U.S. Supreme Court declines to block same-sex marriages in South Carolina

[William769]

Source: LGBTQNATION

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to block same-sex marriages in South Carolina.

The high court on Thursday issued an order denying a request by Attorney General Alan Wilson. The Republican prosecutor had wanted the marriages blocked while he challenges a judge’s recent decision that opened the way for the marriages.

Under U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel’s order, the marriages were to begin at noon Thursday. But as a practical matter, licenses are already being issued and weddings performed. The first marriage was in Charleston on Wednesday.

That day, the state Supreme Court allowed probate judges statewide to issue same-sex licenses. That decision came after a federal judge in Columbia ruled that the state’s refusal to recognize gay marriages performed in other states was unconstitutional.


Read more: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/11/u-s-supreme-court-declines-to-block-same-sex-marriages-in-south-carolina/

---

[belzabubba333]

1. it seems scotus is done with same-sex marriage

[notrightatall]

2. Not with the decision out of the 6th.

[William769]

4. The 6th has nothing to do with South Carolina.

[notrightatall]

5. I know that.

But SCOTUS can not be "done with same sex marriage" with the decision in the 6th still hanging.

They will likely have to act.

[William769]

9. I am confused there is nothing in the OP that suggests that.

[notrightatall]

11. Maybe you're confused because my reply was to post #1 NOT the OP.

My bad.

[William769]

14. Thanks for the clarification.

[LuvNewcastle]

8. I don't think Lindsey is cut out for marriage.

I think he enjoys sneaking out at night and finding some rough trade.

[Orrex]

19. I'm not sure that I understand why this is cool.

I find Graham utterly deplorable, but I'm disappointed at the frequent jokes here on DU about his sexuality. If he's gay but hasn't come out, why are we justified in mocking him for it?

If a Republican website were to make similar jokes about a Democratic figure, we would rightly condemn them for it. Why is Graham fair game in this regard?

[William769]

20. Agreed.

[AlbertCat]

22. Why are we justified in mocking it

Because, anyone who champions anti- GLBT rhetoric but is in the closet deserves mocking.

If he were neutral on the subject, then it would be a different story. But hypocrisy is fair game.

[Orrex]

30. Sorry, but that's circular reasoning.

Why are we justified in mocking his sexuality? Because he hypocritically champions anti-GLBT rhetoric.

How do we know that this is hypocrisy? Because he's gay.


I'm a basic, boring het white guy, so I don't want to come across as presuming any authority on the subject. Suffice it to say that I'm not comfortable joking about it, but others are welcome to find their own level.

[William769]

32. If you have proof he is closeted, let's hear it otherwise

It's just stereotyping bullshit. Now lets talk about hypocrisy.

[AlbertCat]

33. I don't care

If he's gay or not. Anyone in this day and age who is "worried" about the gay deserves mocking. Indeed, the ribbing is so flippant and deliberately not serious that it should really only bother people who think being gay is indeed some kind of problem.

[William769]

34. It shows you don't care.

And the stereotype you used proves that.

[William769]

37. Uncomfortable yes, it's easy to see who's judgemental though.

And doubling down is not making your case at all.

Have a nice day.

[Orrex]

38. Homophobia should indeed be mocked as the bigotry that it is.

However, insulting a man by implying that he's gay reveals that you think think being gay is an insult.

[William769]

39. exactly!

[George II]

27. The post was self-deleted, but by the responses I can guess what it said...

....there is NO excuse or justification for criticizing what Graham may or may not be. If everyone in this discussion is happy with the Supreme Court action, they should be just as happy with what Graham is, either way, despite the fact that he's a disgusting human being - his sexuality notwithstanding.

If we're going to make mocking, obnoxious, and insinuating comments about Graham on a subject we all SHOULD consider "one's own business", then those who make those comments might as well resign from here and join the Freepers!

[Orrex]

31. +1

[AlbertCat]

35. Join the freepers

LOL....

Talk about judgemental!

[George II]

42. How? Did you only read my last sentence?

[David__77]

43. I used to disagree with you.

I used to agree very much with the concept of "fair game." Not any more. The fact is that I don't know if he is homosexually-inclined, or not. I cannot know that. And if I did, so what?

[LuvNewcastle]

6. Great news, William!

Slowly but surely, we're getting there. I'm thinking that most of the Justices support marriage equality but they don't want to make a controversial decision like the Roe v. Wade decision, which has been a rallying point for RWers ever since it was decided. Maybe it's best to handle it like this. This way, it seems to be more of a consensus in the federal courts instead of a handful of people meting out justice from on high.

[William769]

10. Yes it is, only 14 to go now.

SCOTUS will have to get involved though because of the 6th circuit.

[David__77]

44. Do they HAVE to?

Can't they just stay out of it? I'm not saying that they SHOULD.

Ginsberg made statements in the past about the Roe having nationalized abortion as an issue, and this maybe being a bad thing. I think that she would tactically prefer that the process be prolonged a bit, or at least not associated with any single institution like the Supreme Court.

[Faux pas]

7. Kickin'

[longship]

12. Guess who the only two dissenters were!

Yup! You are correct. Scalia and Thomas, the two worst SCOTUS justices ever.

Oh! Before I forget... R&

[William769]

15. The usual two.

tweedle dumb & tweedle dumber.

[longship]

17. Indeed, certainly a Wonderland response.

Best regards.
longship

[Raster]

41. Fat Tony and his lapdog.

[progressoid]

13. Uh oh, teh gay agenda is spreading!

[William769]

16. yep.

[SoapBox]

21. LOLOL

Me thinks the barn door is way too open to stop this now.

[shenmue]

18. Ha ha ha ha

[Botany]

23. Down to 6 states that don't have or soon will have gay marriage

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/

It will be coast to coast very soon and Pat Robertson is running out of states
to which he can flee to avoid gay marriage.

"I’d get ahead of the curve. I’d get on an airplane and leave Idaho or get in your car and drive across the border into Montana,” the TV preacher recommended. “Get out of that state. And if need be, close your chapel down. I mean, just get out ahead of it because this is outrageous.” Pat Robertson

[William769]

25. Well Montana is not a place they can run to either now.

[George II]

28. Maybe we can all chip in and buy him a rowboat and let him float free in the ocean?

[Myrina]

40. I'm sure Putin will make room for him in Russia ...

n/t

[George II]

24. One thing really bothers me about how the Supreme Court has handled these cases....

...and they've now done this more than once.

They have "declined to block" these marriages, not ruled that these marriages are Constitutional and legal.

It's on a different scale, but it's similar to what the Mayor of NYC has told the police to do. They are "declining to arrest" people with small amounts of marijuana and some other substances. But he had NOT worked to make such situations legal. Nothing prevents that "policy" from being changed next week, month or year.

Same here - what is going to stop them from accepting another case some time in the future and ruling on it, one way or another?

They're taking the cowards' way out. They don't want to rule one way and incur the wrath of the people they're ruling against, so they're basically saying "we don't care...........for NOW"!

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know what the ultimate legal ramifications of "declining to block" will be, but it just seems like the easy way to allow something (for now) by not expressing a full legal opinion.

[William769]

26. My fear is they way they are handeling this is that someday the bans could be reinstated.

Am I wrong in my thinking?

[George II]

29. Exactly my point - this could very well be temporary, and it certainly isn't definitive.