Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay couple files federal lawsuit attacking SCís Defense of Marriage Law
Charlotte Observer ^ | Sep 1, 2013 | John Monk

Posted on 09/02/2013 7:29:21 PM PDT by kevcol

Two Lexington County women who were legally married in Washington, D.C., have filed a federal lawsuit in Columbia, challenging the state’s Defense of Marriage Law and a 2006 amendment to the state Constitution that expressly banned same-sex marriages.

The lawsuit, brought by S.C. Highway Patrol trooper Katherine Bradacs and Tracie Goodwin, was filed in U.S. District Court in Columbia last week.

Judge Joe Anderson, a veteran judge who has presided in numerous high-profile civil and criminal cases, has been named to hear arguments in the case, which will be heard without a jury.

Defendants in the case are Gov. Nikki Haley and State Attorney General Alan Wilson, both in their official capacities.

The lawsuit not only takes aim at a state law and a constitutional amendment passed by majorities, but it squarely confronts a long-standing and deep-rooted social, religious and political culture of a majority of South Carolinians who oppose gay rights, even as the idea of such rights gains increasing legitimacy elsewhere.

(Excerpt) Read more at charlotteobserver.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: 1oldnews; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; judges; lesbians
Lindseya Graham will be following this case closely...
1 posted on 09/02/2013 7:29:22 PM PDT by kevcol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kevcol
Katherine Bradacs:

2 posted on 09/02/2013 7:30:46 PM PDT by kevcol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

I honestly think this is a wedge issue, that we better start paying attention to, and turn this around.

I went to church this weekend, and the pastor started with homosexuals, transsexuals, and proceeded to list off atheists, and others who we should allow to commune with us as good Christians.

Say WHAT?

Look, I’m not here to say all homosexuals should be kicked out of church, but the Bible is clear, and we need to stick to some core values.

I’m a sinner. I can still attend. I think other sinners should be able to as well, but let’s remember that my infractions are recognized as infractions, and theirs are quickly becoming neutralized in the interest of inclusivity.

That is wrong IMO.


3 posted on 09/02/2013 7:39:57 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (This post coming to you today from behind the Camelskin Curtain. Not the Iron or Bamboo Curtain...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

It’s time for some sodomite agenda push back. These Nazis won’t be happy until we give each of them medals for standing up to God.


4 posted on 09/02/2013 7:45:45 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Betcha they’re unionized pervs and that the union (demorats) is/are paying for their legal escapades. Boils down to taxpayer funding as we invert the right/wrong world we live in.


5 posted on 09/02/2013 7:51:22 PM PDT by George from New England (escaped CT in 2006, now living north of Tampa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

“I’m a sinner. I can still attend. I think other sinners should be able to as well, but let’s remember that my infractions are recognized as infractions, and theirs are quickly becoming neutralized in the interest of inclusivity.”

That’s the point. If we know we’re sinners in need of forgiveness, there’s still hope. If however, we believe our sin is not a sin, and is something good, then there is no hope.


6 posted on 09/02/2013 7:54:14 PM PDT by River Hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

“I’m a sinner. I can still attend. I think other sinners should be able to as well, but let’s remember that my infractions are recognized as infractions, and theirs are quickly becoming neutralized in the interest of inclusivity.”

That’s the point. If we know we’re sinners in need of forgiveness, there’s still hope. If however, we believe our sin is not a sin, and is something good, then there is no hope.


7 posted on 09/02/2013 7:54:18 PM PDT by River Hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

“I honestly think this is a wedge issue, that we better start paying attention to, and turn this around.”

Yeah, but here’s the thing: how?

We’ve already lost the majority in this country, and the numbers are continuing to move ever-more-quickly in the wrong direction.

You’re not going to convince SCOTUS to strip already-married couples of their status.

The best I think we can hope for is a ruling that lets individual state bans remain. What do you realistically see happening?


8 posted on 09/02/2013 8:03:20 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I agree 100%. And yes they should be able to attend and should attend. But they should no more have their sins condoned than adulterers or any other sinners. You would never ever see or expect to see and adulterer admitting it and expecting the any church to sanction it!!!

I would add, before it’s too late Churches across the land must proclaim that they perform, preside over, and bless ONLY Holy Matrimony! NO civil marriage. If couples want to get a license, they are free to, but that none is necessary for Holy Matrimony. Let the govt stuff their marriage equality demands. Homosexuals do not and cannot qualify, ever, for Holy Matrimony!


9 posted on 09/02/2013 8:05:42 PM PDT by gidget7 ("When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

This lawsuit should be laughed at and tossed out of court in seconds. If the plaintiffs are citing DOMA that SCOTUS struck down, it doesn’t apply to SC’s law.


10 posted on 09/02/2013 8:07:44 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Governor Sarah Heath Palin for President of the United States in 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

South Carolinians on Facebook are dead set against this!!


11 posted on 09/02/2013 8:10:34 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert (She accomplished nothing: should have stayed at home and baked cookies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: River Hawk

And IMO, it muddles the whole thing. Do we believe in God’s plan or don’t we? Are we going to slip over the abyss, in the interest of inclusion? If we aren’t going to follow God’s word, then we’re adrift.


12 posted on 09/02/2013 8:15:04 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (This post coming to you today from behind the Camelskin Curtain. Not the Iron or Bamboo Curtain...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: highball

Honestly, I don’t know. If this stands, it seems to me polygamy is next, then bestiality. Transgender was grandfathered in under homosexuality.

Somewhere along the line sex with under-age kids comes in. They’re already working feverishly to achieve that.

I honestly think some homosexuals are going to be shocked at what they find they ushered in by demanding to be recognized on the same footing with heterosexuals.

This isn’t what many of them envisioned.


13 posted on 09/02/2013 8:19:40 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (This post coming to you today from behind the Camelskin Curtain. Not the Iron or Bamboo Curtain...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

I agree with you, but you’re going to see large amounts of religious persecution in reaction.

Here in this nation, we are on the verge of a new attack on Christians more or less like the Romans did. We’re probably about 35 AD right now, but swiftly we will see the 70 AD version of Christian treatment at the hands of the Romans.

End timers are going see a lot of very daunting things around the corner.


14 posted on 09/02/2013 8:23:17 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (This post coming to you today from behind the Camelskin Curtain. Not the Iron or Bamboo Curtain...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kevcol; All
Not only have the states never amended the Constitution to protect so-called gay rights, but the Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about things like marriage means that government power to regulate marriage is reserved uniquely to the individual states, not the federal government.

Also, since gay rights are not expressly protected by the Constitution, justices cannot reasonably apply so-called gay rights to the states via the 14th Amendment. But that's ultimately not going to stop activist justices from thinking of some flake excuse to protect constitutionally unprotected gay marriage if they think that they can get away with doing so.

Also, consider that anti-Christian factions have promoted gay marriage by politicking that the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Section 2 of Article IV, means that traditional marriage states must acknowledge the constitutionally undefined gay marriage rights of people married in states where such marriage is legal. But note that not only did the Founding States leave it up to Congress to decide the extent to which official records in one state must be respected in another, but consider the following.

After pro-gay media dust settled on the Supreme Court's decision about DOMA, according to Wikipedia, Section 2 of DOMA, which respects 10th Amendment protected state powers, remained intact. Corrections welcome.

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

So given what I understand about this issue at this point in time, the people in question evidently don't know the Constitution that they swore to defend and are consequently listening to whomever tells them what they want to hear.

Insights welcome.

15 posted on 09/02/2013 8:47:58 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

How long did they judge shop to find a regressive reprobate judge in SC?


16 posted on 09/02/2013 9:27:01 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
In my area, there is a huge, mega-church in a main line denomination, that has contacted all its members to inform them that their church will now have an "outreach" to the LGBT community.

Nothing unexpected here as the pastor had already been working behind the scenes already with various gay groups and even recruited gays within his congregation to "teach" Sunday School classes to members of their group, unbeknownst to his non-gay members!

17 posted on 09/02/2013 9:32:34 PM PDT by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Um, you need a new church... quick!


18 posted on 09/02/2013 9:45:56 PM PDT by Pining_4_TX (All those who were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

You’re under the false impression that the Constitution matters in such matters.

The only reason that section of DOMA stands is because Anthony Kennedy didn’t feel the time was right to go all the way. But he has made his position clear. It’s just a matter of time before he gets the chance to strike down the rest of DOMA, and all state laws and amendments that ban gay marriage.

Seeing it about to happen, I predict John Roberts will go along with him to make it a 6-3 decision.


19 posted on 09/02/2013 9:50:53 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX

I’ve attended three churches this year, trying to find one that worked for me. Looks like I’m off to number four.


20 posted on 09/02/2013 9:53:53 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (This post coming to you today from behind the Camelskin Curtain. Not the Iron or Bamboo Curtain...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

My insight is that if the trend concerning the state amendments continues, federal law concerning ‘gay marriage’ will become a moot point as those states that passed marriage amendments repeal them with popular votes. That’s if judges don’t cut out the middle men in the meantime.

The states that only passed their amendments in the low 50% ranges in the middle of the last decade are probably repealable now. The majority, the ones that passed theirs by much more, will take longer. But in in 20 years? 30 years? I can’t see many of them still being there.

Freegards


21 posted on 09/02/2013 10:16:51 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: highball

Realistically, I think we’ve lost this issue. The left and the homosexualists have been on offense, backed-up by entertainment and academic reinforcements, to the point where we’ve lost young people. The GOP and its allies have been too placid, too silent, even complicit. At this point, it seems like the GOP just wants this issue to go away.

My younger nieces and nephews group me in with racists from generations past, looking at me like I’m a cultural or religious relic. They were brought-up in pretty religious/traditional households, but they all claim to have “gay” friends that have supposedly changed their outlook on these issues.

Honestly, it’s depressing how they’ve let emotion overrule the plainly-stated word of God. They’ll claim that straight people have no high ground from which to judge.. or that they don’t take every word of the Bible literally.. or that as soon as I cite the Bible, my civil legal argument is weakened..

I’ll ask them where the right to marriage is in the Constitution, and they’ll say there’s no such thing, but that there’s a right to “equal protection,” despite knowing the original circumstances and intent of the amendment’s authors. We’ve had these arguments repeatedly to the point where I can predict their arguments, and they can predict mine. The homosexualists have done a damn good job with spreading their talking points.

But as hopeless as it might seem, I won’t stop fighting. It’ll never be truly equal, and deep down, they know it.


22 posted on 09/02/2013 10:43:22 PM PDT by MarkRegal05
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

That would have been my last day in that church.

Stand up for what you believe. It is why I quit going to mainsteam churches.


23 posted on 09/03/2013 1:19:56 AM PDT by packrat35 (Admit it! We are almost ready to be called a police state!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
This lawsuit should be laughed at and tossed out of court in seconds. If the plaintiffs are citing DOMA that SCOTUS struck down, it doesn’t apply to SC’s law.

All sane, honest people know what the Windsor decision found. But it will be stretched, contorted, and misconstrued, effectively so, to mean that ALL of DOMA is invalid. And there will be enough Marxist judges out there to agree with the sodomites to at least tie this up in court for years, and, if homObama gets to replace a Constitutional Supreme Court justice, eventually upheld to our complete ruin. We will then be the Unified State of AmeriKa, all state laws having been invalidated.

24 posted on 09/03/2013 4:50:38 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

” I’ve attended three churches this year, trying to find one that worked for me. Looks like I’m off to number four.”

Try one that still believes sin is sin.


25 posted on 09/03/2013 10:43:15 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (The only people in the world who fear Obama are American citizens. KILL THE BILL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

Sin? What’s that?


26 posted on 09/03/2013 7:42:51 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (This post coming to you today from behind the Camelskin Curtain. Not the Iron or Bamboo Curtain...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“All sane, honest people know what the Windsor decision found. But it will be stretched, contorted, and misconstrued, effectively so, to mean that ALL of DOMA is invalid. “

Problem is, the majority decision in Windsor gave same-sex-”marriage” proponents all of the ammo to argue that all of DOMA (and, indeed, all state bans) should be held invalid. As I read it, Windsor was very much a ‘stepping stone’ case leading up to the eventual case that extends same-sex-” marriage” everywhere.


27 posted on 09/03/2013 10:34:37 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

My hope and my faith is in God, not in ANY man, or group of men. Certainly not in govt! I pray you are wrong, and that more and more people will see the light, as they witness for themselves, darkness being led by the administration in charge now. A lot have recognized it, I pray MANY MANY more will.


28 posted on 09/04/2013 8:19:23 PM PDT by gidget7 ("When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson