Writer’s premise stupidly tries to rationalize ‘legislating’ faith. Give the church lawful sole authority to decide on whom to confer LEGAL status of marriage. Name the same LEGAL status conferred
outside of church (not under God) something different: civil unions.

Two different definitions for the same legal status??? One includes God.

Stupid stupid opinion. Makes Law arbitrary. No surprise. FITS writers don’t know what RULE OF LAW means.

Reply
GrandTango June 26, 2013 at 4:34 pm

Translation: “Give to Ceaser what is Ceaser’s”

But God does not listen to Leftwing Radical NAZIs., even those in black robes, no matter what unholy law they impose on free-to-choose and un-willing American citizens…

Reply
Pope- A-Dope IV June 26, 2013 at 6:12 pm

No, God listens to these people:

August 5, 2012. Six Sikh temple members were killed when 40-year-old US Army veteran Wade Michael Page opened fire in a gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Four others were injured, and Page killed himself.
-April 2, 2012. A former student, 43-year-old One L. Goh killed 7 people at Oikos University, a Korean Christian college in Oakland, CA. The shooting was the sixth-deadliest school massacre in the US and the deadliest attack on a school since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.
-October 2, 2006. An Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster, PA was gunned down by 32-year-old Charles Carl Roberts, Roberts separated the boys from the girls, binding and shooting the girls. 5 young girls died, while 6 were injured. Roberts committed suicide afterward.
-March 12, 2005. A Living Church of God meeting was gunned down by 44-year-old church member Terry Michael Ratzmann at a Sheraton hotel in Brookfield, WI. Ratzmann was thought to have had religious motivations, and killed himself after executing the pastor, the pastor’s 16-year-old son, and 7 others. Four were wounded.
-September 15, 1999. Larry Gene Ashbrook opened fire on a Christian rock concert and teen prayer rally at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, TX. He killed 7 people and wounded 7 others, almost all teenagers. Ashbrook committed suicide.

Reply
katlaurenscounty June 26, 2013 at 4:14 pm

Is the brain of this writer in diapers?

Who the church marries (union considered by church allowed under God) can’t be mandated or interfered with by the state. Period.

BUT – church practices CAN’T be an element in human law under which LEGAL status is conferred.

Human law, LEGAL definition, marriage = LEGAL union (Black’s Law). Essential elements include LEGAL contract. Synonym = civil union. LEGAL status doesn’t (CANT) require church judgement on God’s approval of union as necessary element.

Writer’s premise – give the church lawful sole authority to decide on whom to confer LEGAL status of marriage. Name the same LEGAL status conferred outside of church (not approved by God per church) something different: civil unions. – Disingenuous. Trying to ‘legislate’ faith by implication. Only thing different between terms? Where status is conferred. Defacto, term ‘marriage’ means church ‘certification’.

Makes Law arbitrary. Also transfers issue. Laws can be enacted treating ‘civil unions’ different from ‘marriages’. No surprise. FITS writers don’t know what RULE OF LAW means.

Reply
kc June 26, 2013 at 7:52 pm

“but similarly in no instance should government (federal, state or local) compel these congregations to marry couples against their will.”

What a stupid strawman argument. NO ONE has proposed forcing congregations to marry anyone, for crying out loud. That would be unconstitutional.

Reply
kc June 26, 2013 at 7:52 pm

“but similarly in no instance should government (federal, state or local) compel these congregations to marry couples against their will.”

What a stupid strawman argument. NO ONE has proposed forcing congregations to marry anyone, for crying out loud. That would be unconstitutional.

Reply
GrandTango June 26, 2013 at 10:06 pm

Can’t wait for all the Fat-Slob democrat Union Workers to figure out the SSI age will have to get raised to 75 now, to pay for all the new gay “spouses.”
And wait’ll they cut military bennies because they gays are gobbling up all the already cut (by Obama) funding…
And all the blacks, who are already jobless, thanks to Obama, will see that the hand-outs are minimal, because the NEW CIVIL RIGHTS darlings wear purple…Hahahahahaha…
Goood for you IDIOTS…you asked for it..and you DESERVE every bit of it…

Reply
Fits is wrong again June 26, 2013 at 11:37 pm

5th Amendment. Not 14th.

Reply
Fits is wrong again June 26, 2013 at 11:37 pm

5th Amendment. Not 14th.

Reply
Mguzman June 27, 2013 at 7:09 am

Gays want to get married so they can get Social Security and the other benefits so its not because they are so in love they can’t live without each other? Is this what all this is about?

Reply
Mguzman June 27, 2013 at 7:09 am

Gays want to get married so they can get Social Security and the other benefits so its not because they are so in love they can’t live without each other? Is this what all this is about?

Reply
Tyrone Land Rover June 27, 2013 at 8:23 am

Leave gay people alone. Straights have bashed them long enough. I am happy they have their day in the sun.

Reply
Tyrone Land Rover June 27, 2013 at 8:23 am

Leave gay people alone. Straights have bashed them long enough. I am happy they have their day in the sun.

Reply
Tom Fernandez June 27, 2013 at 10:46 am

“We reject DOMA as a violation of liberty, but we also reject any federal law which seeks to officialize any marriage…” <– Spot on.

Reply
Tom Fernandez June 27, 2013 at 10:46 am

“We reject DOMA as a violation of liberty, but we also reject any federal law which seeks to officialize any marriage…” <– Spot on.

Reply
Mguzman July 1, 2013 at 7:08 am

Nw maybe these Gays will be happy and stop all that constant whining just living life in peace doing the best they can like the rest of us…..geeezzz! its one thing after another in the USA so is anybody happy out there?

Reply
Mguzman July 1, 2013 at 7:08 am

Nw maybe these Gays will be happy and stop all that constant whining just living life in peace doing the best they can like the rest of us…..geeezzz! its one thing after another in the USA so is anybody happy out there?

Reply

Leave a Comment