SC

“Hell No” To Legal Fees In Gay Marriage Case

TAXPAYERS SHOULDN’T HAVE TO PAY TWICE FOR THIS CASE … By FITSNEWS || This website has been adamant in its opposition to government’s intervention in the institution of marriage – which we believe to be the exclusive purview of individual churches. Gay, straight or plural … government should neither compel nor…

TAXPAYERS SHOULDN’T HAVE TO PAY TWICE FOR THIS CASE …

By FITSNEWS || This website has been adamant in its opposition to government’s intervention in the institution of marriage – which we believe to be the exclusive purview of individual churches.

Gay, straight or plural … government should neither compel nor condemn churches when it comes to performing marriages.

What should it do?  Stay the hell out it … and let individual congregations decide.

Accordingly, we supported U.S. district court judge Richard Gergel‘s recent ruling striking down the Palmetto State’s gay marriage ban – well, we supported (and still support) the conclusion Gergel reached.

We do have serious reservations, though, regarding Gergel’s decision to take the case in the first place.

Last month, FITS reported on a schism within South Carolina’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) 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 (Gergel) trumping another.

Doing the shoving?  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 – got their wish.  They became the faces of the gay marriage debate in South Carolina when they filed a lawsuit before Gergel’s court on October 15.  Never mind that there was already a pending challenge of South Carolina’s gay marriage ban –  Bradacs v. Haley – sitting before another judge in the same district.

Certain segments of the LGBT movement were tired of waiting …

Oddly enough, Condon and Bleckley – who at one point refused to wait even twenty-four hours for Gergel’s ruling to take effect – have yet to set a date for their wedding.

Anyway  …

According to our sources, Gergel “egged them on,” evidently knowing full well his fellow district judge Michelle Childs was preparing to rule on the Bradacs  case.

Should he have done that?  We don’t think so.  Not only did the Bradacs  case sufficiently address the core constitutionality (or lack thereof) related to the South Carolina ban, but one of Condon and Bleckley’s attorneys was Gergel’s former law partner – meaning his decision to reach on this case benefited a former colleague.

Now Gergel is being asked by his former law partner Malissa Burnette – and Condon and Bleckley’s other attorneys – to cut checks from the taxpayers in the amount of $153,000 for “legal fees,” not a bad sum for a couple weeks pushing paper on a case that was decided before it was even filed.

Should they get that money?

Hell no …

Don’t get us wrong, we disagree with the decision by S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley and Attorney General Alan Wilson to expend taxpayer resources defending South Carolina’s gay marriage ban – but forcing the state to pay both sets of lawyers is ridiculous.  And it’s especially ridiculous in this case – which Gergel should have declared superfluous and deferred to his colleague on the federal bench who was already preparing to rule on the matter.

Just because he declined to do that in an effort to advance the gay marriage timetable by what wound up being only a few days doesn’t mean taxpayers should be out $153,000.

***

Related posts

SC

Upstate God Cops “Make It Rain” In Champagne Room

FITSNews
SC

Tom Davis: SCPSC Decision Protects Monopolies, Hurts Consumers, Ignores Legislators

FITSNews
SC

SC Officer Charged After Groping Woman’s Bare Breast While Taking Her To Jail, Police Say

Mandy Matney

186 comments

Clarendonian December 15, 2014 at 3:45 pm

Here’s a thought. Let Haley and Wilson split the cost of the action (if superfluous). Take it out of their pandering asses.

Reply
TSIB December 15, 2014 at 3:51 pm

That’s how I feel about giving you money to pay for your kids’ private school. HELL NO.

Reply
Tit for Tat December 15, 2014 at 3:53 pm

That’s how I feel about giving you money to pay for your kids’ public school. HELL NO.

Reply
Tom December 15, 2014 at 3:58 pm

You are not paying money to me. I don’t have kids in public school, abd I still do not want to give you money to pay for your kid to go to private school.

Reply
Tit for Tat December 15, 2014 at 4:29 pm

You are not paying money to me. I don’t have kids in private school, abd I still do not want to give you money to pay for your kid to go to public school.

Reply
Smirks December 15, 2014 at 4:39 pm

Education is a right, ergo government funds an option available to all. When a private school is expected to allow all kids to enroll and follow public curriculum standards and requirements, then perhaps they should be eligible to receive taxpayer funding.

Until then, they can do whatever the fuck they want without taking money from the system that ensures every child has an education.

Tit for Tat December 15, 2014 at 4:45 pm

“Education is a right”

lmao!

I think I have a right to your money. “Your money is my right!”

So go ahead and break out your checkbook.

“When a private school is expected to allow all kids to enroll and follow public curriculum standards and requirements, then perhaps they should be eligible to receive taxpayer funding.”

Why? So private schools can suck too?

Smirks December 15, 2014 at 4:51 pm

“When a private school is expected to allow all kids to enroll and follow public curriculum standards and requirements, then perhaps they should be eligible to receive taxpayer funding.”

Why? So private schools can suck too?

Thanks for being honest. Most School Choicers don’t want to admit that their “fix” for education is nothing more than segregating their kids from the “others” and letting the dregs rot. Instead, they pretend that their solution is going to magically fix everything, it’s all just going to work! Praise be unto the Invisible Hand!

Finally, though, someone says the unadulterated truth: Keep the lower serfs out so my kids’ education is better!

Tit for Tat December 15, 2014 at 4:55 pm

Well, if the noble goal is the best education for all the kids in state(not withstanding that taking money from people against their will is morally wrong), wouldn’t it make sense to educate them in a way that is consistent the best or the least amount of money?

Tit for Tat December 15, 2014 at 4:55 pm

*consistently

Tit for Tat December 15, 2014 at 5:32 pm

*consistently the best for the least amount of money

pogo2 December 16, 2014 at 7:36 am

Is the picture above you an Buz?

Same ol' Same ol' December 16, 2014 at 9:02 pm

Education is a quasi-public good. Everyone pays, it’s supposed to be good for society as a whole.

Tit for Tat December 17, 2014 at 9:11 am

“it’s supposed to be good for society as a whole”

Need I say more?

Look, education might “be good”(if it’s worth a damn) for society, but forcing people to pay someone else’s education is immoral.

TSIB December 15, 2014 at 5:23 pm

I don’t have kids, goober.

Reply
Tit for Tat December 15, 2014 at 7:36 pm

I don’t have kids, goober.

Reply
to_tell_the_truth December 15, 2014 at 10:19 pm

Are SOME kids not members of the public???

Reply
Tit for Tat December 16, 2014 at 10:26 am

What do you think? What is the “public”. Also, do you draw a distinction between private & public school? Because that is what we are currently discussing in context.

Reply
to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 10:28 am

Not per the headline it isn’t.

Tit for Tat December 16, 2014 at 5:16 pm

Who cares about the headline, this little sideline is context specific.

Limbaughsaphatkhunt December 15, 2014 at 5:33 pm

Seconded

Reply
Just needs some mayo December 15, 2014 at 3:54 pm

That’s a lot of meat in that there sandwich.

Reply
Bill December 15, 2014 at 3:55 pm

The law says if the state deprives you of a constitutional right under color of law, and you sue to have your rights restored, and win; the state must pay your legal fees and costs. It was Governor Haley’s and AG Wilson’s decision to take a position they knew they were unlikely to win, for political reasons. The cost to the state is their fault, not the person whose rights they chose to sacrifice, so they could look tough on Gays. Your blame is misplaced.

Take it out of the AGs salary or take it out of the Governor’s salary.

Further, there is no rule that a former partner of a judge cannot try cases before that judge. They are no longer partners. They no longer have a financial connection. There is no reason to assume a Judge would treat a former partner any differently that any other attorney. That is simply a made up issue. Almost every judge practices law at some point. Almost every judge has former partners and attorneys who are close personal friends. We must assume a judge is capable of exercising independent judgment, and will not allow his previous affiliations to overcome his professional judgment. .

Reply
HAHAHAHAHA December 15, 2014 at 5:54 pm

But they must ask for fees in their initial pleadings.

Reply
FastEddy23 December 16, 2014 at 8:18 am

Doing that in advance might only get you extra food stamps. Hahahahaha …

Reply
Inis_Magrath December 16, 2014 at 3:34 pm

They did ask for fees in the initial pleadings. But as is typical, you have to file a motion after winning because the law provides for fees to the prevailing party and you don’t know how much money it’s going to cost to prevail until the case is ruled upon.

Reply
nitrat December 15, 2014 at 3:59 pm

When any Attorney General in any state gets involved in any ‘show’, political gesture lawsuit that will have no meaning because other cases on the same issue are already headed to the US supreme court, HELL YES, the attorney general’s office should be on the hook for the other side’s legal fees? If the AGs conspired with governors and legislators to take on the show case, their office budgets should have to take hist, too.

Isn’t that a prime tenet of GOP tort reform, that the loser pays?

But, should it come for the general fund? HELL NO!

The people who made the bad decision to take the case should bear all the financial consequences. We are already paying salaries and benefits for all the people who decided and/or did work on the case. Enough is enough.

Reply
9" December 15, 2014 at 4:10 pm

Like it or not ,marriage is a government institution that has nothing to do with the church.No matter how many times you repeat yourself,it does nothing but make you look foolish.You seem completely unable to think logically…

Reply
Ed December 15, 2014 at 4:11 pm

That’s the literal price you pay when you fight these things….everyone kept saying he was wasting taxpayer dollars—

Reply
Enjoy! December 15, 2014 at 4:13 pm

The totally competent republican leadership in South Carolina never disappoints. Keep electing them, you guys deserve it.

Reply
Limbaughsaphatkhunt December 15, 2014 at 8:41 pm

Don’t you worry…they will…till kingdom come…they will.

Reply
Who gets the Lay-Z-boy? December 15, 2014 at 4:20 pm

How do they decide who has to mow the lawn and who does the laundry on Saturday morning? It’s all so confusing.

Reply
to_tell_the_truth December 15, 2014 at 10:27 pm

Men who say such foolish things are the ones who get divorced sooner than later.

Reply
9" December 16, 2014 at 10:19 pm

Q: How does a straight woman know she’s dreaming?
A: She orgasms in the dream.

Reply
jimlewisowb December 15, 2014 at 4:24 pm

Title of Video featuring these two scissoring

More exciting and thrilling than watching a couple of John Deere tractors with razorback rotary bush hogs attached backing into each other at warp speed

Reply
southmauldin December 15, 2014 at 4:28 pm

I think I played a round of golf with the guy on the right a few years back.

Reply
Four! December 15, 2014 at 4:30 pm

I’ll bet he washed his balls like a jack hammer pounding pavement.

Reply
Jacob Slayden December 15, 2014 at 4:37 pm

So, the only people who should have access to court relief are those with a spare $150k?

Reply
Smirks December 15, 2014 at 4:56 pm

Then the government could just keep passing unconstitutional laws and sending people to the poor house with every single challenge until the second class citizens finally got the message.

Reply
Uh huh December 15, 2014 at 5:33 pm

So are you for the gov’t or against? Or are you like a Republican, we we can never tell?

Reply
Uh huh December 15, 2014 at 5:33 pm

*where we can never tell

Reply
Tom December 15, 2014 at 5:38 pm

Actually that is a common theme by the Republicans Party these days. People with more money deserve more rights. That is essentially the entire basis of the Citizens United, money is speech argument. If money is speech the more money you have the more speech you have, and that is fair.
In tort reform, Republicans want to eliminate contingency fees. That way only people with cash can sue.
In todays Republican Party there is a strong and growing sentiment that “job creators” should not be treated the same as the common man. They deserve special privileges, and they should be allowed to pay politicians to get those privileges. In other word a resurgence of the power of the “big house on the hill” Republicans.

Reply
Brian December 15, 2014 at 4:45 pm

Misplaced blame makes the people doing the blaming look like fools.

Reply
Smirks December 15, 2014 at 4:47 pm

If this were the 2nd Amendment being stepped on, Willie would be fuming mad that someone had to pay a hundred grand to protect their right in court. 14th Amendment? Ehh, who gives a shit about that?

Reply
Misery Equality December 15, 2014 at 4:48 pm

Why can’t we just have some kind of 2/3’s compromise for gays?

They are really gonna wish they didn’t get gay marriage when it’s all over, especially the men.

Reply
9" December 15, 2014 at 7:04 pm

There’s a stereotype that gays are promiscuous(and some are).Most people are too quick to marry.I never bought into the term,’soul mate’,until I found mine.We were together for a long time,and for 7 years, we also worked together.I know many gay monogamous couples.You save money on condoms,and it feels better making love without a raincoat;)

Reply
9" December 15, 2014 at 10:59 pm

And I forgot,without marriage,still,it wasn’t until death,that we did part.

Reply
to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 10:22 am

Try telling that to Newt Gingrich, who is on his 3rd wife, having cheated on the first two and having asked the 3rd for an “open marriage”.
Did you know that Mickey Rooney has had EIGHT wives? That Larry King has had NINE?
You hets are no shining examples of morality.

9" December 16, 2014 at 3:37 pm

serial marriages

Guilty Het December 16, 2014 at 5:18 pm

Well, you homos know how to suck a dick and that helps keep a marriage together.

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 7:53 pm

Sorry your wife doesn’t. Is that why your marriage is failing?

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 8:35 pm

Your wife should learn to do the same, and for the same reason.

to_tell_the_truth December 15, 2014 at 10:21 pm

Generalize much?
I and my husband have been legally married for coming up on 11 years.
Speak for yourself.

Reply
9" December 15, 2014 at 10:27 pm

Congratulations!

Reply
to_tell_the_truth December 15, 2014 at 10:29 pm

Thanks. We’ve actually been together as a couple for coming up on 30 years next April.
The superficiality quotient in this thread is sky high, sadly.

Mr. Friendly December 16, 2014 at 8:44 am

Maybe you two couples can get together and have gay group sex.

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 10:21 am

And fulfill YOUR fantasy???
Not a chance.

Mr. Friendly December 16, 2014 at 10:29 am

Why not?

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 10:32 am

You don’t ‘get’ marriage, do you?

Mr. Friendly December 16, 2014 at 5:17 pm

What does that have to do with marriage? You reason was to not “fulfill YOUR fantasy”, was it not?

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 7:52 pm

No, it was to not fulfill YOURS.
Reading comprehension problems?

Mr. Friendly December 17, 2014 at 9:12 am

“Reading comprehension problems?”

Yes, I believe that is the case for you.

to_tell_the_truth December 17, 2014 at 3:48 pm

Projecting again, I see.
Meh.

hyhybt December 15, 2014 at 4:56 pm

The fault that anyone has to pay lawyers at all in this matter lies squarely, 100% on the state for enacting the ban in the first place, never mind defending the indefensible. Since the fault is 100% the state’s, why shouldn’t it pay 100% of the costs?

Reply
Smirks December 15, 2014 at 4:59 pm

I wouldn’t say 100%, more like 78%. I say bill the fuckers who voted for the referendum to ban gay marriages.

Reply
TontoBubbaGoldstein December 15, 2014 at 8:09 pm

…78%. I say bill the fuckers who voted for the referendum to ban gay marriages.

Just remember kiddies….democracy only counts when you vote the *correct* way.

Reply
hyhybt December 15, 2014 at 8:32 pm

Some things are and ought to be beyond the power of the vote to deny people. Equal treatment under the law is one of them.

Reply
TontoBubbaGoldstein December 15, 2014 at 9:38 pm

Some things are and ought to be beyond the power of the vote to deny people. Equal treatment under the law is one of them.

Absolutely.
Same with voting for public largesse for onesself.

Of course, “gay marriage” has nothing to do with equal protection under the law.

hyhybt December 15, 2014 at 10:12 pm

It does unless you insist on a deliberately superficial and worthless meaning of equal.

TontoBubbaGoldstein December 16, 2014 at 6:03 am

Rich.

You get to redefine the word “marriage”.

Yet the generally accepted definition of “equal”, in this case being allowed to do the same thing (marry a single member of the opposite sex, if both consent) is “deliberately superficial and worthless”.

See, TBG doesn’t give a rat’s ass about how you or anyone else’s lifestyle as long as it doesn’t affect him, and y’alls don’t. All for civil unions. TBG just has a problem with pushy special interest groups redefining legal terms that have been in existence for thousands of years.

hyhybt December 16, 2014 at 6:44 am

Go even simpler, then: allowing men to marry only women, but women to marry only men, is treating men and women differently. With NO benefit gained to anyone even to attempt to justify the discrimination.

TontoBubbaGoldstein December 16, 2014 at 9:26 pm

Go even simpler, then: allowing men to marry only women, but women to marry only men, is treating men and women differently.

The horror!!

hyhybt December 16, 2014 at 10:17 pm

When it’s the law we’re talking about, that *is* pretty horrible. (Certain areas of medicine, then it becomes relevant.)

hyhybt December 16, 2014 at 6:46 am

“In existence for thousands of years,” etc. is 100% irrelevant. That something has been a certain way for a long time has nothing to do with whether it is fair or just, nor is injustice excused by being traditional.

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 10:14 am

The word “marriage” has been re-defined many times.
These “civil unions” are not equal. They were DESIGNED not to be.
Have a nice lifestyle.

pogo2 December 16, 2014 at 10:50 am

Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is NOT evil.
Abortion is an example of that.
Hate the sin but love the sinner. We would ask however that you people stay away from our children and grandchildren-we promise to stay out of your bedroom.

Mary December 16, 2014 at 10:52 am

Or in your case hate the sin, the sinner, and anyone who does not hate the same people you do..

pogo2 December 16, 2014 at 11:05 am

I love everyone.
Think of it this way. It is one thing to get drunk in your own backyard and start barking at the moon. It is quite another to do it in my living room.
The first I can ignore-the second I am forced to deal with.
If you people want to live perverted lifestyles and spread your perversion among those of you that think the same, fine.
I just don’t believe you have a right to brainwash our children in the state controlled schools or do I believe I should have to rent you an apartment or hire you at my business.I don’t want my grandchildren around that stuff. Children have a tough enough time growing up without being subjected to this crap and confusion.
Other than that, have at it.

Mary December 16, 2014 at 11:33 am

If I have no problem seeing through your nonsense statements that you love everyone, I am sure the people you profess love for will not either . If you think you are showing love by calling people you don’t even know pedophiles and perverts, you are delusional. You heart is filled with hate and anger. Emotions which emanate from only one source, and I assure you its not heaven.That is between you and God, but I advise you to seek guidance from whatever minister leads your church, to deal with your hate and anger issues. Although I would actually be surprised if you even attend church. I just don’t see how anyone who does could so misunderstand what salvation is all about.

pogo2 December 16, 2014 at 11:49 am

See Mary ,you lib/socialists believe that anyone that speaks out against perverted marriage, abortion and the erosion of the moral and cultural foundations that is country was founded on should be shamed and silenced.

Many of us are not going to be silent anymore. When you come after our communities, schools, church’s and businesses with your filth and hate we are gonna fight you not only with the Word of God ,but the Truth as well.

You people can’t handle the Truth and why you have to manipulate the ignorant masses to brainwash minds. Obama is a great example.

Just call me the ‘truth detector’.

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 1:21 pm

Then we get to be called the ‘B.S. detectors’ – and your posts are full of it.

Jason Farrer December 16, 2014 at 10:49 pm

Not going to be silent anymore? When was the opposition silent? Are you speaking for yourself as you hide behind your little keyboard and flex your muscles? LOL! Who’s “Moral foundation” are you referring to- those who share values similar to yours? Many don’t have the same values as you- I know I don’t! Who are you imagining coming after your schools, communities, and businesses’? LOL! The community I live in is my community. I pay taxes into the public school system, I own a business and use a number of business’ in my community! Calm down and take your schizophrenic meds! I was born here and I;ve paid taxes and into the social security administration my entire working life, vote in every election, and contribute in the same ways any GOOD citizen does. You don’t have a school, community or business that I could “come after” (whatever that means) that belongs anymore to you than it does to me. So tell your pastor to stop making stuff up and stirring up bigotry and piss off Mr Paranoid!

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 1:22 pm

Re: “I love everyone.”
You sure have a strange way of showing that “love”. Calling other people names is “love” in your books???

hyhybt December 16, 2014 at 4:12 pm

Why should you be allowed to teach the lie that there’s something wrong with us, while we must shut up about the truth that there isn’t?

Jason Farrer December 16, 2014 at 11:19 pm

You should take what you’ve typed here and show it to your minister! It may be that his intention in “ministering” to you was not for you to behave in this way and spew your hateful comments after saying….I love everyone! You are a hypocrite and deceived. Share what you’ve written with people you go to church with. My hope is that someone will share with you the harm you do when you exhibit such self righteousness! Shame on you!.
If your desire for you children and grandchildren is that they be real Christians they would do best to be away from you. Its likely you are one of the root issues in the children around you having it so tough growing up! I hope you get some help!

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 1:25 pm

You don’t “love” the people you perceive as “sinners”. You do NOT treat them as you would be treated yourself.
We don’t WANT your children and are NOT ‘coming after them’. This is pure and utter delusion on your part.
But, as for your promise to “stay out of our bedrooms”, your side supports laws that intrude into our lives, so I call B.S. again.

JohnMyroro December 16, 2014 at 2:59 pm

What’s evil about abortion?

9" December 16, 2014 at 11:06 pm

Is it too late to abort you?

to_tell_the_truth December 17, 2014 at 8:34 am

Re: “Hate the sin but love the sinner.”
Most rational folk do not see two people committing to one another in marriage as sin, for starters.
And, for SOME ‘reason’ it is ALWAYS the ‘sinner’ who is left tied to a fence post and pistol-whipped to death – because of judgmental, prejudiced asshats.

9" December 15, 2014 at 10:13 pm

“gay marriage” has nothing to do with equal protection under the law.
BULLSHIT,Fuckwad

DGCJ December 16, 2014 at 4:11 am

There is no such thing as a gay marriage. My marriage is just called a marriage. No quotation marks necessary. Our genders were not even requested on the application for a marriage license. They don’t know if we’re male or female. Nor do they care.

pogo2 December 16, 2014 at 7:19 am

Ok.Not gay, PERVERTED.

DGCJ December 16, 2014 at 2:18 pm

Nope, not perverted. Try again.

Jason Farrer December 16, 2014 at 11:06 pm

you are obviously severely uneducated! You can’t just spout off things you heard in Sunday School and think that you will wage a successful argument! LOL!

to_tell_the_truth December 17, 2014 at 8:37 am

Friendly amendment: he is obviously severely MIS-educated. Purposely, apparently.

9" December 15, 2014 at 11:14 pm

You take so much for granted.30+examples of heterosexual privilege:

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/01/29-examples-of-heterosexual-privilege/

DGCJ December 16, 2014 at 4:10 am

Of course, gay marriage absolutely does have something to do with equal protection, otherwise you wouldn’t be losing in one court after another. They cite the 14th amendment in their opinions, which mean it has something to do with equal protection. Moron much?

TontoBubbaGoldstein December 16, 2014 at 6:09 am

Of course, gay marriage absolutely does have something to do with equal protection, otherwise you wouldn’t be losing in one court after another. They cite the 14th amendment in their opinions, which mean it has something to do with equal protection. Moron much?

Just like growing wheat to feed your own chickens is “interstate commerce”?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 10:18 am

Speaking of inter-State commerce, the majority of Fortune 500 companies are on board with equal marriage for the very reason that NOT having it severely restricts their ability to conduct inter-State commerce. It is an impossible situation for a national corporation to have to comply with 50 different sets of HR rules. They cannot send capable employees to a non-equal state, and no self-respecting employee would accept such a transfer.
Heck, even the Indiana State Chamber of Commerce is on board with equal marriage. You know when you have the corporate world on board, opposition is a hopeless cause.

pogo2 December 16, 2014 at 7:23 am

What is next? Using the 14th Amendment to legalize pedophilia?

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 10:15 am

Pedophilia lacks consent and causes harm. Two consenting adults committing to one another in marriage does neither.

pogo2 December 16, 2014 at 10:52 am

Your abnormal lifestyle in public view is confusing to children and a form of child abuse.

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 1:20 pm

More bullshit. No wonder you’re not believed. (Nor winning the debate.)

JohnMyroro December 16, 2014 at 3:02 pm

You’re the only one who seems confused.

Jason Farrer December 16, 2014 at 11:02 pm

It is confusing because it has been falsely described to them as abnormal by uneducated parents who disregard the information provided on the topic by every single major mental health organization in America! Lying to your children and leading them to believe that only heterosexuals exist is what confuses children. Have you ever met any children of homosexual couples. They are not confused. I think of my niece age 8 and nephew 12 raised by my sister and brother in law who have always known that there were opposite sex and same sex couples and have never had any real questions about it. The only thing that they have ever seemed confused about is bigotry!

DGCJ December 16, 2014 at 2:16 pm

Pedophilia for heterosexual males is already legal in Yemen. You sickos have been marrying girls as young as eight.
No, we should never follow the lead of you heterosexual males in Yemen. It must remain illegal, because it harms children. I don’t care if people are born as a pedophile. It harms children to have sex with them, and most of them understand this. Most men who molest children are heterosexual males, not pedophiles, by the way. You just learned something.

9" December 16, 2014 at 10:07 pm

From personal experience and the literature;among gays,gerontophilia is more common than pedophilia.Pedophiles are usually heterosexual and almost impossible to treat…That’s another myth/stereotype.

to_tell_the_truth December 17, 2014 at 8:36 am

I love older men. My husband is about a year and a half older than I am.

9" December 17, 2014 at 9:44 am

Mine’s(BF) a good bit older than me(16 years),but you’d never guess.He’s very fit,and looks extremely young for his age.He’s Irish/American Indian,and doesn’t have a single grey hair.
No,Just For Men required.We’re very good friends/sometimes more,but we’re not ‘in love’.I think gay people are better at separating the two.

Jason Farrer December 16, 2014 at 10:54 pm

Oh please! DO you think you are going to bring up an argument that wasn’t tried in court and failed. That is one of the weakest. Courts aren’t going to decide a civil rights case out of fear of what might come next. The point you are trying to make is called the “slippery slope” and its so useless it should be embarrassing to even throw it out there! LOL!

DGCJ December 16, 2014 at 4:13 am

How come morons like you get the most thumbs up for your inane comments? I guess Gruber was right after all? Americans are stupid sheep who have no clue about anything. They just go with what everyone else is saying who falls into line with their political bent. Sad. As a proud Socialist, I’m a disaffected minority in this country because I basically have nobody who speaks for my point of view. Obama’s too far right for me. I voted for Jill Stein.

TSIB December 16, 2014 at 1:49 pm

Tell it to the judge.

pogo2 December 16, 2014 at 7:27 am

Like the unborn?

JohnMyroro December 16, 2014 at 3:03 pm

Unborn what?

Jason Farrer December 16, 2014 at 11:06 pm

LOL! Exactly! UNBORN WHAT? LOL

to_tell_the_truth December 17, 2014 at 8:38 am

LOVE the unborn, preferably braised with a bit of BBQ sauce.

to_tell_the_truth December 15, 2014 at 10:18 pm

Sorry, but you don’t get to vote on other people’s Constitutionally promised equal protections of the law. They apply to ALL citizens.

Reply
pogo2 December 16, 2014 at 7:25 am

Everybody except the unborn.

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 10:12 am

Get back to us when you’re prepared to talk about the BORN.
Your fetus fetish is unseemly and off-topic here.

pogo2 December 16, 2014 at 10:56 am

Struck a nerve, didn’t I? The topic on this thread has turned to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

Why doesn’t an unborn child deserve the same protection?

I would rather talk about real issues than perverted sex which is what the LGBT movement is all about.

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 1:19 pm

Re: “Struck a nerve, didn’t I?”
Nope. You said a stupid, disprovable, irrelevant thing.
Most people do not view two people committing to one another in marriage as “perverted” let alone about sex. Sorry you do, but it is YOU, after all, so … meh.

9" December 16, 2014 at 3:32 pm

Many anti gay religious types are guilty of creating ‘theological pornography’*.They’re not thinking about people,they’re thinking about sex.

*He probably wouldn’t want to be mentioned,here.

hyhybt December 16, 2014 at 4:28 pm

Good way of putting it.

Goobersmacker December 16, 2014 at 1:45 pm

Do the world a favor and kill yourswelf. You’re a worthless, ignorant pile of pigshit.

grandtangosuglydog December 16, 2014 at 2:02 pm

wow Pogo seems to be making friends today ..must be all the thoughtful deep insight he brings to the discussion…said no one ever. Give it a few and his comments will revert back to pedophilia, anal sex and homosexuality..these seem to strongly interest him.

JohnMyroro December 16, 2014 at 3:04 pm

An “unborn child” is an oxymoron.

hyhybt December 16, 2014 at 4:11 pm

Because including them depends on subscribing to your religious or philosophical system which defines them as fully people by fiat.
And because the only, and the intended, purpose in dragging abortion into any discussion of any other topic whatsoever is to derail that discussion.

Jason Farrer December 16, 2014 at 11:10 pm

Thats what this thread is about you idiot! You cant just go into a discussion you know nothing about, throw out a few pointless insults and then go down your little list of social policies your Sunday School class disproves of and think were going to be interested in discussing it! Piss off!

Jason Farrer December 16, 2014 at 11:07 pm

What are you talking about the UNBORN? Is there something you wish to tell us? LOL

joan December 16, 2014 at 10:37 pm

ALL citizens – even pedophiles?

to_tell_the_truth December 17, 2014 at 8:32 am

Even convicted murderers. And asshats.

DGCJ December 16, 2014 at 4:09 am

Just remember that democracy is not the political system in the USA.. We’re a republic. Someone skipped civil class, or perhaps you’ll learn this when you get to high school?
Thomas Jefferson said “We are not a democracy, we are a republic. A democracy is where 51 percent can remove the rights of 49 percent.”
In a republic you don’t get the right to vote on the civil rights of others, that’s why the courts exist in the first place. Pity that the idiot judge who wrote the 6th Circuit decision knows nothing about our system of government.

Reply
TontoBubbaGoldstein December 16, 2014 at 5:49 am

TBG has known this for over 40 years. ITBGHO, it’s usually you leftist doing the “but we’re a DEMOCRACY!!” screeching. we even have a party that is nominally pro democracy.

Billybear December 16, 2014 at 10:14 am

You are confusing “democracy” with “freedom.” You have the freedom to vote to improve the lives of all people but you don’t get to vote people off the island in a Republic. The Constitution protects the individual from the ill will of the majority.

Isn’t the USA a great place?!

lulz December 16, 2014 at 5:21 pm

“The Constitution protects the individual from the ill will of the majority.”

Bwhahahahahaha!

to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 7:48 pm

It’s supposed to.

Tom December 16, 2014 at 10:28 am

Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive terms. We are probably best described as a Democratic Republic.

We are not a “pure democracy.” In a pure democracy the power of the people acting as a group is without limits on a simple majority vote. In our system the power of the people is limited by the rights of individuals set forth in the Constitution. Those rights can only be changed by a vote of 2/3 of the state legislatures.

But we do vote for those who run our government. There is no house of nobles who run the government by virtue of birth. There is no Monarch or dictator who cannot be removed by a vote of the people. No one is entitled to power by virtue of birth,physical power, or wealth (although the Republican party seem determined to change that last one.) All persons in power ultimately answer to the voting public. That makes us a democracy.

lulz December 16, 2014 at 5:21 pm

Someone skipped civil class, TBG…..

:)

pogo2 December 16, 2014 at 7:33 am

Maybe Obama will institute Sharia Law on this issue? My guess is there would be no more referendum’s needed.

Reply
to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 10:20 am

Scalia-Law wouldn’t be much better.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Reply
grandtangosuglydog December 16, 2014 at 10:25 am

so you went from from pedophilia to sharia law and still sound like the village idiot and looked like an ass either way..i guess you aren’t very good at this whole argument / making a point thing huh pogo??

Reply
pogo2 December 16, 2014 at 11:10 am

What argument do want me to make? You have never contributed a damn thing to this blog except stalking GT with his s/n and being my very own punching bag as I whip your sorry ass everyday on issue after issue.

Now back to work. Plenty of trash to be picked-up along I-26-how did you get a cell phone?

grandtangosuglydog December 16, 2014 at 12:38 pm

imagination is a great tool ..glad to see you are using yours..show me one instance of you whippin on me..cant do it because all you do is make lowest common denominator comments (usually calling people socialists or amazingly enough have the same pedophilia anal sex fetish as grand T..are you the same loser..probably. Keep it up..everyone needs comic relief. So ill wait for just one instance of you winning any argument much less with me..just one loser..just one.

JohnMyroro December 16, 2014 at 3:07 pm

Sharia Law? The only people who appear interested in forcing their religion on everyone else by law are Christians like pogo2.

Reply
MeKak December 15, 2014 at 10:46 pm

I place the blame on a different entity. The blame for all the marriage bans is correctly placed in every Christian church that supported these bans. They not only supported the bans, but they raised tens of millions of dollars per state, hundreds of millions nationally, and billions globally. Christianity cannot exi$t without its precious anti-gay discrimination. The religious should be decimated.

Reply
FastEddy23 December 16, 2014 at 8:20 am

Is it no longer possible to enforce “malicious intent” and/or “malicious prosecution”? … Making Her Highness directly culpable for “costs” without ripping off the state’s taxpayers?

Reply
Limbaughsaphatkhunt December 15, 2014 at 5:32 pm

This website is asinine…and it makes me wonder why I keep coming back to it.

On the one hand, Fits seems like he’s an honorary member of GLAAD but then on the other hand he makes bigoted statements about one gay couple not being as “hot” as another gay couple and some sort of tin foil hat conspiracy about pushing them off stage.

Dude, the Condon case achieved the real aim of getting gay marriage legal in SC…as opposed to just recognizing out of state gay marriages. In terms of the $$ spent on litigation, it is a well established legal practice that in many cases the loser (Alan Wilson) of the litigation pays the fees of the winner. Rest assured Nikki and Alan would have made Condon pay the state’s costs if the decision were the other way around.

Reply
shifty henry December 15, 2014 at 5:33 pm

Q: How many lesbians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: Four. One to change it, two to organize the potluck. and one to write a folk song about the empowering experience.

Reply
Squishy123 December 15, 2014 at 5:37 pm

Damn Will,,, if you’re going to show pictures of lesbians at least make them lipstick lesbians and not flannel lesbians.

Reply
to_tell_the_truth December 15, 2014 at 10:26 pm

Looks-ism is sooo grade 4.

Reply
BarkingDawg December 15, 2014 at 7:00 pm

I do not believe that the court case was about forcing church’s to perform gay weddings.

The case was about the civil institution. And it is a civil institution, not a religeous one.

Reply
hyhybt December 15, 2014 at 8:03 pm

There was a case about forcing churches *not* to perform gay weddings. Was that this one? (At least, I think that was South Carolina. Might have been North, or even somewhere else entirely, but it was gay-supportive churches suing.)

Reply
Billybear December 15, 2014 at 7:17 pm

Ahem . . . the legal issue has nothing to do with churches but state regulated legal marriage contracts that provide legal protections for the two people named, access to legal divorce being one of them.

If taxpayers elected people who wasted their money defending unconstitutional laws then the taxpayer should pay. They’ll think twice before electing fools again.

Reply
hyhybt December 15, 2014 at 8:08 pm

Thinking once would be an improvement.

Reply
DGCJ December 15, 2014 at 7:56 pm

I don’t have an opinion about the legal fees issue, but I profoundly disagree about the government vs religious “weddings.” I believe we made a gross mistake by allowing clergy to marry couples legally. This is illegal in France and Germany. You can have a superstitious service in front of a clergyman, but it’s not a marriage and entitled you to no benefits. Clergy may not sign marriage contracts as it is against the law. We should have never allowed this in our country. They can have their holy matrimony. Marriage is exclusively a governmental legal contract.

Reply
9" December 15, 2014 at 8:29 pm

‘You can have a superstitious service in front of a clergyman'(Hello?)

Only if it’s two baseball players

Reply
DGCJ December 16, 2014 at 4:07 am

I have to think more about this comment, because I’m just not getting it. Sorry…

Reply
9" December 16, 2014 at 5:58 pm

I misunderstood you.mea culpa

Reply
to_tell_the_truth December 15, 2014 at 10:25 pm

I agree, and I say that as one who was married by a clergy person. Neither my husband nor myself, nor the clergy person were under the mistaken belief that it was the ‘God-talk’ that made us legally married. It was only the State-regulated secular, civil portions that made us legally married.

Reply
DGCJ December 16, 2014 at 3:37 am

Well said, friend. You should google this story and chime in. The guy who did the video is not to be believed:

Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake, And Is Denied Service By All Of Them (WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO)

Reply
to_tell_the_truth December 16, 2014 at 10:26 am

I’ve already seen that ‘story’. The man has a history of anti-gay activity and is nothing more than an ‘agent provocateur’.
And that headline is as misleading as his actions were. He did NOT ask ANY bakery for a “pro-traditional marriage cake”. He asked for an inscription saying “Gay marriage is wrong.” If he had wanted to make an apples-to-apples comparison, a “pro-traditional marriage cake” would just have said, “Best wishes for a happy marriage, Pat and Chris”.
NO gay couple has EVER asked for a cake to say “Heterosexual marriage is wrong.” This is just another lie from the frightwing.

Reply
DGCJ December 16, 2014 at 2:10 pm

Yep, we agree 100 percent. I’ve had direct interactions with him on the site, so it’s been worth it. I called him out on his nonsense. He’s also got those videos on youtube, and anyone can comment, and I have been.

Dan Ruck December 15, 2014 at 7:58 pm

How ironic that the state get stung after dragging out their end of this fight just to be hateful. Haley and Wilson knew they were wrong and kept fighting anyway. Why not? The taxpayers were picking up the tab. And we taxpayers still are I believe. Isn’t Wilson still spending his taxpayer-funded working hours looking for one more way to get in a dig at the LGBT community?

Reply
to_tell_the_truth December 15, 2014 at 10:15 pm

RE: “This website has been adamant in its opposition to government’s intervention in the institution of marriage – which we believe to be the exclusive purview of individual churches.”

Then you “believe” an inaccuracy. You’re talking about the religious rite of holy matrimony. THAT is what is “the exclusive purview” of religion. And the government cares not a whit what religious ceremonies any church performs, nor does it “intervene” in such. But NO religious ceremony makes a couple legally married – anywhere in America. You could look this up. I did.

The debate taking place is about civil marriage – a civil right which is governed by civil laws. The State cares so little about any religious ceremony a church may provide that it doesn’t even inquire if a couple has had one. Such ceremonies are not required for anyone in order to be legally married in America. Not one syllable of ‘God-talk’ is needed.

No wonder you lost the debate. You haven’t even been discussing what is actually happening.

If you didn’t want the taxpayer to be saddled with this legal bill, you should have urged your State not to challenge the Constitution’s Equal Protections Clause arguments that have won in some 49 cases now.

Reply
EREY December 15, 2014 at 10:23 pm

These are two fugly lesbos. . . .

Reply
to_tell_the_truth December 15, 2014 at 10:28 pm

Judging people by their looks. Talk about superficial.

Reply
lulz.... December 16, 2014 at 5:19 pm

New here?

Reply
DGCJ December 16, 2014 at 4:14 am

Now you know why I’m gay. Put yourself into my mindset, because that’s how I see all women. Sorry, ladies. That’s why I like big hunky muscle dudes with hairy chests and hairy butts. Sorry, just do…

Reply
9" December 16, 2014 at 6:01 pm

I can relate

Reply
DGCJ December 16, 2014 at 10:54 pm

Thanks!

Reply
to_tell_the_truth December 15, 2014 at 10:31 pm

Re: “government should neither compel nor condemn churches when it comes to performing marriages”
That isn’t happening either.

Reply
MeKak December 15, 2014 at 10:40 pm

I have a great idea for the worthless, whiney, socially diseased Christian lunatics who are flailing around like a bunch of dumb hens and cocks over the obvious price tag for their precious, discriminatory marriage bans, send their churches the legal fees. Instead of expecting the voters of the state to clean up the trash that they created, we can expect the Christian churches who cooked up this bad idea, and profited handsomely from, to pay for the legal fees. Christianity sucks, and is recklessly irresponsible for not paying the price for this. I think they’re quite disgusting actually, They have no right to complain about these fees because this is their god-damn disaster.

I hate Chrsitianity. I spit on it!

Reply
Kofender December 15, 2014 at 11:08 pm

For anyone who’s feeling some sort of misplaced outrage because the legal fees must be paid, I’d like to point out this is a federal law passed under a republican President (Gerald Ford). The winning attorneys in a civil rights case are entitled to legal fees. The losers (ie, the AG and the governor) have to pony up now. And with Wilson continuing to press a losing case, the fees just going up and up.

Tell me again why anyone voted for this idiot. I don’t understand.

Reply
Hari December 16, 2014 at 12:08 am

Seeking attorneys fees from the “at-fault” party isn’t unique to this situation…it is common legal practice. I don’t know why this is being blown up to such a big deal. I understand it’s tax payers money, but legally speaking…whomever the successful party is, they have the right to seek attorneys fees. I work at a Foreclosure law firm, and we get Judgments (of course in rem, not in personam) with attorneys fees included against defaulted borrowers who are already unemployed and poor. It might seem sad, or a nuisance, but it is just legally how things are…and also the fair thing to do. Now let’s start talking about something of actual consequence…

Reply
FastEddy23 December 16, 2014 at 8:11 am

Why is it that g’ment always seems to want to get in other peoples pants?

It is entirely impossible to legislate morality… can’t be done, never has been, never will be.

The only thing g’ment seems able to do is levy taxes, fines, fees, tithes and tributes on moral issues. … But who asked Them? Wild eyed, scare mongering poli-wogs or/and bent-outta-line, psycho-babble spewing, priesthood puffing, pedophiliac, potentates seeking lower ground, lower roads.

Reply
Tedlick Badkey December 16, 2014 at 8:37 am

Loser pays… as it should be in all civil lawsuits.

Reply
Algonquin J. Calhoun December 16, 2014 at 1:17 pm

This website persists in misunderstanding and misreporting the applicable law. Attorney’s fees are clearly owed here, and will be paid by the State. And as for those who protest that this is a waste of taxpayer money, they need to take the pulse of where the “taxpayers” in S.C. are on this issue. My guess is that they still oppose gay marriage by a significant majority, which explains in part why Wilson is fighting these lawsuits. On a related note, there should be a ban on public posting of photographs of these two women.

Reply
Shamu love December 17, 2014 at 9:16 am

“there should be a ban on public posting of photographs of these two women.”

Got you all hot and bothered?

Reply
Publius Pubicus December 16, 2014 at 1:48 pm

Here’s an idea: require Alan Wilson and Nikki Haley to sell their kidneys to pay the legal bills.

Reply
Inis_Magrath December 16, 2014 at 3:39 pm

Fits is 100% wrong here because this is not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of law. Google yerself up a whole heaping helping of: The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976

Reply
Gray Peterson December 16, 2014 at 9:14 pm

The Bradacs case and the Condon cases are different. Bradacs was an as-applied challenge to the lack of recognition of the Bradac’s family’s out of state marriage. The Condon was a facial challenge both the constitutional provisions & statutes that prevented marriage at all by same sex couples.

Let’s follow along:

Bradacs: Recognition of out of state licenses
Condon: Issuance of licenses to same sex couples within South Carolina by South Carolina clerks.

If the Bradacs had won, Condon couldn’t get an in state marriage license from that ruling. Condon’s case however had the effect of striking down the recognition ban, too.

42USC1988 requires that fees be paid upon motion of the prevailing parties. As a matter of law, you are incorrect, author.

Reply
Jason Farrer December 16, 2014 at 10:34 pm

Are you crazy? Why shouldn’t they have to pay. They didn’t have to pay the first time! They chose to fight this case and preserve a law that the court determined was depriving those citizens of a civil right! Maybe next time voters will not be negligent by passing laws that limit rights of a select group of citizens and when they do maybe our elected officials (who have educations in law and who know this could be expensive) will make better decisions rather than fearing the foolish voters. Unfortunately federal law allows for legal/lawyer fees in civil rights cases. You are also confused in that you
seem to think (or want to project the idea) that the religious sacrament of marriage and a civil marriage license is the same thing. Not a single one of these cases is about the sacrament of marriage! No law can prevent someone from partaking in a religious sacrament. The laws prevent couples from getting a civil marriage license. Where have you been that you know so littke about it but yet you are writing about it?

Reply
Jason Farrer December 16, 2014 at 11:14 pm

The politicians who fought this case have law degrees and knew the taxpayers would have to pay legal costs when they lost! Why get worked up about it now? It never occurred to me that taxpayers thought that couples would sue in a civil rights case and then just say “oh well that was money well spent!” LOL! You big dummies! Why would you think that?

Reply
Kafir istani December 17, 2014 at 4:48 am

It is a pity we can not go back and see who voted for this illegal ban in the first place , we could then simply charge those who voted to make other’s second class and not those decent human beings who voted against this vile ban.

Reply
51franco December 17, 2014 at 2:59 pm

No one want’s to “compel” anyone. What gay persons want is civil marriage
Guess what? This is not about you! 35 States and counting. What a dumb
commentary. No wonder there is no “by line”. Who would want credit for this
.piece of drivel And, by the way governments issue marriage licenses not
churches so who cares what churches do. I certainly don’t.

Reply
JPeron December 17, 2014 at 5:44 pm

You have the right to believe marriage is exclusive to the church, or that the moon is made of cheese. But marriage has existed in various forms long before any church in existence was founded. It does not belong to the church. Only Catholicism teaches it is a sacrament and the Reformation leaders said it was a civil institution. It has always been a legal/civil institution in the United States, NEVER a church one. Churches have no more business controlling marriage than unions have controlling labor contracts.

Of course, with your ignorance on marriage I should be surprised you are ignorant about what happens when the state denies rights and is sued. One thing the law calls for is for the state to pay the costs of the case if it looses, which is why the state should be careful when it denies people rights.

Reply

Leave a Comment