By Palmetto Family Alliance || As the old Garth Brooks song began, “it was bound to happen and one day it did.”
In reaction to U.S. Supreme Court decisions on same sex marriage, activist attorneys in Columbia are congratulating themselves that they have found the couple on which to build a case for overturning traditional marriage here. One of the plaintiffs is a state trooper. The other served in the U.S. Air Force. Three beautiful children and a handsome dog live with them.
Just before the Labor Day weekend, lawyers for the two Lexington County women – who received a marriage certificate in the District of Columbia – filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s constitutional standard that “[a] marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”
The suit, to be heard by U.S. District Judge Joe Anderson, named Governor Nikki Haley and Attorney General Alan Wilson as defendants.
In response to the suit, Haley had this to say: “I stand behind that constitutional amendment and will continue to fight to make sure that states have the ability to decide what they want marriage to be in their state. I was one of the people in 2006 that voted in the Legislature that said marriage should be between a man and a woman. So I’m going to continue to stand behind that.”
Democratic candidate for Governor Vincent Sheheen did not speak directly to the issue, but his campaign spokesman made a statement. Here is the report from The State newspaper:
Andrew Whalen, Sheheen’s campaign manager, said the Camden senator was unavailable to comment Tuesday. But Whalen said Sheheen “continues to personally believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.” Sheheen voted in favor of the gay-marriage ban in the state Senate in 2005 and 2007.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has left this decision to the states, and South Carolina has laws and a constitutional amendment addressing this issue,” Whalen said.
While we are encouraged by the support of both likely nominees for Governor, we couldn’t help but notice the Sheheen spokesman chose to insert “personally.” The sentence could easily have been: “Sheheen continues to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.” Why add the word personally? Hmmm. Where have we heard that before?
Perhaps the sight of Secretary of State John Kerry providing testimony to Congress on Syria will bring it all back.
In the summer of 2004, then U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-MA), while running for the Democratic nomination for President, was asked for his thoughts on the Life issue by the Telegraph Herald of Dubuque, Iowa. This is what he said: “I oppose abortion, personally. I don’t like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception.”
Kerry’s decision to couch his opinion on life in terms of his personal beliefs sounded good at the time, a seeming very deep conviction.
Not until later in the campaign, in the second presidential debate, did Kerry’s full meaning become clear. Here is what he said that night in October, 2004: “First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic – raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life, helped lead me through a war, leads me today. But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that.”
When Kerry made his statement that night, many in the faith community were left scratching their heads. “He believes life begins at conception (i.e., that abortion takes a life) but he won’t lift a finger to defend human life as an elected official? One of those positions needs to go!”
Since Kerry’s triangular dance in 2004, other politicians, primarily Democratic, have sought to separate their personal views from their political positions as a way to get votes. JFK’s daughter Caroline Kennedy took this duplicity to a whole new level last year when she defended pro-abortion policies, telling the Democratic National Convention she was speaking “as a Catholic woman.”
Back to Vince.
Senator Vincent Sheheen isn’t John Kerry or Caroline Kennedy. We know that. He is his own man. But even he might admit the talking points sound the same.
Why should we be concerned? It is simple. As Governor, Vincent Sheheen could be sued, just as Nikki Haley has been sued. How would he respond? Would he defend the Constitutional amendment voters approved 78-22 percent in 2006? Or, would he artfully dodge a defense as California Governor Jerry Brown did, providing an easy out for Justice Roberts to usher in same sex marriage?
Yes, we are analyzing every word. Someone must. The fate of marriage in our state could hang in the balance.
(Editor’s Note: The above communication is an opinion column from an advocacy group and does not necessarily reflect the editorial position of FITSNews.com. To submit your letter, news release, email blast, media advisory or issues statement for publication, click here).
35 comments
“Yes, we are analyzing every word. Someone must. The fate of marriage in our state could hang in the balance.
So, as I have asked in the past with regard to this type statement; if a couple of lesbians or a couple of gay males down the street get married, that somehow will weaken your traditional marriage? If the answer is “yes”, then you have a very weak marriage indeed and the alternate lifestyle couple down the street is probably the absolute least of your problems.
I stand behind that constitutional amendment and will continue to fight
to make sure that states have the ability to decide what they want
marriage to be in their state.
You shouldn’t have to get the approval of other people to marry who you love. You would think Haley would understand this concept as she is in an interracial marriage herself, and at one point, South Carolina (and the South in general) shunned interracial marriages. Some still do. Would Haley support an amendment to the state constitution barring interracial marriages, or is she only OK with restricting someone’s rights when it doesn’t restrict her own?
There’s something to be said about the “sanctity of marriage” concerning Haley’s alleged infidelities, anyways.
Marriage is a right of the individual. The only role government plays in marriage is recognizing it and enforcing laws dealing with married persons. If you want your church or religion to not recognize someone’s marriage as being in tune with your beliefs, have at it, but stop trying to force your beliefs on others.
Oh, and “states rights” was also used as an argument against civil rights.
Well said, Smirks! One thing I have wondered about, as a point of curiosity, what race or ethnicity is her husband?
Maybe just call him,’cuckold’?
but stop trying,etc and they should stop forcing their beliefs and lifestyles on us, too.
How is allowing two people who you do not even know and whom you have never met to have a marriage recognized by the state, forcing their beliefs on you.
There is a difference between legal marriage and religious marriage. Legal marriage is marriage recognized by the state, religious marriage is marriage recognized by a religious institution, church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.. No one is telling your our any religious organization you belong to what you have to believe or that you have to accept marriage recognized by the state.
Sorry, that’s “no one is telling you or” not your our. Big fingers small keyboard.
Apparently we are not on the same wavelength. What I was referring to are those people who keep jumping out and proudly tell us what they are. I couldn’t care less about that. It is their business who they are. Can you picture men and women telling everyone who they prefer to have sex with?
They do it all the time. Those obnoxious wedding and engagement announcements in the paper. I’m sick of them cramming their hetero lifestyles down our throats!
What about those Rainbow parades? Isn’t that the same as cramming their lifestyles down our throats?
I agree, ban all parades. I’m looking at you Macy’s and Rose Bowl!!!! Quit cramming your Christmas and flowerery lifestyles down my throat!
+1
Gee, tell that to the couple in Oregon who had a retail bakery until they decided that they’d not bake a cake for a lesbian couple that they disagreed with due to religious believes. So yeah, they were pretty much forced to accept a “marriage recognized by the state”.
My advice?: enjoy the victories while they last because the coming backlash is going to be a b!tch, and no, it most likely will not be Christian driven. (and since I’m a Christian, don’t misconstrue this as a threat from me). Further, don’t be surprised that when that time comes, that your anticipated allies and supporters mainly evaporate. Peace.
Nice try, but actually the Bakery was not forced to do anything. The state is looking at whether refusing to sell products to a person who is gay because they are gay violated state statutes; however, there has been no finding as yet.
Even so, telling someone you cannot refuse to sell something to someone just because they are gay, is not forcing them to believe anything.
Yeah, OK. Package it in any kind of non-discriminatory public accommodations, legal BS you’d like, your opposition knows exactly what is happening. It is a zero sum game and your micro population is dominating the majority… for now.
Who is my population?
Who do you propose this violent backlash will come from?
Dykes can be real bitches.They probably wanted a cake,the bakery couldn’t make,and used their lesbianism as an excuse.Bakery’s fault.
Nobody is forcing anything on you.
I love the phrase ” they have found the couple on which to build a case for overturning traditional marriage.” First, what is a traditional marriage and how long does it have to be the tradition before it becomes a traditional marriage. As Smirks said, until 1998 South Carolina’s constitution prohibited “marriage of a white person with a Negro or mulatto or a person who shall have one-eighth or more of Negro blood.” Is 15 years long enough to make interracial marriage “traditional.”
Was Nikki among the 33% of South Carolinians who said we should not remove that from our constitution. I’d be willing to be a lot of that 33% were white Baptists.
Second if we accept that interracial and same sex marriage is not “traditional” marriage by SC standards, how does allowing non-traditional marriage “overturn traditional marriage” and if it does, haven’t we already done that?
Actually, it goes “Well it was bound to happen, and one night it did” and it’s the second verse.
“The fate of marriage in our state could hang in the balance.” Overly dramatic much?. What is it about us that allows so many to think it is OK to discriminate against gays?
We, in South Carolina, were WRONG back in 1964 about Civil Rights and we are WRONG now about gay marriage.
How hilarious is it that this group chose to open this diatribe with a Garth Brooks lyric when Brooks has written other lyrics supporting gay marriage and his gay sister? Geniuses.
Well lets see here ,if everyone turns gay or lesbian, everyone can stop fussing about this in a 200 yrs. we will not exist. Bottom line, all this is against all laws of nature,have you ever seen a red bird and a blue bird in the same nest?All creatures on this earth know the difference between male and female an yet humans supposed to be the smartest! How long before some of these civil Rights groups have them take in God we trust off our money. Male and female species can mate and have babies ,but 2 lesbians or 2 gay males cannot,what does this tell you ? If you dont know You need to study some more!
It must really suck to be as fucking ignorant as you are. Why don’t you ask Melissa Etheridge if lesbians can have babies?
I’ll bet you a trillion dollars that without male input, two lesbians aren’t going to have babies. You know, male input to a woman… the “natural”, “normal”, and “born with it” way. But of course, they (and obviously you), have your own definition of “natural”, “normal”, and “born with it”. Thus, I’m sure that all bets are off.
So you believe having children by artificial insemination is a sin. Does that include everyone?
I have no problem with artificial insemination whatsoever…. when done solely between a husband and wife, or, if infertile, a designee. However, artificial insemination for the benefit of a single parent, an unmarried couple or for a homosexual couple should be outlawed (though I know it won’t be). To me, it is paramount to state-sanctioned child abuse to deliberately bring a child into this world without an official mom or dad. Sure, if a parent dies or divorces after that child is born, that’s life. However, to knowingly stack the deck against a newborn is just disgusting and should be outlawed (again, knowing that it won’t be)..
BTW, I’m not really worried about whether you like or dislike my traditional views. After all, time is on my side. Hedonistic societies – you know, what the US has become – come and go and history is littered with them. A disciplined, moral, and civilized society -the contra to a hedonistic society – always represents a small vanguard and is typically held together by things that are totally unrelated to faux governments and their unnatural laws, ethics, and borders.
Unfortunately you do not reflect traditional Christian values. You are filled with hate and anger, and it emanates from all your words. Whether you believe people of the same sex should have their marriage recognized by the state or not is not the question for you. Christ loves all mankind and womankind. He commands his servants to do the same. The source of hate and anger is decidedly not heaven. It is possible to disagree with other people without being filled with hate and anger, but that is clearly not you. Maybe you are a good conservative but you are being a bad Christian.
Pray for guidance out of the dark, pray for love, and pray you can one day attain the ability to reveal the love of heaven, and not the hate of hell.
Thank you, but other than a very quick mention of being a Christian, I’ve not centered my opposition to homosexuality around the 2000 years of Christian orthodoxy. Nope, whether an atheist, the pope… or Ghandi, I’d despise that community for theIr undisciplined and immoral worship of some sort of disgustingly sexual mammon that both mocks and degrades the truly humble and decent amongst us. Worst though, their over-the-top marketing and bravado (you know, the shiney stuff) is done in a conscience attempt to appeal to the young, the vulnerable, and the naiive in our society in order to gain sympathy for their gross cause. So yeah, I don’t care for their actions; but, as a good Christian, I’ll leave it to God to ultimately judge them. In the meantime, I’ll just leave them alone (though, I’ll continue to personally pray for them). Given the sorry state of Christianity – you know, the religion where many denominations (yeah, probably yours) now joyfully embrace sins such as homosexuality – there is little that I could offer a gay brother or a lesbian sister other than a mixed message and a moral challenge. Peace.
And yes i might not be very smart ,but i know 2 lesbians do not produce sperm,and that i dont have to ask anyone ,if you do ,sounds like you are not the smartest one in the bunch!!!!
jrh, don’t worry, your intelligence is light years above some dumba$$ (Godslayer) who thinks that two lesbians have the same binary fission reproduction biology of amoebas.
Frankly, it’s always amazed me as to how intellectually twisted and dishonest some will become in order to rationalize the supposedly “affectionate” and “romantic” feelings associated with sticking their pee pee in another’s crap hole.
Some men and some women cannot have children. So as you understand the Bible, god does not want these people to marry, right?
What does the first sentence you wrote say ,men and women ,this is not what we are talking about.
So what was your point about having babies? You brought that up, as part of your argument.