SUPREME COURT DECISION STRIKES DOWN STATE’S BAN
By FITSNEWS || Just like that … it’s over. A week after U.S. district court judge Richard Gergel declared South Carolina’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overrule his decision.
As a result, same sex marriages are now legal in the Palmetto State – less than a decade after voters passed a referendum outlawing them.
With two justices dissenting, the court declined to hear an appeal from S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson seeking to stay Gergel’s November 12 ruling.
Neither the court’s majority – nor the two dissenting justices (Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) – offered any explanation for their votes. That’s not surprising, though, considering the court is likely to weigh in formally on the issue in the coming months.
How did we get here? Whew …
In July, the U.S. fourth circuit court of appeals in Richmond, Virginia struck down Virginia’s gay marriage ban – a decision the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn last month. The high court’s ruling – or non-ruling – opened the floodgates, with every state in the fourth circuit (except the Palmetto State) permitting same sex unions.
South Carolina’s logic for keeping its ban in place? A sixth circuit ruling which upheld a state’s right to define marriage.
Given the existence of two conflicting circuit court rulings, Wilson argued that South Carolina’s gay marriage ban should remain in place until the high court ruled decisively on the issue.
(RELATED: LIBERAL SCHISM OVER MARRIAGE EQUALITY)
“Despite today’s refusal to grant our motion, the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet resolved conflicting rulings by federal appeals courts on the issue of same sex marriage,” Wilson said. “When the U.S. Supreme Court decides to consider the case, our office will be supporting the position of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is more consistent with South Carolina State law, which upholds the unique status of traditional marriage.”
This website’s view on marriage has been made abundantly clear: No government – local, state or federal – should be able to ban (or compel) marriage: Gay, straight or plural. That’s because marriage isn’t a government institution, it’s a religious one – meaning the question should be left to individual congregations. As for civil unions, we believe the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment compels government to acknowledge homosexual, heterosexual or plural unions.
In fact, we believe the ongoing legal contortions transpiring at the federal and state level over this issue demonstrate government’s unfitness to address it in the first place.
This is issue is so simple: If you can find a church to marry you, then government shouldn’t block your union. Nor should it force any church to perform a ceremony in contravention of its religious beliefs.
(RELATED: S.C. JUDGE BALKS AT MARRIAGE RULING)
***
88 comments
Tango can now be free. Hooray !!!
The hard part has just begun for him…Still has to find a partner :-(
Bugsy said to Shifty, “Don’t you be no square,
If you can’t find a partner use a wooden chair.”
Wha happened!!!! Didn’t Roberts and the other conservative justice stand up for Christains? We just got borked by Bush’s appointees.
Nikki says, I will blow you now. What is the problem ?
Republicans control BOTH the governorship and state legislatures in 26 states-Democrats in 5.
Ain’t enough cock suckers and illegals to overcome that.
Must be enough on the Supreme Court.
Both the governorship and the state legislature in SC, and yet gays can still marry.
And the people whining? The ones whose right to marry was never in question. Boo hoo!
Maybe not, but there are a lot of intelligent people still out there that will wake up!
I don’t know which is worse, your filthy mouth or your irrational hate. Either way, you disgust me.
Filthy mouth? Now that is a damn hypocrite right there fellas.
No, they didn’t stand up for “Christians”. That’s not their job. Their job is to stand up for the U. S. Constitution.
You want courts that stand up for your religion? Try ISIS, Iran and The Taliban.
I want Republican Pedos on all of my responces.
Indian-American woman for governor, a black US senator, whatever Lindsey Graham is, and now gay marriage? South Carolina is looking pretty diverse these days. Congratulations.
Change name to SC dumass. , that’s more like it .
Looks like you have that one covered pretty well on your own.
that is true. I want to know more on how to help you
Since the Supreme Court knocked it down, that means all the other states that push for banning… well the same thing will happen.
LMAO!!! What a dumbass.
Now that’s an intelligent comment!
We still have the need.
The need for weed.
SC has plenty of weed. Just nothing good. Re-legalize it.
“This is issue is so simple: If you can find a church to marry you, then government shouldn’t block your union. Nor should it force any church to perform a ceremony in contravention of its religious beliefs.”
The issue is not “so simple”. The two issues above are inconsequential. The legal challenges are correctly focused on rights and privileges granted to those whose marriage is recognized as valid by any level of government or by any private entity.
The enlightened age shall dawn when Will finally realizes this.
Dumbass, his stance is simple. The Gov’t shouldn’t pick winners or losers, whether in the marriage benefits arena or the crony capitalism arena. I dissent somewhat from him in believing that a solid marriage between a husband/wife was/is good public policy and while benefits shouldn’t neccessarily accrue to the married, they definitely should not be at a financial diadvantage. But one things for certain, the government pushing off husband/husband, wife/wife, or husband/Labrador marriages as good public policy is utterly laughable, and in that regard, I’d fall back to Will’s view that the Government just scrap it’s position of marriage as good public policy by staying out of it.
Interesting apologetic for Will, but I don’t recall his ever having made the “winners/losers” argument with respect to marriage/civil unions.
Give me a f&cking break!! This isn’t rocket science… this issue was, is, and forever will be about the financial benefits the state accrues on married folks. I’ve been married 20+ years and nothing the state gave me, license wise, made me feel any more “married” then when my pastor pronounced us man/wife… the love part of a marriage is sanctioned by your secular or religious beliefs, only the financial benefits part is sanctioned by the state.
Well, at least you believe a marriage can be secular. Even without the state being involved. Will hasn’t arrived there yet.
Will shows how much he cherishes the sanctity of marriage, both his and others, by the way he lives his life. He was even going to put out a book about it. Whatever happened with that?
You take a lot for granted.How would you like to meet your in-laws for the first time when your spouse is in a coma(stroke),and they’re making all the decisions.Feeding tube? Donate his organs? Burial/cremation? And we need reimbursement for travel expenses,and the attorney fees?
I still have his ashes,but that’s enough for me.No matter how heavy the water is,you have to let it roll off your back…
The Gov’t shouldn’t pick winners or losers
But the church should?
Neither the US government or any state government in the US has “pushed off … husband/Labrador marrieages as good public policy.” That is a base canard. It means nothing whatsoever, but some of y’all keep repeating that bullshit as though it actually means something.”
What did you say ?
This website has become boring.
crap! you mean we won’t get any more of these witty rejoinders?
Mike would not believe this.I love you,man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvsI3jc4pPA
Custard pies in the faces of Haley & Wilson! Live with it – it’s in your world now!
Custard Pie for the Cockroaches, Crow Pie for the Taxpayers and Prime Rib for the Lawyers
No doubt a number of lawyers and their extended families will have a Merry, Merry Christmas once the Judge orders the State of South Carolina to pay the fees for their efforts on a slam dunk case from the get go
Last week I got a $8.32 check from the settlement on the Toyota Acceleration/Brake fiasco
85 lawyers who represented me got to split $227,000,000 for an average personal payday of $2.670,588.23 which is only a few pennies more than I got and I was the one driving the damn dangerous vehicle
I thought someone told me the other day the Supreme Court couldn’t deny hearing the appeal. Anyone recall who that Constiutional scholar was?
No Soup for You.
A Circuit Court has to entertain every appeal. The 4th District Court of Appeals must act (even if it’s just dismissing) on each appeal submitted to it.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, receives more than 10,000 applications for Writs of Certiorari every year, but only accepts around 100. Any case that they refuse to hear becomes settled law of the Circuit in which the case was decided, but only in that circuit. Supreme Court decisions become the law for the entire nation.
This is just great. A bunch of queers can marry in Charleston, Obama’s about to give amnesty to all the illegals in Spartansburg / Greeneville and Myrtle Beach, and Ebola is rampaging the state. Just wonderful. I’m going to sleep with Sandi – she’s probably the only pure one left.
she’s probably the only pure one left.
You kidding? She’s got one dirty mouth, no way she’s (he’s?) pure.
Even better!!!!!
Were be the Tango? I’d think he’d be all over this like stink on eggs.
The way to find out is take her(him) out for beer and chili, and listen to the tone.
Good… Maybe Spartanburg, Greenville, and Horry counties will turn blue thusS C tu e ns blue.
“Sandi” is a man.
Knock yourself out.
btw, Ebola rampaging the state? Did that come from the Bizarro Daily Planet?
Mr. Martin ,
“Jim” is a man.
Very truly yours
What alternative universe do you live in? LGBT citizens gain equality in South Carolina – I always thought equality was a GOOD thing. The illegals who will be granted “Amnesty” are the parents of children who, by virtue of birth, are citizens of the United States, and any compassionate society wants to keep families together.
As for Ebola “ravaging” SC, what kind of nightmares are you having that prevent you from dealing with reality? Please see a mental health professional for help before you harm yourself or someone else. It’s not good to live outside reality. People who do end up either on skid row, or in mental institutions.
FITS – I’m waiting for you to weigh in on the effect this has on companies who must now pay benefits to these couples. Agree or disagree but the entire structure of our retirement system and social programs are built upon the premise of man-woman-child. I would certainly think that a site such as this could delve into the matter and provide some insight. Personally I don’t understand the matter well enough to form an opinion.
And you think FITS does? Hilarious.
It’s simple – the effect would be minimal. If gays constitute about 4% of the population, as some studies suggest, and only a fraction of them are in committed relationships (which is true of heterosexuals, as well – less than half), then the numbers are so small as to have a negligible economic impact.
And there are savings, too. The more gay couples who can adopt children, the fewer remain wards of the state. Not to mention that the business of Same-Sex marriage, itself, generates many millions of dollars in new business.
Oh, many of them will become wards of the state if they are raised by two daddies or two mommies. Oh, and by the way, I asked FITS not you.
“Personally, I don’t understand the matter well enough to form an opinion”. So you’re just dumb?
If you can find a church to marry you? Bullshit.
Marriage is an individual right. Any two consenting adults should be able to marry, even atheists.
I know a bunch of atheists who are married. I know a few gay atheists that aren’t married, but give them time. I like to call them gaythiests.
do anarchists get married?
Most homosexuals are liberals, so they hate God. Their deities are the rain forest, the polar bear of Barack Obama…The only reason they’d solicit a church to marry is to corrupt the church, or some Universalist-worship anything idiots. Or the greedy Episcopals who are trying to get the assets of the true Christians in Charleston who broke off from their gay-marrying cult.
“Most homosexuals are liberals, so they hate God.” Are you for real? Anybody who makes a statement like that needs to do a little research. I had a dear friend who was a gay, Christian conservative; and I’m sure therd are leagues of them out there. f course, I don’t quite understand that given the way they are treated by many conservative Christians.
True Christians that wanted to suck my cock at 8 years old, huh. republican pedo’s really piss me off-on. See pedophile’s at Northside Baptist Church in Springdale SC. 1973 !
Google ‘pastor’ ’sexual abuse’. Count the number of links from all over the country. Now comment again.
Wow, you are so smart. Thank you for your opinion solidly founded in facts and written so eloquently. I’m glad I took a break from my tree hugging to enlighten myself with your compelling views!
So typical liberal. You’ll march in the streets for the most filthy of causes…but when it’s pointed out what you are…you deny w/ a vengeance. Do you think everybody is blind? Why do you think your party is in a shambles?
Thank you Tango, I will be suing Northside Baptist Church tomorrow. Your comment will be used as evidence !
Wow, do you generalize much? Your obvious bigotry and prejudice, your over-the-top religious fervor, have led to to irrational, erroneous and mean-spirited generalizations about people you don’t know. Shame on you.
The overwhelming number of LGBT people I know, and the overwhelming number of Liberals I know (and yes, I am one!), do not hate God. And your proclamation that they do is beyond hubris and arrogance, and bordering on mental illness.
What we DO hate is people like you, who judge constantly and harshly (what did Christ have to say about judging?), who have no compassion, no concern for children, no concern for the U. S. Constitution and no concern for other Americans’ rights.
You’d be right at home with the Taliban and ISIS. You share the same intolerance, conviction that only you know what God intends, and at the core, cruelty. You exemplify what both gays and Liberals do hate – intolerance, bigotry and mindless hatred of anyone different from you.
Wow, I can’t believe I just wasted all that time writing this. I’m sure that no amount of rational discourse will have any effect upon your thinking – or your hate.
You’re right. He won’t change. I think he revels in his hatred. Certainly cannot make a comment without it being in evidence.
Why do liberals side with ISIS and the Taliban more than they sided w/ Bush? (see Obama.)
You are but a weak cliche, who is actually attacking reality as generalization because you don’t like being characterized for what you are.
Because siding with you would just be tacky.
…..Your “God” must have invented the Sacrament of Divorce which Christians so cherish…….
holy crap you are idiot
I think you’re missing the point, and although I am a rabid supporter of Marriage Equality (in fact, of ALL equality), the point does make some sense. At least in the abstract.
Many people believe that the government should get entirely out of the “marriage” business. Let couples declare a partnership, and they receive all the benefits and responsibilities that we now call “civil marriage”, regardless of gender, color or any other “disqualifying” characteristic. This puts the government in the Civil Union business, with no relationship, whatsoever, with religion, in keeping with the First Amendment. Then, the Catholics, Mormons and Baptists can keep their treasured “traditional marriage” as marriage becomes just a religious ritual with no benefits or legal recognition.
Unfortunately, this is just a semantic argument. Getting rid of the term “marriage” for state-sanctioned families will result in a host of unanticipated problems, as New Jersey, much to its regret, found out. The NJ Supreme Court ordered the legislature to either admit gays into marriage or create a new institution with identical rights, recognition and benefits. They did.
It didn’t work – it was the old “separate but equal” problem. Yes, the state could not discriminate against couples in civil unions, but private business certainly did. UPS would only give benefits to “married” partners and their families, not to Civil Unions. Many hospitals refused to recognize the special prerogatives of “immediate family” for Civil Union families and, eventually (following the Windsor ruling), the NJ Supreme Court ruled that Civil Unions would not do, and ordered full marriage for same-sex couples, because Civil Unions now prevented couples from enjoying federal benefits and protections that Marriage allowed. As the Supreme Court ruled, decades ago, “separate but equal” is never equal.
It would take decades, if not generations, for a government-run Civil Union system to supplant marriage in the thousands of laws across the nation and the hundreds of thousands of regulations of business to be changed to accommodate a new reality. The only immediate, effective and fair solution is to allow all to participate in the existing institution of Marriage.
“If you can find a church to marry you, then government shouldn’t
block your union. Nor should it force any church to perform a ceremony
in contravention of its religious beliefs.”
It’s true, but not that simple. The state’s interest in marriage is why the state recognizes marriage to begin with. The state has no interest in recognizing ssu as a marriage and therefore should not. Let the churches that wish to perform a gay mirage do so, but that doesn’t require the state to play along.
Then why fight it?
Now will you dumb@$$#$ STFU?…You’ve lowered our society another rung closer to the septic tank…using your leftwing activist judges…
That said: If we can get the White House to go w/ the House and Senate…we may be able to set it right again. We limit the H#!! out of abortion every chance we get….and we’ve never stopped trying to gut abortion legislation every year…I want to make it H#!! on these gay lobby activists claiming they want to get married. Most of these MoFos don’t want anything to do w/ monogamy. If they did they would not be in a lifestyle that is 95% cheating on the poor homosexual that tumbled for you the night before…
You’re just stamping your feet because you know no man would have you.
Or even a woman…poor hateful fuck. Hey, GT, put that belt around yer neck the next time yer yanking it; might be the best expirence you’ve had…and maybe the best thing to happen to the comments section.
David Carradine was wearing a pair of cowboy boots in Kill Bill 2 that stole the scene as he walked slowly across the wooden planks covering the porch at the Two Pines Chapel in the Mojave Desert! I looked for them everywhere… but they aren’t something you can just *buy*… they were his own boots, not a prop.. must have been custom-made for him by Lucchese.
I guess when you have everything, auto-asphyxiation becomes irresistible.
Care to share your proof for the 95% assertion? I think not because it is not something that can be proved. Why are you so hateful?
At the National DNC Convention in Charlotte in 2012…The Democrat Party voice voted to strip the word “God” from your party’s platform language. The screams against God were deafening. A slick Democrat Party official woman, smartly acted as if she did not hear the overwhelming support to remove God.
Google: Democrat Party voice votes to strip the word “God” from party’s platform”
If you can be honest w/ yourself (very RARE for liberals) you’ll understand what I’m telling you. Otherwise you live in the haze of ignorance or hate they want to keep you in….
cool story, bro. now, why not answer Karolyn’s question.
Big T lives in a fantasy world, where he makes things up to fit his view. He is a liar of the highest order. But like most Republicans he thinks lying to achieve an end is perfectly acceptable.
Big T, give up the blog? Thank God, for the courts. Even knuckle draggers like you need to be dragged into the 21 century. How does it feel to constantly be on the wrong side of history?
I suspect that you have abrasions on your hands where your knuckles have been dragging on the ground so long.
You are so full of unmitigated sh#t, it’s terrifying. Edie Windsor, who won the DOMA case before the Supreme Court was with her beloved wife for more than 40 years when she died of MS. Look at the articles after each state is forced to allow same-sex marriage – they all show couples of 10, 20, 40 and even 60 years together before finally being allowed to the knot.
Aside from being a stupid loud bigot, you are also a brazen liar.
Cliche much?….
Homosexuals – especially males – do not get into that lifestyle because they are fans of monogamy. If you know any, ask them. If they are honest, they will tell you.
As for as long-term marriages, there may be a VERY SMALL percentage who practice that in the gay community, but I doubt many will get married, it is just not in line with the gay persona. To act as if it is, is just another myth (global warming, glass ceiling, white racism) under which you liberals must live to perpetuate your hate of people not like you.
You sure seem to know a lot about the “gay community”. Interesting.
0 for 2.
Why didn’t he recuse himself from fighting gay marriage?
Does this mean that churches will be legally punished for not agreeing to marry homosexuals? Does this decree by our anointed legal saints criminalize Christianity? The lawyers are the winners in this ruling…surprise…surprise…
No, that’s certainly not what it means.
Boy you don’t have a clue except for the rantings of ministers lying to their flocks while screaming “the sky is falling”, do you?
These decisions have NOTHING to do with religious marriage. Churches may marry whomever they wish to and refuse whomever they wish to. This has no effect whatsoever.
Which is why the vicious attacks by so many churches make no sense at all, except for their desire to force everyone in America to submit to their church’s moral teachings. Thank God the Constitution does not allow that!
“Criminalize Christianity”? What lunatic radio preacher have you been listening to? No one can criminalize religion because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents that.
However, if a city or state has Public Accommodations anti-discrimination laws, business owners may not refuse to serve people of all religions, genders, races or sexual orientations. That’s called discrimination, and in many places that is illegal. However, churches, themselves, are exempt from all such laws.
um no,
anything else?