SC

Gay Marriage: When Will SC Surrender?

IS THE BATTLE WINDING DOWN IN PALMETTO STATE? OR JUST BEGINNING? By FITSNEWS  ||  Gay marriage licenses are being issued in South Carolina despite the best efforts by S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson to block them.  And as social conservatives rally to Wilson’s defense, the ensuing standoff could soon make its…

IS THE BATTLE WINDING DOWN IN PALMETTO STATE? OR JUST BEGINNING?

By FITSNEWS  ||  Gay marriage licenses are being issued in South Carolina despite the best efforts by S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson to block them.  And as social conservatives rally to Wilson’s defense, the ensuing standoff could soon make its way to the highest court in the land.

At issue is whether same sex couples in the Palmetto State should be permitted to marry while the federal court system sorts out the legality of state-level marriage bans like the one approved by South Carolina voters (well, 78 percent of them) in 2006.

Wilson believes the state’s ban should remain in place until the issue is resolved at the federal level, while U.S. district court judge Richard Gergel believes gay marriages should be allowed to proceed.

In striking down South Carolina’s gay marriage ban last week, Gergel indicated that such unions could proceed at noon on Thursday – barring a stay of his ruling.

Earlier this week the fourth circuit court of appeals declined to issue such a stay – prompting Wilson to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Early Wednesday morning, though, Lowcountry judge Irvin Condon jumped the gun on Gergel’s ruling and started granting licenses – including one to Charleston councilwoman Colleen Condon, who against the wishes of many in the gay and lesbian community has made herself the face of this movement.

“We had the couple we wanted and the judge we wanted,” one South Carolina gay rights leader told FITS.  “And if (Condon) had just waited, we had the ruling we wanted.”

The activist is referring to female Highway Patrol trooper Katherine Bradacs and her partner, Tracie Goodwin – an attractive lesbian couple who were married in Washington, D.C. and then challenged the Palmetto State’s ban upon moving to South Carolina.  Their case – Bradacs v. Haley  – was stayed by district judge Michelle Childs in April pending the outcome of a Virginia case, Bostic v. Rainey .

The fourth circuit struck down Virginia’s ban – and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reverse that decision.  And this week, Childs ruled in favor of Bradacs and Goodwin – concluding that South Carolina is constitutionally required to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.

South Carolina is the only state in the fourth circuit blocking gay marriages.  Its lawyers argue that conflicting lower court rulings (the sixth circuit court of appeals has upheld the right of states to ban gay marriage) necessitate the intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court.

For his part, Wilson has said he’s just doing his job as the state’s top lawyer – but in the process he’s become a hero of the religious right.

“Alan Wilson isn’t simply going through the motions,” said Oran Smith of the Palmetto Family Council – a group which opposes gay marriage.  “He and his lawyers are crafting new strategies.”

According to Smith, legalizing gay marriage would “reverse thousands of years of human flourishing.”

“Palmetto Family and our legal team supports Attorney General Alan Wilson,” Smith added. “He is right on this issue.”

We disagree … to the extent Wilson has taken a position on the issue.

This website’s oft-stated view on marriage is abundantly clear: No government – local, state or federal – should be able to ban (or compel) marriage: Gay, straight or plural. That’s because marriage isn’t a government institution, it’s a religious one – meaning the question should be left to individual congregations.  As for civil unions, we believe the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment compels government to acknowledge homosexual, heterosexual or plural unions.

In fact, we believe the ongoing legal contortions transpiring at the federal and state level over this issue demonstrate government’s unfitness to address it in the first place.

This is issue is so simple: If you can find a church to marry you, then government shouldn’t block your union.  Nor should it force any church to perform a ceremony in contravention of its religious beliefs.

***

Related posts

SC

Misconduct, Obstruction Charges Against Will Lewis Outlined

FITSNews
SC

Greater SC Budget Transparency Sought

FITSNews
SC

SC Ballot Fix: Needless “Reform”

FITSNews

132 comments

euwe max November 19, 2014 at 3:50 pm

When the struggling subsides, and they finally give up and fall asleep.

I for one, won’t respect them in the morning.

Reply
Upstate Baptist Bigot November 19, 2014 at 3:57 pm

The time to repent for your sins is now! The sodomites are poised for a victory, and our courts are capitulating to the will of satan himself!

Reply
Smirks November 19, 2014 at 3:57 pm

Only when SCOTUS rules the bans unconstitutional.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia November 19, 2014 at 5:44 pm

Even then, watch and see them trying to enact laws with different wording in an attempt to keep it illegal. Really, can someone please tell me what skin it is off of your or anyone else’s butt if gays can marry? I’m still trying to figure that one out.

Reply
Nölff November 19, 2014 at 4:21 pm

Where’s that name-calling bigot that uses fake names?
That bastard hacked my Disqus account.

You seriosly need help. I’m cool with free speech… I’m even cool with your name calling, but when you hack someone’s account and threaten them, you take things too far. You are a lowlife POS.

Reply
euwe max November 19, 2014 at 4:38 pm

seriously? was your password compromised, or was it something else?

Reply
Nölff November 20, 2014 at 2:45 pm

i changed the password. He posted as me. It shows up as if I wrote it and I can’t even delete it. I don’t know how the hell it happened. Then he threatened if I didn’t keep my mouth shut…

Reply
euwe max November 20, 2014 at 3:04 pm

does the message show in your list of comments?
When you click on the avatar on the post, does it show the same number of total posts as yours does?

Or did he just lift your avatar?

Reply
Fuck John Gait November 19, 2014 at 4:34 pm

Blah, blah, marriage is a rel, blah, gov has no bis, blah, blah, blah…

http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2014.03.04.-Historians-of-Marriage-Amicus.pdf

Reply
Oscar Wilde November 19, 2014 at 4:38 pm

I don’t get the “marriage is religious” argument. There are plenty of people who aren’t religious who get married on a beach by a judge. God ain’t got nothing to do with it. And certainly the State has a legitimate interest in enforcing laws pertaining to marriage – divorce, probate, child protection, tax, property ownership, wills, inheritance, etc. – no rational person would debate this – so arguing that it is not the State’s business to some extent is specious.
I am surprised that this website does not see this as an issue of excessive Federalism.
The Government – both State and Fedreal – could easily resolve this entire dispute – by passing a law recognizing Civil Domestic Union and according it the same legal status as Marriage.
That way, the definitions stay the same for the folks that want this, but Gays receive the full rights to be just as unhappily coupled as Straights.
To my Gay fellow citizens, what’s wrong with this?

Reply
Smirks November 20, 2014 at 6:48 am

God ain’t got nothing to do with it.

Religion doesn’t even factor in unless the individual wants it to, and they choose the religion/interpretation/holy book/congregation/etc. they want to apply to it.

The Government – both State and Fedreal – could easily resolve this
entire dispute – by passing a law recognizing Civil Domestic Union and
according it the same legal status as Marriage.

“Separate but equal.”

There’s no need to create an entirely new term to save the feelings of a bunch of “sensitive” religious right bigots. There’s no reason to change the term government already uses to recognized married couples.

People need to stop getting hung up over this shit and just realize that “what I consider as married” does not dictate “what others consider as married,” “what government considers as married,” or “what a religion considers as married.” Marriage is an individual right. Religion is entirely optional. Government’s role is merely to keep a record and enforce marriage-related laws, and its duty is to do that in a fair and equal manner, which means, yes, allowing gays be recognized as married. And if some bigot doesn’t want to consider that a real marriage, fine, but they are entitled to those rights whether you like it or not.

Reply
9" November 20, 2014 at 11:29 am

Even though you’re not gay,I admire your persistent argument on this issue.It’s almost masochistic to continue with Fits’ illogical arguments…
He has no argument,but he continues.I would think he’d have a clue by now.There’s nothing more frustrating than arguing with a person without basic powers of reasoning or logic,but maybe he goes on and on,to spite the people who are educated,articulate,and sane.

Reply
SCBlueWoman November 20, 2014 at 8:25 am

In SC you can be married by a Notary Public. Sounds too religious for me.

Reply
9" November 20, 2014 at 4:55 pm

“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” OW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCFar0525N4

Reply
jimlewisowb November 19, 2014 at 4:47 pm

No doubt SCROTUM and his bff Gypsy Queen Scrotumless will continue to spare no expense, not theirs ours, to keep the queer plague from spreading across the mountains, plains, beaches, homes and churches of South Carolina

Too bad neither of these fucking cockroaches had the same level of concern for the kids who died under the watch of Lillian Koller at DSS

Reply
Rocky November 19, 2014 at 5:08 pm

Tell me why I just love Wednesdays, tell me why I just love Wednesdays, – cuz Wil gets us the news every Wednesdays that the gays is gonna get to marry, and the hispanics are getting amnesty. Hurray for us. It’s a great day to be gay and hispanic in SC.

Reply
Gay Juan November 19, 2014 at 5:49 pm

You’re damn straight it is, Senior!

Reply
Rocky November 19, 2014 at 5:23 pm

Ebola, spics and queers – oh my. Ebola, spics and queers – oh my. Doesn’t our backwards state just make you so proud?
Ebola, spics and queers – oh my!

Reply
It's a Great Day In SC November 19, 2014 at 5:48 pm

Hell,in their minds, South Carolina still hasn’t surrendered in the Civil War!

Reply
jimlewisowb November 19, 2014 at 7:44 pm

In South Carolina it is referred to as the War of Northern Aggression, never the Civil War

Reply
H G November 19, 2014 at 6:09 pm

Marriage is the union of a man and woman which sets boundaries for sex, reproduction
and family. Marriage is based on the reality that the pairing of male and female is the only possible means of procreation. Granting marriage to consenting opposite sex couples is in keeping with the reality only men and women procreate. It doesn’t mean they have to procreate, just like getting a driver’s license doesn’t mean you have to have a car. It’s that simple.

If the absence of a requirement for reproduction is argued to mean marriage should not regard gender, then the same line of reason would argue a driver’s license should be given to anyone regardless of age or even sight since a license holder isn’t required to have a car.

Reply
mamatiger92 November 19, 2014 at 6:10 pm

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous analogy I’ve seen yet.

Reply
H G November 19, 2014 at 6:11 pm

Regardless, it is accurate.

Reply
mamatiger92 November 19, 2014 at 6:12 pm

Hardly. Your local community college probably offers classes in logic. Look into it.

Reply
H G November 19, 2014 at 6:14 pm

Refute it.

mamatiger92 November 19, 2014 at 6:16 pm

Comparing giving drivers licenses to children and the blind to allowing same sex couples to marry? Seriously?

H G November 19, 2014 at 6:17 pm

You really think that is the point? Seriously?

If you can’t comprehend it, no wonder you won’t refute it.

mamatiger92 November 19, 2014 at 6:17 pm

bless your heart.

H G November 19, 2014 at 6:18 pm

Awe… you don’t get it do you?

mamatiger92 November 19, 2014 at 6:34 pm

“If the absence of a requirement for reproduction
is argued to mean marriage should not regard gender, then the same line of reason would argue a driver’s license should be given to anyone regardless of age or even sight since a license holder isn’t required to have a car.”

No. Same line of reason? There is absolutely ZERO reasoning here. How do you refute that which is completely illogical?

H G November 19, 2014 at 6:41 pm

How so? My point is that marriage is exclusive to male and female couples because only it takes the two of them to procreate. Most want to argue that definition requires reproduction for a marriage to be valid. My point is that marriage no more requires having children than a drivers license requires having a car.

Pretty simple really. I’m surprised you stumble at it.

grandtangosuglydog November 20, 2014 at 10:08 am

the most stupid argument i have ever read in regards to gay marriage. No wonder this state ranks last in almost every category..its filled to the brim with fools.

H G November 20, 2014 at 10:12 am

Then move. One less fool can’t hurt.

grandtangosuglydog November 20, 2014 at 10:16 am

I already did asswipe..now i just read this site to laugh at how ass backwards some are in SC. No wonder last in every category and the state motto is “Thank God for Mississippi or we would be dead last in ALL categories.” and you know what..its because of people like you.

Smirks November 20, 2014 at 1:53 pm

One less fool can’t hurt.

But you aren’t the one moving…

Smirks November 20, 2014 at 1:52 pm

Ridiculous usually means far from accurate, bro.

Reply
Malcolm Swall November 20, 2014 at 1:44 pm

“Marriage is the union of a man and woman which sets boundaries for sex, reproduction
and family.”

YOUR definition, not the legal definition of marriage in 2/3 of states, or in many countries like England, Canada, France, etc.

“If the absence of a requirement for reproduction is argued to mean marriage should not regard gender, then the same line of reason would argue a driver’s license should be given to anyone regardless of age or even sight since a license holder isn’t required to have a car.”

Non sequitor. Marriage is a right, a drivers license is a privilege. Plus the obvious fact that blind folks can marry because there isn’t a rational reason to deny them, but that blind people can’t drive cars because their is a rational reason to require vision to drive.

Reply
H G November 19, 2014 at 6:10 pm

Look for Roberts to grant stay in S.Carolina. The argument before him has yet to be considered.

Reply
Swedish Burrito November 19, 2014 at 6:34 pm

Yeah! What H G said because everyone knows the SCOTUS would not hear the appeals from all of those other cases because they were waiting to be persuaded by the brilliant Alan Wilson.

Reply
Malcolm Swall November 20, 2014 at 1:39 pm

How did that work out for you?

literally hours after the post:
“The Supreme Court has rejected a request to put gay marriage on hold in South Carolina, clearing the way for the state to begin issuing …”

Reply
Smirks November 20, 2014 at 1:50 pm Reply
H G November 19, 2014 at 6:24 pm

The differences between marriage and a same sex union should be obvious. The notion that marriage should be redefined to make men and women interchangeable is absurd on its face. The idea that a union established for male and female providing safe and healthy boundaries for sex, reproduction, and family somehow illegally discriminates
against same gender couples anatomically unsuited for sex, reproduction and subsequently, family, is preposterous.

“we have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

Reply
Malcolm Swall November 20, 2014 at 1:37 pm

NIce straw man attempts….
“man women interchangeable” – nobody is interchanging anything.
“a union established….somehow discriminates…” – Marriage isn’t discriminating, the Govt is discriminating.
“anatomically unsuited for sex” – I imagine folks do what ever they like with their anatomy…. not sure why you think that is your business, or what that has to do with marriage.

Reply
Tazmaniac November 19, 2014 at 6:37 pm

Once we get this gay thing behind us someone needs to review the States definition of incest. You can be totally not blood related and get charged. While I personally think it is in poor taste to sleep with your step mom, your grandpa’s new wife , or your sister-in-law, I don’t think you should be arrested for it.

Reply
Swedish Burrito November 19, 2014 at 6:50 pm

H G, I read your argument against the constitutionality of equal protection as it applies to Gay Marriage. Your argument was based on some contorted notion that “Marriage is based on the reality that the pairing of male and female is the only possible means of procreation.” Surely you don’t mean that the purpose of marriage is procreation. No one would ever claim that procreation requires marriage. Your position is lacking logic in too many ways to cover on an internet comment thread.

If you want to be anti gay for whatever reasons your mind can feel comfortable with, go ahead. No one really gives a shit what you think. But when you attempt to justify your hated or fears with an argument like you posted below, you telegraph to all readers that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Reply
H G November 19, 2014 at 7:02 pm

Were it not for the union of men and women, marriage wouldn’t exist.

Marriage establishes boundaries for sex, reproduction, and family. Granting marriage to consenting opposite sex couples is in keeping with the reality only men and women procreate. It doesn’t mean they have to procreate, just like getting a driver’s license doesn’t mean you have to have a car.
It’s that simple.

Reply
mamatiger92 November 19, 2014 at 7:13 pm

Google “legal definition of marriage”.
you. are. welcome.

Reply
H G November 19, 2014 at 7:21 pm

It varies in different states. Until Windsor, the federal definition was a man and woman.

Reply
Better AndBetter November 20, 2014 at 9:47 am

DOMA set that in law… and Windsor killed it.

Montana, HG! Isn’t it wonderful? South Carolina, HG! Isn’t it great?

Better AndBetter November 20, 2014 at 9:47 am

Sterile people wed all the time. Legally, they’re equally situated to gay folks. Your argument is the reason you’re losing.

Reply
Smirks November 20, 2014 at 1:40 pm

Marriage establishes boundaries for sex, reproduction, and family.

No it doesn’t. People apply those boundaries on themselves, with or without marriage.

Granting marriage to consenting opposite sex couples is in keeping with the reality only men and women procreate.

Marriage does not require procreation, per your own admission. What does the ability to procreate matter?

just like getting a driver’s license doesn’t mean you have to have a car.

Except we deny people the right to a driver’s license if they have any physical condition that disables their ability to drive. We don’t grant a driver’s license to blind people, to quadriplegics, to people with severe health conditions, etc.

Your comparison would then dictate that marriage doesn’t require you to procreate, but you have to be capable of procreation, which excludes gays/lesbians right along with infertile couples and old people.

Marriage does not require procreation. Stop bringing up procreation. Your argument is idiotic no matter how you try to phrase it because it lacks any logical foundation to begin with.

Your logic is broken and you should feel bad that you have to grasp at straws to justify your bigotry.

Reply
H G November 20, 2014 at 1:46 pm

Ever heard of adultery? That is the violation of the marriage boundary on sex.

Your brain is stumbling over your own inability to reason.

Reply
Smirks November 20, 2014 at 2:02 pm

That is the violation of the marriage boundary on sex.

Boundary on sex outside of marriage: Woman breaks up with boyfriend for cheating on her.

No boundary on sex inside of marriage: Man and wife agree to open marriage.

Marriage structure that allows for sex with multiple people: Polygamy.

Boundaries are placed by the individual, not the institution of marriage. Boundaries exist well before marriage in most relationships.

Speaking of polygamy, if everyone involved can and does procreate, it’s cool, right? I mean, it makes perfect sense if we go by the hilariously broken logic you subscribe to.

Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.

H G November 20, 2014 at 2:06 pm

So adultery isn’t a violation of the marriage boundary on sex?

You’ve hear of marriage vows, right?

Smirks November 20, 2014 at 2:09 pm

So adultery isn’t a violation of the marriage boundary on sex?

In an open marriage, there is no marriage boundary on sex because both parties agreed to not follow the boundary.

You’ve hear of marriage vows, right?

People are allowed to make their own vows.

H G November 20, 2014 at 2:13 pm

So adultery isn’t legal grounds for a divorce?

Look, you can make up whatever you want in you mind, but you don’t get to pretend it’s reality without a little bit of insanity. Pretending that marriage didn’t establish boundaries for sex is just the kind of make-believe I’m talking about.

Smirks November 20, 2014 at 2:24 pm

So adultery isn’t legal grounds for a divorce?

In an open marriage, neither party would pursue a divorce because they do not perceive sex with someone other than the spouse as inherently wrong.

The state does not set out to divorce couples of its own volition, just because they practice open marriages.

That being said, adultery laws may not make an exception for open marriages, so yes, if one spouse gets bitter all of the sudden, they could conceivably start a divorce by claiming adultery, despite their earlier consent.

Look, you can make up whatever you want in you mind

I didn’t invent open marriages, those have been around for quite some time.

I didn’t invent polygamy, either. That’s been around for quite some time. If you’re a Christian, read Genesis.

Pretending that marriage didn’t establish boundaries for sex

There is no pretending. Boundaries often exist well before marriage. Usually those boundaries don’t even change upon marrying someone. Hell, it’s easier to leave someone over infidelity before marriage (divorce proceedings can be a bitch, splitting property and alimony and whatnot), and especially before having kids (custody hearings, visitation, child support, etc.). Lots of spouses continue the marriage despite being cheated on, either because they dread all of that, or because they have some false sense of obligation to the cheater, or because they want what’s best for their kids, or because they forgive the wrongdoing, or whatever other number of things.

So your assumption that adultery results in divorce every time is entirely absurd.

I… I don’t even thing you have a basic grasp of what marriage actually is. I think you have this fantasy-land picture of it in your head that clearly is not based in reality or logical thought.

H G November 19, 2014 at 7:04 pm

By the way, if you truly do not care what I think and you judge I do not know what I’m talking about, Why respond to me in the first place? You’d and I would be better off if you just kept quiet and ignored me.

Reply
Smirks November 20, 2014 at 1:43 pm

Because your arguments are horrible and deserve every bit of scorn and ridicule that the general public feels like lobbing at it.

Reply
mamatiger92 November 19, 2014 at 7:07 pm

Sweet memories of George Wallace standing in the entrance of the University of Alabama…. Quit wasting taxpayer money and prolonging the inevitable, AW.

Reply
Sic Semper Tyrannis November 19, 2014 at 8:07 pm

This gay marriage shit is going to be the gift that keeps on giving to the conservatives in this country… and if fact, recent polling showing a decline in the support of gays and the election results just proves this out. Let’s face it, the overwhelming majority of this country’s citizens are simply grossed out by public displays of affection by queers (seen any commercials with gay public displays of affection lately?) and as this sleeping giant has now been awakened by the judicial authorization of this disgusting reality, there is going to be hell to pay for the party who appointed these judicial tyrants. So, congratulations, your sexual practices will continue to be deplored by this nation (regardless of what BS court ruling you receive), and, your tyrant ways will turn this country much more conservative.

Reply
Down Low Shame November 20, 2014 at 6:25 am

You talking about the many married Republicans who cruise for sex on gay website and who lead down low, secret lives?

Reply
Sic Semper Tyrannis November 20, 2014 at 6:37 am

Notice how I didn’t use the word “Republican” and instead used the words “Conservative”….there is a difference. But yeah, you are right, many Republicans are just as pro-Gay. But here’s the thing, just as Pro-Life groups didn’t go away with the Roe v Wade ruling, Anti-Gay groups aren’t going to go away with this latest judicial tyranny. And yep, candidates will still be asked if they support Gay marriage (just as they are asked now if they are Pro-Life), And you better believe there answers will matter to the conservative side. You know. laws are always a two way street… they can be rolled back…

Reply
Malcolm Swall November 20, 2014 at 11:42 am

Yet the anti-interracial marriage opposition has virtually disappeared since Loving in 1967.

I think that is the more apt analog.

And, also, despite a few quibbles around the edges, Roe v Wade is still the law of the land. Despite all the protests, despite endless restrictive laws found unconstitutional, a woman still has a right to choose what happens in her own body.

So yeah, if you want to picket gay wedding chapels, and register your opposition to legal same sex marriage for the next few decades, go right ahead.

Reply
Route 666 November 20, 2014 at 1:10 pm

We’ll see… sure, your side has thwarted democracy for now, but seriously, that just ensures that a much nastier backlash is coming. In the end though, I’ll always side with the policy – and will assist any side – that most reconciles to nature, of which your side clearly doesn’t.

Malcolm Swall November 20, 2014 at 1:32 pm

Yep, just like Loving thwarted democracy in VA and let interracial marriage happen nationwide.

I suppose there are a few segregationists who are whispering in the dark..”…. just you wait, you can’t thwart democracy……mixed marriages are not reconciled with nature……the backlash is a coming…. just you wait and see….”

You could try it with some scary music, and maybe a backdrop of storm clouds – it kinda worked in the NOM prop 8 commercials.

Smirks November 20, 2014 at 1:46 pm

Freedom trumps democracy. That’s why my downvote doesn’t silence your right to freedom of speech. :)

Route 666 November 20, 2014 at 2:54 pm

There is no true freedom of speech in this country, nor, freedom of association (better known as the freedom to personally discriminate) anymore… these constitutional keystones have long since been eliminated. In fact, had they existed, I’d not given a flying flip if you had wanted to marry and f&ck your Schnauzer…

mamatiger92 November 20, 2014 at 8:48 am

you sound like you could use a hug.

Reply
Smirks November 20, 2014 at 1:47 pm

And a shrink.

Reply
Malcolm Swall November 20, 2014 at 11:38 am

Um, actually, polling is still showing steady growth of support for same sex marriage. Tellingly, the state that has had it for the longest (more than a decade), Massachusetts, opposition is now 13%.

Reply
Smirks November 20, 2014 at 1:48 pm

Just another example of how future generations refuse to take on the bigotry of their ancestors, and instead look back on that bigotry as a black eye on the history of mankind.

Reply
wayne November 19, 2014 at 9:01 pm

But….Oh, How those Christians LOVE their Sacrament of Divorce!

Reply
mamatiger92 November 20, 2014 at 8:47 am

I love to hear hypocrites like Limbaugh whining about preserving the sanctity of marriage. He’s on like wife #4.

Reply
9" November 20, 2014 at 9:06 am

The Palmetto Family Council is in league with,James Dobson’s,Focus on The Family,who are a designated ‘hate group’ by SPLC.This must have Brad Warthen seething w/rage.
As much as I hate your guts,Will,I commend you for your coverage of ‘gay issues’,even if it’s just to drive traffic…’Everybody’s a hustler’ ;-)

Reply
H G November 20, 2014 at 9:06 am

2 recent polls show dropping support for changing marriage…

Mid-Oct Foxnews poll 47% oppose 44% favor
Mid-Sept Pew Poll 41% oppose 49% favor

Reply
9" November 20, 2014 at 9:08 am

Shut up,bitch.

Reply
mamatiger92 November 20, 2014 at 9:19 am

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 9-12, 2014.
“Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court action this week that allows gay marriages to go forward in several more states?”
56% support 38% oppose

Reply
H G November 20, 2014 at 9:42 am

So 3 recent polls. Even if you average them all, it shows a drop in support.
Maybe it is to early to tell, but it very well could be that the actions
by the court and the arguments advanced are beginning to take their
toll on the trendiness of changing marriage.

Reply
mamatiger92 November 20, 2014 at 9:55 am

or, not.

Reply
Malcolm Swall November 20, 2014 at 11:36 am

So a slight dip in 2014 is more than the 10-15% steady growth in the last decade?

Dream on……

Reply
H G November 20, 2014 at 9:09 am

CJ Roberts may enter the fray in South Carolina. Overall, for an issue is divisive as marriage is, this has been handled horribly by the courts. The chaos only serves to divide us further.

Reply
Better AndBetter November 20, 2014 at 9:42 am

Procreation is not a legal requirement for marriage.

Those who choose not to have kids (even via elective surgery) wed all the time.

Keep using that argument though… it insures your loss.

Reply
H G November 20, 2014 at 9:43 am

You keep arguing with yourself. Nobody but you is pretending procreation is required for marriage.

Reply
Better AndBetter November 20, 2014 at 9:44 am

Then why should we ban gay folks from marrying?

Reply
H G November 20, 2014 at 9:48 am

Granting marriage to consenting opposite sex couples is in keeping with the reality that the natural course of uniting, conceiving, and raising a family begins with a man and woman and is exclusive to that union. It doesn’t mean every marriage must have children any more than having a driver’s license requires you to have a car.

Better AndBetter November 20, 2014 at 9:53 am

OK… tell me, sweetie… where in our civil law is this “natural course of uniting” found? If it isn’t, then it’s your opinion. And it won’t work to change anything.

Legally there is no difference between gay citizens and straight citizens in marriage.

That “for the children” argument died in Windsor (and was openly mocked in court). You are aware of that, aren’t you?

H G November 20, 2014 at 10:02 am

The natural course is found in… wait for it… Nature. It is easily and readily observed.

This may help you.

http://www.marriagelawfoundation.org/publications/Ave%20Maria%201.pdf

Better AndBetter November 20, 2014 at 10:04 am

Sweetie, that’s a catholic opinion piece.

It has nothing to do with law.

H G November 20, 2014 at 10:05 am

Read the rulings. The states interest is directly related to procreation in references to “continuation of the political order” or “the continuation of society”.

Read.

Better AndBetter November 20, 2014 at 10:07 am

Baker is dead. DOMA being gutted in Windsor and sodomy laws dying with Lawrence have created a new legal landscape.

Nothing in today’s legal landscape supports your point of view. THAT is why you keep losing.

The really stupid part is the whole “continuation of society” garbage… as if folks will stop having babies because gay folks wed.

H G November 20, 2014 at 10:11 am

I refuted every one of your objections… thoroughly.
1. there is no requirement for reproduction in my argument or the states interest even though both regard it.
2. procreation is within the scope of the states interest as evidenced in their rulings.

You can pretend all day long that ssu is the same as marriage, but the differences are very, very real.

Better AndBetter November 20, 2014 at 10:13 am

Nope. You’ve used arguments that have died over the course of the last couple of years. Nothing more.

Procreation within the scope of the states interest is unchanged by ending bans on gay marriage.

The differences exist only in your head. Legally there are none.

H G November 20, 2014 at 10:16 am

Then lets just disagree and leave it at that.

Better AndBetter November 20, 2014 at 10:17 am

Sure… but I just have to share.

SCOTUS just denied the stay in South Carolina marriages!

Woo hoo!

Malcolm Swall November 20, 2014 at 11:34 am

You can quote the losing side all day long. What is actually relevant is the winning arguments.

Guest November 20, 2014 at 10:06 am

Homosexual behavior is also observed in thousands of species in … wait for it…. NATURE.

H G November 20, 2014 at 10:08 am

And it is an evolutionary dead end. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the continuation of human existence.

Better AndBetter November 20, 2014 at 10:08 am

Nope… it does not stop procreation in those who are not gay.

What a desperate sounding argument.

H G November 20, 2014 at 10:11 am

Wow.

mamatiger92 November 20, 2014 at 10:12 am

You are citing the “Ave Maria Law Review”?
Priceless.

Better AndBetter November 20, 2014 at 10:13 am

Cute, ain’t it?

H G November 20, 2014 at 10:13 am

It is a law school. You can read the rulings if you object

grandtangosuglydog November 20, 2014 at 10:13 am

Nature has many species that have homosexual activities so your argument is….invalid and well stupid. But hey keep up your bigotry.

Malcolm Swall November 20, 2014 at 11:33 am

Naturalistic fallacy.

Marriage, govt, laws, civilization, constitutions, all do not exist in nature.

grandtangosuglydog November 20, 2014 at 10:11 am

“in keeping” what the hell does that matter or mean to the argument. You make it sound like its a well know fact..its like the idiots that say homosexuality doesnt exist in nature and yet there are thousands of videos and scientific studies refuting that but please..so obviously God was ok with gay shit as he allowed it with thousands of animal species etc..keep the blinders on and full speed ahead dim one.

H G November 20, 2014 at 10:15 am

It means there is a reality you refuse to discern or distinguish. SSU are never going to be the equivalent of a marriage. It is biologically, anatomically, and socially impossible.

Better AndBetter November 20, 2014 at 10:16 am

Legally it is 100% true.

Or can you show us a legal difference between the two classes of citizens?

H G November 20, 2014 at 10:18 am

That is not the legal threshold.

Legally men and women are equal but we still have gender exclusivity allowed in many areas of society.

Better AndBetter November 20, 2014 at 10:19 am

What legal difference is there between their marriages?

H G November 20, 2014 at 10:21 am

We’ve already explored this, we disagree.

The answer is the state’s interest.

Better AndBetter November 20, 2014 at 10:32 am

It’s not a matter of disagreement. It’s like 2+2=4.

What are the legal differences?

H G November 20, 2014 at 10:32 am

You missed my answer?

grandtangosuglydog November 20, 2014 at 10:18 am

You dont like gay marriage, dont marry your partner Steve. Simple. What makes you think you have the right to tell anyone how they should live. Only your ego allows that, no one or thing else.

H G November 20, 2014 at 10:20 am

Marriage exclusive to the opposite genders does not mean I or anyone else is telling homosexuals how they should live. Good night, get over it.

grandtangosuglydog November 20, 2014 at 10:25 am

HG your statement is in direct contradiction to fact. “just because i tell you how to live doesnt mean im telling you how to live” I bet you hated it when mixed races could marry huh and i bet you hated it even more when blacks could go to same schools and drink from same faucet. The world has passed you by buddy as you sit on the park bench of stupidity.

H G November 20, 2014 at 10:31 am

Do you really think I care how you live? That is some intense desire for attention you’ve mistaken for me giving a rip about who you do.

What I care about is the direction our nation goes in regards to marriage.

Malcolm Swall November 20, 2014 at 11:32 am

YOU can say “Marriage exclusive to the opposite genders” all you like.

Legal reality – marriage includes same sex couples in 2/3 of America, countries like England, France, Spain, Canada, etc.

Good night, and get over it, indeed.

Malcolm Swall November 20, 2014 at 11:30 am

I imagine you mean SSU to be Same Sex Unions. Civil unions are NOT equivalent to marriage.

That’s why what is happening in 2/3 of American states is that marriage now legally includes same sex couples.

What citizens are insisting on is for the Govt to treat same sex couples with the same status as opposite sex couples. If the govt recognizes one with the legal, licensed, status of “marriage”, than it must recognize the other with the same status, OR show a rational reason related to a govt concern. What more than two dozen court cases have found is that there is not a rational reason related to a govt concern, thus bans on same sex marriage are found to violate the US Constitution.

Malcolm Swall November 20, 2014 at 11:30 am

“Inconceivable”
“I do not that words means what you think it does.”

mamatiger92 November 20, 2014 at 1:13 pm

best. movie. ever.

mamatiger92 November 20, 2014 at 10:22 am

or not

Reply
H G November 20, 2014 at 10:25 am

I heard. Well, we’ll have to wait for SCOTUS to consider the 5th or 6th circuit appeals.

Reply
9" November 20, 2014 at 9:49 am

Since being gay has put me through hell,I want a new holiday,called GAY DAY,when any homosexual can tag a straight guy or gal,and they’re required to-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sAm5UCJ9vA

Reply
+ November 20, 2014 at 9:52 am Reply
GayLincoln November 20, 2014 at 9:57 am

So…. the religious right approve of a complete waste of taxpayers money? I thought conservatism was about being good stewards of the State’s budget. How much money and time has Wilson wasted chasing this waterfall? It’s done. Welcome to the 21st century SC.

Reply
mamatiger92 November 20, 2014 at 10:21 am

US Supreme Court declines to hear SC appeal of same-sex marriage.

It’s a great day in, SC!

Reply
aaglaas November 20, 2014 at 10:34 am

Homosexuality flourished and was accepted by the general public for over 1,300 years within the Greek culture, and for almost 900 years of Roman culture, without causing any ‘downfall’ of civilization as some people today claim will happen if homosexuals are able to get married. Yet, within a little over 100 years after Christians at the time gained political dominance in Rome (‘Christians’ who were utterly unlike the loving and peaceful Christians of the first 300 years of Christianity), and had renamed Byzantium as Constantinople, the entire Classical civilization and culture (the birthplace of our own Western Civilization) collapsed… after they had forbade freedom of religion under pain of death, freedom of thought, shut down the Olympics, the theaters, the gymnasiums, and schools of learning. These were the same sort of self-styled ‘Christians’ who you see today demonizing gay people and attempting to stop them from marrying each other, or being free from their persecution. This is why the Founding Fathers were so wise to separate Church & State.

They basically killed civic culture as it had been. The cities began to decline and fall into ruin. Public libraries were closed or abandoned since the majority of the citizens within 2 generations had lost the ability to read. Knowledge of sculpture, realistically depicted artwork, civil-engineering, and all that a robust and educated civic life engenders, withered and died. After all, you were told the world was going to end at any moment, and you didn’t need to know anymore than what the religious authorities told or forced you to believe, let alone worry about ‘secular’ knowledge or interests.

The ancient world had been a relatively tolerant place in the world of religion. There were occasional bursts of persecution of this or that sect but as a rule many religions existed side by side. The fact that the Christians were persecuted at times, does not excuse what they did upon coming to power.

During the years 342 CE to 395 CE all this changed when Christianity established itself as the only religion in the Roman Empire and launched an all out campaign of religious terror against all other sects.

It was not until the Roman world was forcibly converted, and succumbed to an unforgiving and dictatorship-like form of Christianity (completely unlike the earlier peaceful and loving form of Christianity that had existed for 300 years), that we began to embark upon the Dark Ages.

PERSECUTION OF HOMOSEXUALS BEGINS:

On December 16, 342 AD, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, under advice from their bishops, issued the following edict.. a law specifically outlawing marriages between men, and reads as follows:

“When a man marries in the manner of a woman, a woman about to renounce men, what does he wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be guilty, shall be subjected to exquisite punishment.” (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

Christian emperors Theodosius and Arcadius on Aug 6, 390, under the advice of their bishops, issued the following edict.. an edict that would begin an evil persecution towards gay people that would last well over 1,600 years:

“All persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a man’s body, acting the part of a woman’s to the sufferance of alien sex (for they appear not to be different from women), shall expiate a crime of this kind by being burned to death in the public sight of the people.” -Codex Theodosius IX. Vii. 6

What follows are quotes from the legal code of the Roman Empire as set forth by the Emperor Theodosius at the request of Christian leaders to crush competing religions. The legal persecution of non-Christian religions by Rome marked the beginning of a wave of religious terror that would remain in place until the eighteenth century.

THE BURNING OF NON-CHRISTIAN BOOKS:

“All writings whatever which Porphyry or anyone else has written against the Christian religion, in the possession of whomsoever they shall be found, shall be committed to the fire.” — Emperor Theodosius I.

LAW BANNING ALL RELIGIONS OTHER THAN CHRISTIANITY:

“We command that all those proved to be devoting themselves to sacrificing or worshiping images be subject to the penalty of death.” — Codex Theodosianus, XVI.10.6

“It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. … The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative.” — Codex Theodosianus, XVI.1.2.

EDICTS AGAINST NON-CHRISTIAN WORSHIP:

“No one shall consult a soothsayer, astrologer or diviner. The perverse pronouncements of augurs and seers must fall silent. … The universal curiosity about divination must be silent forever. Whosoever refuses obedience to this command shall suffer the penalty of death and be laid low by the avenging sword.” — Codex Theodosianus, IX.16.4

“The ability and right of making wills shall be taken from those who turn from Christians to pagans, and the testament of such an one, if he made any, shall be abrogated after his death.”– Codex Theodosianus, XVI.7.1.

THE DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLES:

“It is decreed that in all places and all cities the [pagan] temples should be closed at once, and after a general warning, the opportunity of sinning be taken from the wicked. We decree also that we shall cease from making sacrifices. And if anyone has committed such a crime, let him be stricken with the avenging sword. And we decree that the property of the one executed shall be claimed by the city, and that rulers of the provinces be punished in the same way, if they neglect to punish such crimes.”– Codex Theodosianus, XVI.10.4.

Thankfully society at large is now freeing itself from these type of self-professed ‘Christians’, who are full of hatred and condemnation towards anyone who doesn’t fit into their narrow view of reality, and who caused the Dark Ages to begin in the first place. Their mind-set is of the same type as those described above. Thankfully as well, more and more ‘true’ Christians have seen the errors of their ways on this issue and now openly and lovingly welcome gay souls and their loved ones, for the unique way that God created them.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia November 20, 2014 at 10:54 am

Damn, sounds like some of the things Muslims do. We see that today with return of the witch burners from the 1600’s and their minions. “Do as we say, think what we think, and do what we do, or you don’t deserve to be here.”

Reply
aaglaas November 20, 2014 at 10:57 am

Well said! Yes, they behaved as ISIS and other such groups behave now.

Reply
Type7 November 20, 2014 at 11:27 am

SCOTUS refuses to stop SC gay marriages. Will Nikki Haley now chain herself to the courthouse doors in a display of defiance? If not, I guess she can always fire on Fort Sumter again. That worked out well for SC the first time!

Reply
J November 20, 2014 at 11:47 am

Gay marriage=worst thing ever!

Charles Manson getting married=totally cool, guys!

Got it, conservatives.

Reply

Leave a Comment