SC

Richard Gergel’s Gay Marriage Ruling Draws Scrutiny

SHOULD LANDMARK CASE HAVE BEEN HEARD? By FITSNEWS  ||  Earlier this month, FITS reported on a schism within South Carolina’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community over the handling of the same sex marriage issue in the Palmetto State. You can read that report HERE, but it basically boiled down…

SHOULD LANDMARK CASE HAVE BEEN HEARD?

By FITSNEWS  ||  Earlier this month, FITS reported on a schism within South Carolina’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community over the handling of the same sex marriage issue in the Palmetto State.

You can read that report HERE, but it basically boiled down to one lesbian couple getting shoved off stage by another … and one judge getting trumped by another.

The reason for this schism?  Accounts vary.  Some say the plaintiffs in the first case (a.k.a. the couple shoved off stage) –Katherine Bradacs and Tracie Goodwin – weren’t aggressive enough in pursuing the desired outcome (an immediate overturning of South Carolina’s 2004 gay marriage ban).  Others say Bradacs and Goodwin were viewed with contempt by many same sex couples due to their appearance.

“They’re too pretty,” one gay rights advocate told FITS.

Wait … what? 

Yup … apparently there’s all sorts of discrimination at work in the fight to end, um, discrimination.

Whatever the reason, a decision was made by certain gay leaders to abandon the Bradacs v. Haley  case – pending before U.S. district court judge Michelle Childs – and seek a ruling on the issue before another federal judge, Richard Gergel.

In fact according to our sources, Gergel was “chomping at the bit” to issue a favorable ruling on the issue.

The star of the new case?  Colleen Condon, a corrupt Charleston County councilwoman who was still in the closet as recently as last spring.  Nonetheless, Condon and her partner – Nichols Bleckley – became the new faces of the gay marriage debate in South Carolina when they filed a lawsuit before Gergel’s court on October 15.

Ever since our report on all this ran last week, FITS has been flooded with tips related to this lawsuit – which led to Gergel’s ruling on November 12 that South Carolina’s gay marriage ban was unconstitutional.  Additionally, Gergel also ordered same sex marriages could proceed at noon on November 20 – a date which was upheld when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in the case.

The victory was absolute … with Gergel’s name now attached to the historic win.

Should it have been, though?

Prior to filing their lawsuit, Condon and Bleckley’s attorneys had to provide written answers to a number of questions regarding their motion – including one asking whether the case was germane to any other action currently before the U.S. district court.

They answered “no” – even though the Bradacs v. Haley  case was still pending before the court.

“The case never should have been heard,” one attorney familiar with federal procedure told FITS.  “A pending challenge to South Carolina’s constitutional prohibition was already before the court.”

So … why was it heard?  

Several compelling theories have been advanced … each of which we’ll be entertaining in future posts.

For the record, we agree with Gergel’s ruling – to the extent government should be involved in the marriage debate at all.  No government – local, state or federal – should be able to ban or sanction any marriage (gay, straight or plural).  As we’ve stated on dozens of prior occasions, decisions regarding marriage ought to be the purview of individual churches.

As for the government acknowledgement of civil unions, the Fourteenth Amendment is clear: Equal protection under the law applies to all citizens.

Having said that, if a judge permitted preexisting biases to color his decision to take a case (to say nothing of the ruling he reached) – it’s worth discussing.  Of course no matter what Gergel’s predispositions (or his reasons for having them), the demise of South Carolina’s gay marriage ban was only a matter of time after the Supreme Court decided in October not to overturn a fourth circuit ruling striking down state bans.

In other words, his decision to take the case only sped up the process by a few months … it didn’t fundamentally alter the ultimate decision.

***

Related posts

SC

Hurricane Season Is Here?

FITSNews
SC

Greenville Animal Group Under Fire After Raising $15K From Unfounded Opossum Beating Story

Mandy Matney
SC

Letter: Clemson Responds To Racial Quota Story

Letters

76 comments

Malcolm Swall November 25, 2014 at 11:55 am

Equal rights and justice for all. True traditional American values.

Reply
Jackie Chiles November 25, 2014 at 12:27 pm

Except for Polygamists. They can’t marry whomever they love.

Reply
Malcolm Swall November 25, 2014 at 1:23 pm

All citizens may marry one person.

Whether the govt has a constitutionally valid rational reason, related to a legitimate govt concern, to deny a marriage of more than two consenting adults is currently not being tested.

If you really, really wish to marry more than one person at a time, hire a lawyer and file your claim. If the govt cannot defend a rational purpose to deny a polygamous marriage, as the govt failed to do in the case of same sex marriage, than you will prevail. If, as I suspect, the govt can present a rational reason to limit marriage to two persons, you will be out of luck.

Personally, I don’t know if the ban on polygamy is constitutional or not; I am content to let the courts resolve the issue.

Reply
Jackie Chiles November 25, 2014 at 4:09 pm

HOW DARE YOU STAND IN THE WAY OF LOVE.

Reply
Malcolm Swall November 25, 2014 at 4:43 pm

My observations on the constitutional requirements of marriage laws are not “standing in the way of love.”

Far from it, I have given you the correct path to pursue your love. Good luck with your law suit.

Jackie Chiles November 25, 2014 at 5:50 pm

Bigot.

well now November 25, 2014 at 9:15 pm

Malcolm, marriage is considered a fundamental right so gov needs more than just a rational basis. While polygamy was struck down in a prior court ruling, my understanding is that Utah uphled polygamist marriage earlier this year. I will have to check if there is a case on point. Also, your logic about everyone has the right to marry one person is the exact same logic for equal protection the evil awful dumb dumb traditional marriage poo poo heads were using before saying in effect that everyone had the right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

percykins November 25, 2014 at 10:57 pm

“my understanding is that Utah uphled polygamist marriage earlier this year”

Nope. The media got quite confused on that issue – the judge struck down the part of the anti-bigamy law which forbade *cohabitation* with multiple partners as obviously contrary to Lawrence v. Texas and similar cases, but the prohibition of *marriage* remained intact.

Fundamentally the arguments for same-sex marriage are not the same as those for polygamous marriage, and as such the facile analogy being made here simply doesn’t work. Polygamists are not a discernible class to be discriminated against – claiming “discrimination” is like saying laws against murder discriminate against murderers.

well now November 26, 2014 at 12:11 am

Polygamist can be such based on a legitimate religious belief/practice – so that not completely accurate

ConservativeSmasher November 26, 2014 at 1:45 am

What are you talking about? The arguments for polygamous marriage are identical in EVERY WAY to the arguments for same-sex marriage.

The argument is that same-sex marriage is a right by virtue of the constitution.

If same-sex marriage is a right by virtue of the constitution, why wouldn’t opposite-sex marriage be a right by virtue of the constitution?

There’s simply no argument possible against polygamous marriage that hasn’t been used against gay marriage.

With Brown v. Buhman, (the ruling you referenced above) polygamous cohabitation has been ruled a constitutional right. If polygamous cohabitation is a right, why wouldn’t polygamous marriage be one?

Ironically, you claim that polygamists are not a discernible class to be discriminated against – while discerning them from the rest of the public so as to be discriminated against under the law. Too funny!

percykins November 26, 2014 at 1:55 am

“The argument is that same-sex marriage is a right by virtue of the constitution”

That’s not an argument, that’s a conclusion. They haven’t won numerous court cases by saying “Because Constitution!”

“you claim that polygamists are not a discernible class to be discriminated against – while discerning them from the rest of the public so as to be discriminated against under the law.”

That doesn’t even remotely make sense – you’re again just assuming the argument where they can be discriminated against.

ConservativeSmasher November 26, 2014 at 3:11 am

“That’s not an argument, that’s a conclusion. They haven’t won numerous court cases by saying “Because Constitution!””

They’ve won numerous cases by saying “Because 14th Amendment!”

If same-sex marriage is a right, so is opposite-sex marriage, including polygamous marriage.

percykins November 26, 2014 at 3:12 am

“They’ve won numerous cases by saying “Because 14th Amendment!””

Not even close, but thank you for admitting you don’t even have a rudimentary grasp of the legal arguments here. Have a nice day.

ConservativeSmasher November 26, 2014 at 3:24 am

You know very well that the arguments for gay marriage are constitutional arguments.

If polygamists live under the same constitution, they are entitled to these same rights.

percykins November 26, 2014 at 3:33 am

That is simply an utterly meaningless post, devoid of even the slightest connection to any sort of rational argument.

ConservativeSmasher November 26, 2014 at 3:38 am

The rational argument is here:

If same-sex marriage is a right, why wouldn’t opposite-sex marriage be a right?

I’ll leave you to ponder that one.

percykins November 26, 2014 at 3:42 am

That’s not your argument – the argument is “if same-sex marriage is a right, why wouldn’t marrying multiple people at one time be a right?” You’re just saying “opposite-sex marriage” based on nothing – polygamous marriage would of course extend to same-sex as well as opposite-sex marriages. And as I already pointed out, the two are completely different things.

I like how you *literally* don’t have an argument beyond this – this is nothing more than a soundbite. You just repeat this over and over without even the vaguest understanding of what the actual arguments or criteria are here.

ConservativeSmasher November 26, 2014 at 7:59 pm

percykins…

“That’s not your argument – the argument is “if same-sex marriage is a right, why wouldn’t marrying multiple people at one time be a right?”

I don’t know why I have to point this out to you but polygamous marriages ARE opposite-sex marriages.

So why wouldn’t those opposite-sex marriages be a right guaranteed by the same constitution?

“And as I already pointed out, the two are completely different things.”

Same-sex marriage is a completely different thing than opposite-sex marriage.

Please tell me you have a better argument than just “they’re different!”

percykins November 26, 2014 at 11:26 pm

OK, I’m getting bored of this so I’m going to just start getting terse.

“polygamous marriages ARE opposite-sex marriages.”

Asked and answered – no they’re not. Polygamous marriages do not require opposite-sex, as I already pointed out – you, of course, ignored that and as such your point is simply dismissed.

“Please tell me you have a better argument than just “they’re different!””

YOUR claim is that they are the same – you are here openly admitting that you cannot substantiate that in any way and as such your point is dismissed.

“How would refusing to recognize polygamous marriages make government functioning easier?”

You are the one who accepted that they would make them easier by claiming that banning same-sex marriage and interracial marriage would make government functioning easier – when called on it you immediately abandon your point, and as such your argument here is dismissed.

ConservativeSmasher November 27, 2014 at 2:27 am

You keep claiming that polygamous marriages do not require opposite-sex but you have no evidence to show that polygamous marriages can be composed of people of the same-sex.

Do you know of any same-sex polygamous marriages anywhere, at any time in history?

If you can’t point to one, I’d have to say your claim is unsupported by the facts.

“YOUR claim is that they are the same – you are here openly admitting that you cannot substantiate that in any way and as such your point is dismissed.”

YOUR claim was that same-sex marriages were the same as opposite-sex marriages.

truthmonger December 1, 2014 at 2:40 pm

Ummm….. your argument against polygamy works equally well against same-sex. In fact, both are relationships between people akin to contracts. Those preferring a polygamous lifestyle ARE a discernable class, ESPECIALLY when religious belief is tied in.

percykins December 1, 2014 at 5:21 pm

“Those preferring a polygamous lifestyle ARE a discernable class”

You’re simply saying this, it makes no sense. You could use this argument for literally anything, e.g., laws against thievery are discriminating against people who like to steal. A “preference” is not a discernible class. You can get psychologists on the stand all day who will tell you that gay people are emotionally incapable of entering into a stable romantic relationship with an opposite-sex person, and as such gay people are materially harmed by having no options open to them for a legally sanctioned relationship. You can find no expert witness who will say anything like that for people “preferring a polygamous lifestyle”.

If all gay people were bisexual, *then* it would be similar to what you’re talking about, and gay marriage would likely not be so successful in the courts.

TruthTime November 25, 2014 at 12:00 pm

was this ruling all to advance Colleen’s run for Charleston Mayor?

Reply
It's a Great Day In SC November 25, 2014 at 4:06 pm

Maybe.

But the whole case itself was about Alan Wilsons pending run for Governor in four years.

Reply
Brian Murphy November 25, 2014 at 12:13 pm

Your expert is wrong. When a case is filed in South Carolina district court, either party can call to the court’s attention whether it is “related litigation.” Under Local Rule 26.01(E), cases are “related” if they ” arise from the same or identical transactions, happenings, or events; involve the identical parties or property; or for any other reason would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.” The fact that the same or similar legal issues are pending in the District typically is not the basis for a finding that cases are related. The Chief Admin Judge may, however, consolidate cases before a single judge if he or she determines that would avoid a burden to the court. If the state felt that the plaintiffs were somehow “judge shopping” (which is hard to do as cases are assigned on a rotation basis), the state could have requested consolidation. It apparently didn’t. Also, the only way to really judge shop is to file the same case many times, then, after assignment, dismiss the ones before the judges you don’t want. That isn’t done either as judges can sanction you for playing that game. So this is not even a good conspiracy theory.

Reply
My Degree Is Better Than Yours November 25, 2014 at 1:07 pm

Bullshit. You’re not even a lawyer. And if you are, you deserve to be disbarred for posting crap.

Reply
JD & Coke November 27, 2014 at 11:01 pm

If fairness to him, if lawyers could be disbarred for disseminating shit, then there wouldn’t be many practicing today.

Reply
9" November 25, 2014 at 12:24 pm

If you’re worried about beauty contests,look in the mirror,first.

Reply
Oh My November 25, 2014 at 1:06 pm

Condon …. big push in the political arena for the fat sloppy looking hog.

Reply
Bible Thumper November 25, 2014 at 1:32 pm

This is another reason I love lawyers. Abbeville County School District v. State of South Carolina took 21 years to decide an no one even questions it or considers it a travesty of justice to take so long. In many ways, reform has been on hold in SC while that decision has been pending. The court case’s impact on South Carolina education for at least 21 years has been negative.

Reply
Rocky November 25, 2014 at 2:27 pm

Who cares. The important thing is Tango can now marry their partner. And is what is really the most priceless result.

Reply
9" November 25, 2014 at 2:38 pm

‘Yup … apparently there’s all sorts of discrimination at work in the fight to end, um, discrimination.’

Gay people are just as human as heterosexuals,and people talk.Go back and read posts made by straight men about homely straight women.None of us are in the straight club or the gay club,We’re all homosapians,so don’t try and create false divisions,although I wouldn’t fuck you with GT’s dick…

Reply
Bruno November 25, 2014 at 2:43 pm

Just to be clear, the Bradacs case only dealt with the recognition of out-of-state marriages. The Condon case dealt with South Carolina’s discrimination in terms of issuing marriage licenses in-state. The 2 cases dealt with the same amendment, but from different angles, and therefore the Condon case was validly brought.

Reply
FFS November 25, 2014 at 3:23 pm

Fags make up 10% or so of the population but somehow their situation manages to consume 30% or so of the political discussions. Between them and blacks we spend more than half the time talking/worrying about them.

Why is it so tough for people to just say “fuck it”, everyone wanting access to “gov’t services” should get equal access, like civil unions. When it comes to gov’t, everyone should get equal access to the stolen loot, favors, tax status, etc.

Reply
SCBlues November 26, 2014 at 6:37 pm

” Between them and blacks we spend more than half the time talking/worrying about them.”
Horse-fucking-shit. White heterosexuals spend 100% of their time worrying about themselves.

Reply
Fits Ain't No Republican November 25, 2014 at 3:28 pm

Fits failed to close his latest “gay” posting with his usual “caveat” about marriage and Churches.what happened?

I always look forward to that.

Reply
Sparky November 25, 2014 at 3:42 pm

As we’ve stated on dozens of prior occasions, decisions regarding marriage ought to be the purview of individual churches.
To clarify: “Holy matrimony” is the religous ceremony according to scripture. It is totally up to religions to determine rules. But it has no legal implications.
“Marriage” is a legal term governed by the state. It has implications over 1148 federal benefits plus state benefits.
Churches have jurisdiction over religious Holy Matrimony
The State has jurisdiction over Marriage

Reply
indeed November 25, 2014 at 9:19 pm

You do mean federal government as the state. Individuals states per this recent decision apparently have no say if the federal chooses to intervene – based presumably? on all of the US constitional dictates on marriage spelled out before the tenth amendment and the articles of the constitution.

Reply
Sparky November 25, 2014 at 10:59 pm

There are 27 amendments to the US constitution. They were each agreed by the rules of the process for establishing the consitution ehuch means that three quarters if the states agreed. A state whuich passes laws must adhere to all 27 of the federal consitutiinal amendments. They are the law of the land. If a state creates a law which violates one of the 27 federal amendments, that state action is unconstitutional. This is exactly why the state bans are being over turned. In short, the state bans denying equal treatment under the law are illegal. If a state does not wish to be a part of the United States of America, it can suceed . However, all federal programs fir that now independent state would also cease.
Remember though that these same protections apply to protect religious feeedom and gun ownership. You cant just pick and choose the ones you like depending upon the issue

Reply
indeed November 26, 2014 at 12:22 am

I am actually fine with gay marriage, and was against SC voting for a const amendment when there was already an unchallenged state statute on the books. Nevertheless, the underpinning of this argument prefaced on equal protection is spurious. The federal government regulation an intervention in marriage was quite limited until now. I think in the end Congress will need pass uniform laws on the issue, because the constitutional right to marriage is now federally empowered but not constitutionally enumerated as such (yes I am familiar wit freedom of assembly), and for this same reason I thought DOMA was completely untenable legally, and a bad law. Under the new court rulings, unfortunately, I would imagine Congress has (had?) Such authority.

Reply
Sparky November 26, 2014 at 12:29 am

Im not sure that the constitution allows the federal government to address marriage in the form of creating a new law. I expect it will be the Supreme court which could clarify precedence. I also suspect we are witnessing the creation of a federal agreement. It takes many years and a long process. I doubt there could ever be any more constitutional amendments as the country to way too divided for the constututional amendment process. Alas, we need to use the courts.

indeed November 26, 2014 at 12:33 am

Don’t get me wrong, I agree 100% with you the country is likely too fractured to pass any new const amend’s AND that the court is now essentially passing/creating something of similitude to such on its own volition, but I think that very problematic even if I agree with a particular opinion

Sparky November 26, 2014 at 12:39 am

Yes, It would be wonderful if congress and the states could work together to move this country forward but Im afraid those days are long gone. Ive watch this country evolve. The obstructionist approach in congress combined with extreme individualism leave us with a powder keg. I sincerely fear escalated civil unrest in our future with violence.

indeed November 26, 2014 at 12:30 am

Its sort of like the dormant commerce clause. The authority is made up from whole cloth, theirs train loads of opinions on it and jurisprudence explaining what it means and doesn’t mean, and its trotted out – even when congress has actually spoken in an area – to permit the courts to lawlessly strike down state and even federal laws (ironically) they’d prefer to strike down. This is a good move on the courts part to wrest more power from the legislative branch and the states. Let’s face it, if you had the chance to vote yourself more power wouldn’t you take it. I don’t blame these judges. Rock on brother!

percykins November 25, 2014 at 11:01 pm

The Tenth Amendment is intact – it is still state laws on marriage which are in question here. However, state laws must be in accord with the United States Constitution under the Supremacy Clause. The Constitution clearly states that laws must treat people equally (Fourteenth Amendment). It further clearly states that the federal appellate courts and SCOTUS are the appropriate final appellate authority “as to law”. As such, it is an enumerated power of the federal judiciary to determine whether state laws treat people equally.

Reply
ConservativeSmasher November 26, 2014 at 1:51 am

“The Constitution clearly states that laws must treat people equally (Fourteenth Amendment).”

Please point to the part that includes same-sex marriages but excludes polygamous marriages.

Reply
percykins November 26, 2014 at 1:59 am

If nothing else, there’s an obvious rational basis behind saying that there has to be at least *some* sort of limit on the number of people you can marry at a time. Once there is *a* limit, what’s your argument against the state choosing to set it at one?

This has nothing to do with the question of whether there is a rational basis behind not allowing a person to marry another person based on the genders in question. You’re not even *attempting* to explain how the arguments are even vaguely the same.

ConservativeSmasher November 26, 2014 at 3:22 am

What’s the rational basis behind saying there has to be at least *some* sort of limit on the number of people you can marry at a time?

There’s no limit on the number of people you can marry, sleep with or have children with. Why should there be a limit on the number of people you can marry? There isn’t even a limit on the number of people you can marry in one lifetime!

Moreover, if there’s a limit, why set it at two? Let’s be honest, the only reason we set it at two people of the opposite-sex was because two people of the opposite-sex is what it takes to create children.

Now that we’ve dispensed with the male-female rule, the number two rule no longer makes sense.

And as I said before, you cannot find one argument for legalizing same-sex marriage that wouldn’t apply to polygamous marriage.

percykins November 26, 2014 at 3:32 am

“What’s the rational basis behind saying there has to be at least *some* sort of limit on the number of people you can marry at a time?”

Makes government functioning a lot easier. Simple.

“you cannot find one argument for legalizing same-sex marriage that wouldn’t apply to polygamous marriage”

You’ve already admitted that you don’t even know what those arguments are, so of course you can’t find one.

ConservativeSmasher November 26, 2014 at 3:37 am

“Makes government functioning a lot easier. Simple.”

So does the ban on gay marriage and so did the ban on interracial marriage.

Try again.

“You’ve already admitted that you don’t even know what those arguments are, so of course you can’t find one.”

Nice dodge but I asked you to find the arguments and apparently, you were unable to find one.

percykins November 26, 2014 at 3:39 am

“So does the ban on gay marriage and so did the ban on interracial marriage.”

How? How did they make government functioning easier?

“I asked you to find the arguments and apparently, you were unable to find one”

LOL… You *literally* claimed that their argument was “Because 14th Amendment!” I love how you can’t even remember your own posts from minute to minute.

ConservativeSmasher November 26, 2014 at 8:01 pm

“How? How did they make government functioning easier?”

How would refusing to recognize polygamous marriages make government functioning easier?

Sparky November 25, 2014 at 11:06 pm

Btw. All states agreed to the 14th amendment etc. that means, they agreed to create laws which honor the 14th amendment. Thats the problem which is now in front of the courts. They are violating their own agreements

Reply
Better AndBetter November 26, 2014 at 8:46 am

Why should states have a say in who the federal government extends benefits and protections to? The 14th applies here, as does the 5th… add the Supremacy Clause and the 10th is trumped. It’s not rocket science.

Reply
Steven A. Smith November 25, 2014 at 3:50 pm

Whichever aide of the gay marriage debate you are on and wheather Democrat or Republican, NOBODY can dispute the fairness or brilliant legal mind of Judge Gergel. He is a great man and a great jurist????????O

Reply
jimlewisowb November 25, 2014 at 4:23 pm

“NOBODY” you write – bless your heart

thanks Ms. Gergel, but not everyone out here thinks your husband walks on water

however I may be wrong since Cockroaches are also called Waterbugs in Charleston

Reply
Taos November 25, 2014 at 4:57 pm

Bwahahaha…. seriously?!?!…. he’s a piece of trash, pseudo-intellectual… and btw, are all political lawyers “brilliant”?!?! And what does it take to be “brilliant”?!?…. always siding with the minority on cases in the name of “justice”?!?… sheez, what a bunch of damn ambulance chasing worms!

Reply
Eli Odell Jackson November 26, 2014 at 12:00 am

No sir, he is an utterly lost and corrupt sinner, and furthermore, a contemptuous activist judge, who does not prosecute the laws as he is given but seeks to create them on his own.
He is a wicked and sinful man.

Reply
Better AndBetter November 26, 2014 at 8:45 am

Your concept of sin is not relevant to US civil law.

Reply
ScrewedNSC November 25, 2014 at 4:02 pm

Gergel is probably one of the better federal judges in the state. I would rank him in the top 3 for knowledge of the law and professionalism.

Reply
Taos November 25, 2014 at 4:51 pm

Who cares if he’s one of the better ones… your endorsement as such just screams that he’s a better judicial activist who makes laws from the bench (thus encroaching on the legislative duties) versus the simple act of interpreting the will of the majority of people as manifested in the laws they have passed through their representatives in congress…. so, there you go, if that worm ever showed up at my home I’d at best spit in his face and at worst knock his a$$ out…. he’s an utter POS…

Reply
ScrewedNSC November 26, 2014 at 7:05 am

Interpreting the constitution has nothing to do with the will of the people. Judge Gergel was merely doing his job. That job is to apply the law as it is written. I do not believe any where in the Constitution it says anything about the will of the people over writing the constitution. However, there are provisions for amending the Constitution. If the public is not satisfied with the Constitution then they have several alternatives. One of which is to call a constitutional convention and the other is to pass amendments. However with this dysfunctional Congress I doubt if we can ever get any amendments passed.

Reply
Taos November 26, 2014 at 12:49 pm

So the constitution wrote itself? Also, the passage of the 14th was sham as it was forced down the throats of a defeated Confederacy… thus, it really isn’t terribly legit in my eyes…. unfortunately, no one’s had the political courage to challenge this Federal Govt. Power grab amendment – which eliminates all state sovereignty – for over 150 years…

Reply
unreligious November 26, 2014 at 4:43 pm

So because you think the 14th is not legit, you feel it can be ignored. What other laws do you feel can be ignored?

Taos November 27, 2014 at 2:19 pm

Yeah, basically… and each year, I care less and less about what laws pass and in abiding by them…

La Estupida November 27, 2014 at 11:11 pm

“Interpreting the constitution has nothing to do with the will of the people. ”

“The Petition Clause protects the right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”[14]
This includes the right to communicate with government officials,
lobbying government officials and petitioning the courts by filing
lawsuits with a legal basis.”-Wiki

Reply
Better AndBetter November 26, 2014 at 8:43 am

Was Hobby Lobby “judicial activism” dear, or do you reserve that for those you disagree with?

The will of the people is secondary to the Constitution. The judge is doing his job.

Reply
jimlewisowb November 25, 2014 at 4:11 pm

A Federal Judge wanting to be a Rock Star – imagine that – next thing I reckon will be boys wanting to marry boys, girls wanting to marry girls and UGA students wanting to marry sheep

Reply
Ragavendran Gopalakrishnan November 25, 2014 at 5:52 pm

The Condon case dealt only with the portion of the ban that withheld right to marry in-state. The Bradacs case dealt only with the portion of the ban that withheld recognition of marriages lawfully performed in other states. So both cases required resolution for South Carolina’s marriage ban to be fully struck down. Neither litigation subsumed the issues involved in the other. Please get your facts straight.

Reply
Eli Odell Jackson November 26, 2014 at 12:02 am

The wages of sin is still death (Rom. 6:23) and any nation which is depraved enough to endorse homosexuality is soon headed for utter destruction.

Reply
Better AndBetter November 26, 2014 at 8:40 am

Your god has no bearing on US civil law.

And your fear mongering is just sad.

Reply
Donnie B. November 26, 2014 at 4:52 am

This is the most ridiculous article I have read in a while. The second case was filed for the obvious reason that the first case was hopelessly bogged down. The 4th Circuit had already resolved the merits of the dispute. That ruling became final on October 6, and very shortly thereafter every other state in the 4th Circuit had come into line. All except South Carolina, where the 1st case continued to languish, where there was no date by which anyone could expect a decision, and where the judge expressed her intent to limit the scope of her decision when she finally got around to issuing it.

So the second case was filed to get the job done. It was not filed because the plaintiffs in the first case were “too pretty.” Of course, this bizarre assertion comes from an anonymous source and not a shred of evidence is offered in support of it. Did it not occur to Fitsnews that – however “pretty” the plaintiffs may be – they were just as pretty last month and the month before that and at the time their case was filed? But the second case wasn’t filed until after the 4th Circuit decision became final and after it became clear that the 1st case continued to languish.

Finally, the plaintiffs in the 2d case were NOT required to flag the case as “related” because it wasn’t. Just because 1 case raises the same legal issues as a pending case doesn’t make it related. If that were true, for example, all of the hundreds of cases filed under Title VII or the ADA would have to be flagged as related to every other. It’s absurd. Next time, find a lawyer who knows federal civil procedure to be your source, resist the temptation to publish anonymous gossip, and stop embarrassing yourselves.

Reply
Better AndBetter November 26, 2014 at 8:39 am

Gay marriage bans dying!!! So awesome!

Reply
Milwtalk November 26, 2014 at 10:55 am

People seem to forget the original SCOTUS case. The couple had a valid marriage license from Canada. The IRS said we won’t honor your license, but we will honor the license of everybody else. The court ruled the licenses had to be honored equally. The problem at the state level is not that they would not allow gay marriage to take place in their state, but that they won’t honor other valid licenses.

Reply
Robert Eckert November 28, 2014 at 11:24 am

“decisions regarding marriage ought to be the purview of individual churches.” No no no. “Marriage” is a Latin word for a legal institution, tracing back to the Roman Republic before any such thing as a “church” existed. The legal case is strictly about the availability of this secular, civil contract. Churches can conduct their ceremonies of holy matrimony, or not, as they please. The court cases have nothing to do with that.

Reply
david January 27, 2015 at 4:58 pm

Selective Incorporation…. Whatever side has the most federal appointed judges wins. By the 14th amend avenue, I should be able to take my gun from Texas to New York because its a constitution right and allowed in Texas and New York must allow it.. Same as making another state recognize a marriage that isnt sanctioned in their state…

Reply

Leave a Comment