Gay couple sues over SC same-sex marr...

Gay couple sues over SC same-sex marriage ban

There are 32 comments on the ABC News 4 Charleston story from Sep 2, 2013, titled Gay couple sues over SC same-sex marriage ban. In it, ABC News 4 Charleston reports that:

A legally married gay couple living in South Carolina is suing to have the state's ban on gay marriage overturned.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ABC News 4 Charleston.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1 Sep 2, 2013
ARTICLE VI

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now about voting on civil rights:
SCOTUS Majority opinion:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2 Sep 2, 2013
AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3 Sep 2, 2013
SECTION 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

With the passage of DOMA and the recent SCOTUS ruling, IMO marriage is NOT a States Rights issue, but a Federal and Constitutional one.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#4 Sep 2, 2013
DNF wrote:
SECTION 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
With the passage of DOMA and the recent SCOTUS ruling, IMO marriage is NOT a States Rights issue, but a Federal and Constitutional one.
I disagree. It's STRICTLY a state's rights issue.

BUT...... although states have the RIGHT to make their own marriage laws, under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the U.S. constitution, they MUST legally recognize ALL the marriages of ALL other states, their own laws to the contrary notwithstanding, and NOT just the marriages that they "like".

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#5 Sep 2, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. It's STRICTLY a state's rights issue.
BUT...... although states have the RIGHT to make their own marriage laws, under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the U.S. constitution, they MUST legally recognize ALL the marriages of ALL other states, their own laws to the contrary notwithstanding, and NOT just the marriages that they "like".
Your arguments would carry a lot more weight, Foxy, if you didn't contradict yourself and display such histrionic contempt for basic facts. Like the basic fact that whether you like it or not marriage is not strictly a states' right issue. Marriage has all sorts of federal level implications (taxes and immigration just to name two) so is clearly not just a state-level thing.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#6 Sep 2, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
Your arguments would carry a lot more weight, Foxy, if you didn't contradict yourself and display such histrionic contempt for basic facts. Like the basic fact that whether you like it or not marriage is not strictly a states' right issue. Marriage has all sorts of federal level implications (taxes and immigration just to name two) so is clearly not just a state-level thing.
WRONG.

Try reading The Bill Of Rights and understanding it for a change, specifically the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.

And I did not contradict myself anywhere.

States have the right to make their own marriage laws, but under the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause they must legally recognize the marriages of all states, their own laws to the contrary notwithstanding.

I believe that the closest analogy is the marriage of first cousins. About half the states' marriage laws permit the marriage of first cousins, while about half the states do not permit it. But ALL the states legally recognize the marriages of first cousins performed outside their state, if their state's marriage laws do not permit it. And that is BECAUSE OF the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause.

The same constitutional principle MUST be applied to same-sex marriages. One of the reasons that the "full faith and credit" clause was written was to prevent precisely the legal chaos that will result if people's marriages are not legally recognized when a couple travels from one state to another. This exact situation prevailed before SCOTUS' Loving v. Virginia (1967) decision.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#7 Sep 2, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. It's STRICTLY a state's rights issue.
BUT...... although states have the RIGHT to make their own marriage laws, under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the U.S. constitution, they MUST legally recognize ALL the marriages of ALL other states, their own laws to the contrary notwithstanding, and NOT just the marriages that they "like".
Thanks for contradicting your own claim that it's a States Rights issue!

LMAO!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#8 Sep 2, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG.
Try reading The Bill Of Rights and understanding it for a change, specifically the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.
And I did not contradict myself anywhere.
States have the right to make their own marriage laws, but under the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause they must legally recognize the marriages of all states, their own laws to the contrary notwithstanding.
I believe that the closest analogy is the marriage of first cousins. About half the states' marriage laws permit the marriage of first cousins, while about half the states do not permit it. But ALL the states legally recognize the marriages of first cousins performed outside their state, if their state's marriage laws do not permit it. And that is BECAUSE OF the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause.
The same constitutional principle MUST be applied to same-sex marriages. One of the reasons that the "full faith and credit" clause was written was to prevent precisely the legal chaos that will result if people's marriages are not legally recognized when a couple travels from one state to another. This exact situation prevailed before SCOTUS' Loving v. Virginia (1967) decision.
Gay and Proud pointed out that you used the Constitution to support SSM.

That makes SSM a Federal issue. DOMA made it a Federal Issue. SCOTUS and every lawsuit brought by the states where SCOTUS rules it's a fundamental right made it a Federal Issue.

Go back to claiming there's no constitutional right to vote you dizzy queen.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#9 Sep 2, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Gay and Proud pointed out that you used the Constitution to support SSM.
That makes SSM a Federal issue. DOMA made it a Federal Issue. SCOTUS and every lawsuit brought by the states where SCOTUS rules it's a fundamental right made it a Federal Issue.
Go back to claiming there's no constitutional right to vote you dizzy queen.
Read the plain text of the 9th Amendment and the 19th Amendment. If marriage were a federal issue, which it is not, then al states would have uniform marriage laws and not bar certain people from marrying one another.

And there is NO federal "RIGHT TO VOTE". For you to claim otherwise shows what a deplorable understanding of the U.S. Constitution you really have.

If there WERE a federal "RIGHT TO VOTE" then why would LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI) recently introduce a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to provide such a right ? Why don't you email him and ask him ? He's a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT and even HE ACKNOWLEDGES that there is no "RIGHT TO VOTE" in the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/05/12110/con...

LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC Rep. Mark Pocan said on the House floor: "The right to vote is so fundamental that most Americans, understandably, assume it is already enshrined in the Constitution", but most Americans would be wrong. While the right to vote is inherent throughout our founding document, and there are amendments prohibiting discrimination, nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees our right to vote. We, as Americans, possess no affirmative right to vote."

Why don't you write him and ask him why he offered the amendment if you are so sure that there is "RIGHT TO VOTE" in the U.S. Constitution ?

You, like most Americans are profoundly ignorant of what the U.S. Constitution says and means.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Sep 3, 2013
Believe Truth wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with you here but I will defer on a previous point. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is not always applicable.
Real estate and attorney licenses do not fall under the Full Faith & Credit Act, due to different state laws and requirements.
There are different state driver license requirements, but you are only legally able to use a different state license for 30 days,unless you are a student.
An 18 year old who has been given the right to drink in one state, and can not stop, will not be given a right to drink in a state where the drinking age is 21.
Now, to marriage, Utah once has a law allowing polygamy, but the federal government stepped in and decided that the federal government could set social orders for marriage. The only thing allowing same sex marriage in any states is politricking and gayfrolicking, which has causes both parties to fear political retribution from the gay-influenced media and Mollywood.
Not quite right.

The Fed exerted that influence on a U.S. TERRITORY, and set monogamy as a condition for application for Statehood.

A fine legal point, to be sure, but Constitutionally proper.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#14 Sep 3, 2013
Believe Truth wrote:
<quoted text>WRONG.
What SCOTUS ruled in the DOMA section 3 case was that the Federal government had no say over state marital laws. SCOTUS said that the federal government could not restrict the rights of marriages recognized in a given state.
.......
They said no such thing - they did NOT rule to overturn states laws regarding the subject at this time, and ruled only on the section in question, but did NOT make a sweeping ruling that said that the federal courts can never do so.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#15 Sep 3, 2013
Believe Truth wrote:
The lawsuit is an attempt by gay activists, who have moved a same sex couple from DC to South Carolina claiming they are married.
Seriously ironic name choice dumpling. This is a couple from South Carolina who went to DC in order to be legally married. It isn't a claim they are married, it is fact that they are legally married and that TRUTH is going to blow up in the faces of those who have issues with legal same sex marriages.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#16 Sep 3, 2013
Believe Truth wrote:
WRONG.
What SCOTUS ruled in the DOMA section 3 case was that the Federal government had no say over state marital laws. SCOTUS said that the federal government could not restrict the rights of marriages recognized in a given state.
The Obama Administration’s actions today go beyond the scope of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Windsor decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in that decision clearly states that marriage law is the purview of the states:“[T]he definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.” The Obama Administration has chosen not to respect state policy on this and is further eroding the meaning of marriage.
This of course highlights one reason why the federal definition of marriage contained in Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was necessary and why it was a bad decision for the Supreme Court to strike that section. Just as the states have constitutional authority to make state policy about marriage, so too the Supreme Court should have ruled that Congress has constitutional authority to pass a federal statute defining the term for federal programs created by federal law.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/08/29/the-obama...
I really don't mind breaking this to you and Mr Anderson, but in most areas of the rights, benefits and protections that the federal government extends to marriage, the eligibility for them is determined by the place where you were legally married, NOT where you currently reside. This makes your marriage portable across state lines because it isn't the federal government's job to enforce the vagaries of state marriage laws. The well deserved demise of Section 3 means that the federal government must now recognize same sex marriages on the same basis as they do opposite sex couples. Get used to it.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#18 Sep 3, 2013
"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion:... DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#19 Sep 3, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
......
If there WERE a federal "RIGHT TO VOTE" then why would LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI) recently introduce a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to provide such a right ? Why don't you email him and ask him ? He's a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT and even HE ACKNOWLEDGES that there is no "RIGHT TO VOTE" in the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/05/12110/con...
LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC Rep. Mark Pocan said on the House floor: "The right to vote is so fundamental that most Americans, understandably, assume it is already enshrined in the Constitution", but most Americans would be wrong. While the right to vote is inherent throughout our founding document, and there are amendments prohibiting discrimination, nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees our right to vote. We, as Americans, possess no affirmative right to vote."
Why don't you write him and ask him why he offered the amendment if you are so sure that there is "RIGHT TO VOTE" in the U.S. Constitution ?
You, like most Americans are profoundly ignorant of what the U.S. Constitution says and means.
Good lord so many questions.

Why don't I write to him?

He's not my Rep and would probably ignore me. I trust the people to decide on what they want their Rep to do.

Why did he introduce his bill?

IMO it's because he's as wackadoodle as you are. More reason to ignore you both. Just like you want us to ignore Pat Robertson. OH and people in Newfoundland aren't covered by the 2nd Amendments right to bear arms. They're CANADIAN!

lmao

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#20 Sep 3, 2013
Believe Truth wrote:
<quoted text>This has nothing to do with SSM, 12 year olds marriaging, incest marriage nor polygamy.
The lawsuit is an attempt by gay activists, who have moved a same sex couple from DC to South Carolina claiming they are married.
This is going to explode upon gays.
.....ZZZZZZ.....
Did your Gov swear to uphold the Constitution of the USA as well as the Great State of SC?

Yes he did.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Article VI [Legal Status of the Constitution]
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
(Also known in legal circles as The Supremacy Clause)

Then we have:
(The Full Faith and Credit Clause)
ARTICLE IV
SECTION 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

SECTION 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

Followed by:

Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Toss in:
(The Equal Protection Clause)
AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

and you have a very tough time justifying your religious discrimination in State Laws regarding marriage of a same sex couple. SCOTUS already Rules in Windsor that the Federal Govt can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

As for Prop 8 and EVERY STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that bans SSM:
about voting on civil rights:
SCOTUS Majority opinion:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#21 Sep 3, 2013
Believe Truth wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with you here but I will defer on a previous point. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is not always applicable.
Real estate and attorney licenses do not fall under the Full Faith & Credit Act, due to different state laws and requirements.
There are different state driver license requirements, but you are only legally able to use a different state license for 30 days,unless you are a student.
An 18 year old who has been given the right to drink in one state, and can not stop, will not be given a right to drink in a state where the drinking age is 21.
Now, to marriage, Utah once has a law allowing polygamy, but the federal government stepped in and decided that the federal government could set social orders for marriage. The only thing allowing same sex marriage in any states is politricking and gayfrolicking, which has causes both parties to fear political retribution from the gay-influenced media and Mollywood.
Thank You
We've been trying to explain to FFFa FFFoxy (aka Europa Reports) that not all State laws fall under F.F.& C though in reality for heterosexuals it DOES Exist already.

Because SCOTUS has never been challenged on the F.F. & C. Clause in regards to marriage. Yet it essentially did that when it ruled on Loving as well as declaring sodomy laws unconstitutional.

But then Mississippi only outlawed slavery THIS year.
Mississippi Officially Abolishes Slavery, Ratifies 13th Amendment
By Ben Waldron
Feb 18, 2013 8:08pm

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#22 Sep 3, 2013
Believe Truth wrote:
<quoted text>WRONG.
What SCOTUS ruled in the DOMA section 3 case was that the Federal government had no say over state marital laws. SCOTUS said that the federal government could not restrict the rights of marriages recognized in a given state.
The Obama Administration’s actions today go beyond the scope of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Windsor decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in that decision clearly states that marriage law is the purview of the states:“[T]he definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.” The Obama Administration has chosen not to respect state policy on this and is further eroding the meaning of marriage.
This of course highlights one reason why the federal definition of marriage contained in Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was necessary and why it was a bad decision for the Supreme Court to strike that section. Just as the states have constitutional authority to make state policy about marriage, so too the Supreme Court should have ruled that Congress has constitutional authority to pass a federal statute defining the term for federal programs created by federal law.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/08/29/the-obama...
Now about voting on civil rights:
SCOTUS Majority opinion:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23 Sep 3, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion:... DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."
Nice quote, but who do the quotation marks belong to?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#24 Sep 4, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the plain text of the 9th Amendment and the 19th Amendment. If marriage were a federal issue, which it is not, then al states would have uniform marriage laws and not bar certain people from marrying one another.
And there is NO federal "RIGHT TO VOTE". For you to claim otherwise shows what a deplorable understanding of the U.S. Constitution you really have.
If there WERE a federal "RIGHT TO VOTE" then why would LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI) recently introduce a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to provide such a right ? Why don't you email him and ask him ? He's a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT and even HE ACKNOWLEDGES that there is no "RIGHT TO VOTE" in the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/05/12110/con...
LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC Rep. Mark Pocan said on the House floor: "The right to vote is so fundamental that most Americans, understandably, assume it is already enshrined in the Constitution", but most Americans would be wrong. While the right to vote is inherent throughout our founding document, and there are amendments prohibiting discrimination, nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees our right to vote. We, as Americans, possess no affirmative right to vote."
Why don't you write him and ask him why he offered the amendment if you are so sure that there is "RIGHT TO VOTE" in the U.S. Constitution ?
You, like most Americans are profoundly ignorant of what the U.S. Constitution says and means.
From your article:
"Even though the right to vote is the most-mentioned right in the Constitution," added Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, the bill's other sponsor, "legislatures across the country have been trying to deny that right to millions of Americans, including in my home state of Minnesota. It's time we made it clear once and for all: every citizen in the United States has a fundamental right to vote."

You keep insisting the right to vote isn't in the Constitution THEN point to an article that clearly shows the Constitution does have it.

Whackadoodle.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Michigan sued after gay couples are rejected fo... 1 min Pat Robertson s F... 16
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 3 min Freedomofexpression 9,799
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 14 min Wondering 5
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 57 min cowboy chris 7
News Worker fired for same sex 'No' vote hits out 2 hr Wondering 12
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Wondering 56,039
News Brazil judge rules homosexuality a disease, app... 2 hr Dallas 4
News Anti-Gay Obama Graffiti Vandal to Spend 90 Days... 3 hr Imprtnrd 16
More from around the web