SC

SC Judge Balks At Gay Marriage Ruling

DAN ECKSTROM DEFIES – THEN ACCEPTS – SUPREME COURT RULING By FITSNEWS || A probate court judge in Lexington County, S.C. attempted to defy the U.S. Supreme Court this week on the issue of gay marriage. Dan Eckstrom – brother of S.C. Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom – said his office…

DAN ECKSTROM DEFIES – THEN ACCEPTS – SUPREME COURT RULING

By FITSNEWS || A probate court judge in Lexington County, S.C. attempted to defy the U.S. Supreme Court this week on the issue of gay marriage.

Dan Eckstrom – brother of S.C. Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom – said his office would not issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, despite the highest court in the land voting 7-2 to uphold a lower court ruling striking down the state’s 2006 ban.

“I respect the rule of law, and until this matter is conclusively resolved–or unless otherwise directed–the Office of the Lexington County Probate Court continues to abide by our state Constitution and statues,” Eckstrom said.

Within hours, though, Eckstrom reversed his position … indicating he must have been “otherwise directed.”

S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson had said his office will continue to fight on behalf of South Carolina’s gay marriage ban – which has been ruled unconstitutional by a pair of district court judges.

DAN ECKSTROM
DAN ECKSTROM

Wilson believes South Carolina’s ban – passed overwhelmingly by voters in 2006 – should remain in place while the U.S. Supreme Court sorts out conflicting rulings from the fourth circuit court of appeals (which says gay marriage bans are unconstitutional) and the sixth circuit court of appeals (which says states have the right to ban marriage if they want).

Eckstrom later said his office would grant licenses to same sex couples because there was no “pending appeal” of a South Carolina-related case.

This website has consistently argued that marriage is the purview of individual churches, not government.

“We believe government should have no involvement whatsoever on the question of marriage – be it banning or sanctioning, gay or straight,” we wrote recently. “That’s because marriage is an institution of the church, not the state.  Which means it should be left up to individual congregations – not politicians or bureaucrats – to decide.  Meanwhile per the Fourteenth Amendment, civil unions must be recognized by government equally – with benefits and privileges protected equally.”

***

Related posts

SC

South Carolina Islanders Brace For Luxury ‘EcoTourism’ Development

Callie Lyons
SC

Pastor John-Paul Miller’s Personality Test: Mining for Clues

Callie Lyons
SC

Follow-Up File: S.C. Beach Patrol Tragedy

Will Folks

21 comments

Only Judge West of Pecos November 20, 2014 at 3:34 pm

You can’t make this stuff up. Wait! Yes you can. In SC.

Reply
Nölff November 20, 2014 at 3:47 pm

Talk of secession will be next.

Reply
buh bye November 20, 2014 at 4:01 pm

There’s always talk, i wanna see the Feds take them up on their offer.

Reply
Won't do a thing, as usual November 20, 2014 at 6:39 pm

SC is only good for ‘talk’. Too bad it’s hard for other English speakers to understand.

Reply
9" November 20, 2014 at 4:01 pm

This is what I’ve been thinking about.I need to keep an eye over my shoulder,and that’s just for some in-laws,and other relatives.

Reply
Rocky November 20, 2014 at 4:41 pm

The sun will come out, tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow, there’ll be queers, walking along, the Main Street, skipping over to the courthouse, Tomorrow, Tomorrow – in Lexin’ton, tomorrow – the queers are a day away…….

Reply
Rocky November 20, 2014 at 4:42 pm

“Do you Bubba, take Jimbo to be your lawfully wedded husband, your cuddle muffin redneck, to have and to hold……”

Reply
Deo Vindice SC November 20, 2014 at 6:12 pm

Linsey has been fucking his lover for decades, please !

Reply
H G November 20, 2014 at 8:58 pm

Uniting, conceiving, and raising a family begins with a man and woman. Their pairing is what brought about boundaries for intercourse, reproduction, and family benefiting all and favoring the continuation of humanity and society.
Marriage is the union established in response to these social needs. As such, marriage has absolutely nothing to do with same gender unions. Forcing society to accept a new definition of marriage that disregards this natural order by making men and women interchangeable in it, diminishes our appreciation and understanding of marriage. It diminishes the differences between men and women and the complimentary union of those differences essential to family and society.

That same gender couples had no part in the establishing of marriage means marriage is not just the union of two people who romantically love each other, but the union of a man and woman. SSU and marriage are far, far too different on too many levels to ever be honestly, fairly or reasonably considered the same.

Society has long regarded the differences between men and women, and our laws
reflect the respect society has for those differences in many areas without any resulting inequality (restroom, dorms, dressing rooms, clubs, organizations, schools). Those differences are of great importance and a union exclusive to men and women which recognizes the benefits to society and the significance of respectfully uniting those differences, in no way illegally discriminates.

Reply
fred farkel November 20, 2014 at 10:35 pm

Thank you so much H G you narrow minded and bigoted idiot. It’s the 21st century, not the age of slavery. Oh I know South Carolina will suceed and the south shall rise again. Idiots like you will reelect the likes of Sanford, Haley, Scott, Graham, Wilson, Duncan, Gowdy and all the other mental midgets.

Reply
barrie November 21, 2014 at 12:54 am

So anyone who disagrees with you is suddenly painted a bigot…well…you must be a bigot yourself for not appreciating a divergent opinion…bigot!

Reply
The Art of Language November 21, 2014 at 8:08 am

Racial segregation is also a “divergent opinion.”

So is anti Semitism.

I presume then ,in your world, people who hold such views are not “bigots.”

Accordingly,really,there is no such thing as “bigotry.”

Correct?

Reply
fred farkel November 20, 2014 at 10:39 pm

Whoops. H G your last paragraph regarding the difference between men and women, and your laws. Looks like it was taken out of the pages of Jim Crow aka segregation????? My how far you come and grown.

Reply
jesse November 20, 2014 at 9:23 pm

Perversion, violence and hatred are still being promoted by many (i.e. Hollywood) and gradually being accepted by the people.

Reply
Goobersmacker November 21, 2014 at 11:12 am

Perversion, violence and hatred are still being promoted by many (i.e. Republicans) and gradually being accepted by the people.
There. Fixed it for you.

Reply
Derp Derpington III November 20, 2014 at 9:31 pm

Just to set the record straight on a few points: I believe Judge Eckstrom refused to issue gay marriage licenses UNTIL the Supreme Court ruled on it. Once they ruled on it, he then said he would issue the licenses. So at no time was he defying SupCo.

(Also, not sure about this but don’t believe he’s related to Richard Eckstrom. LexCo is crawling with Eckstroms, it doesn’t mean they’re related.)

Reply
Dleil November 20, 2014 at 9:49 pm

Nope. He issued his statement after the Supreme Court denied the stay.

Reply
Guero November 20, 2014 at 9:37 pm

Dan Eckstrom is a moron. Thank goodness he has an associate judge; she knows the law, unlike him.

Reply
PolishBear November 20, 2014 at 10:00 pm

Secession just because law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples are allowed to marry? That seems like a BIT of an overreaction.

Reply
wayne November 21, 2014 at 1:41 pm

Simple….throw his ass in jail for contempt of Court

Reply
JeffreyRO55 November 21, 2014 at 6:37 pm

That’s all good and well to say that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriages, but the reason the government got involved in marriages in the first place was because religionist men were marrying child brides, and taking more than one bride. The government became involved as a regulatory function, a role it still plays.

Reply

Leave a Comment