Jump to content

SC, Stuck in the Dark Ages?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I can't comment without some accusing me of being a 'Northeast Elitist' or a 'Massachusetts Liberal' but I will say that the libertarian in me is very proud the Massachusetts court has interpeted our constituition properly and I question the morality of the outsiders that wish to amend it. Good luck I say, because all the holy-rollin in the world won't stop May 17th from coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

Well, I've been accused a being a liberal and a conservative on forum before, LOL.

But I'm dead set against all of these proposals, laws, plans, etc that prevent gay marriage. I believe they should be legal and I don't believe this country should single out any group of people in this manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

Isn't Georgia also trying to write a definition of what marriage is, in the state laws, to ban gay marriage? I remember seeing it on the news.

I believe so. In fact, I recall reading a news article (I will try to find it), where 36 states have laws against gay marriage and/or civil unions.

But, for example, the city of Atlanta requires domestic partner benefits, expressly because they want to provide benefits to gay couples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

Here is the article on Georgia's attempt at preventing gay marriage through an amendment. Take special note of the ignorant comments made near the end of the article by some of GA law makers.

Sides line up on gay marriage amendment


Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 02/10/04

Bruce and Sue Nelson of Lawrenceville have two adult children, both of whom are gay. Watching their children struggle to gain social acceptance prompted the couple to get involved in supporting gay rights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even gay, but that kind of stuff outrages me... it is pure discrimination--the product of a bunch of bull-headed low IQ assholes.

What's really sorry is that I'm sure a lot of the conservative imbeciles are hiding behind their beloved Bible. Nothing against the Bible or Christianity, but my interpretation of the whole story says that God never intended stupid people to use it as an excuse to hate or discriminate. Seems that very few people get the message right.

Really though, the whole thing is engineered all wrong... If Life were an automobile you could buy, there would be consumer groups and Ralph Naders all over it because of faulty engineering... There would be government mandated recalls, investigations, and inevitably the manufacturer would go bankrupt.

They should pass a law that prohibits being a dickhead... but I suppose that would mean these lawmakers would have to turn themselves in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD ." -Joshua 24:15

If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. -James 2:8

Life is choices. If you're a Christian you know we all have "Free Will" to do anything we want. With that free will, we must make choices and deal with the consequences from our choices. Both good and bad. If you are a Christian, you must also remember the love Jesus told us we must have for all people. Only by respecting someone's right to choose and showing them love can we have a strong witness. Hate and discrimination will destroy a Christian's witness and no one will listen to them. I think these politicians don't want to wait on God's timing. They want to use laws to make someone Christian or at least act Christian. This is destroying their witness. Many conservatives have a weak witness because of this. Remember to follow the teachings in God's word and wait on his time. It may take many years, but God knows the outcome and what is best. It's politicians like these who hurt all Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

House Speaker Thomas Finneran began today's debate by introducing an alternative constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but allow the Legislature to adopt civil unions. It was defeated by a 100 to 98 roll call vote.


This may be good news for those in Mass. (the majority by the way) who don't want the constitution changed on this issue.

There are two homophobic ammendments proposed, the first was interpreted to prevent not only gay 'marriage,' but also any future gay 'civil-unions.' Finneran introduced the ammedment voted on above, that would define marriage as heterosexual, but spelled out how same-gender marriages performed between May 17th and ratification of the ammendment (at earliest sometime in 2006) would become civil-unions.

It was thought that Finneran's ammendment had a chance, but since it was voted down, it looks like the harsher one would also go the same way. It's not over yet, but this may not be happening.

Human Rights Campaign has a table at this link that shows the state of same-gender marriage in the several states. I'd post it here, but the forum software tends to not like tables.

ETA- I could be wrong about which ammendment was just voted down. If it was the harsher one that was voted down, at 100-98, we could very well see that flip the other way with the second one. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, while Massachusetts is hogging the spotlight, Rhode Island is working on the issue as well. This time through the legislature (rather than a so-called 'activist' court). There is some speculation, that this bill could do well. It's likely (almost certain) that if it did pass, the Republican Governor would veto it, and it is probably unlikely to pass by a veto-proof margin. But it is interesting nonetheless. Like neighbouring Massachusetts, it would seem that a majority of Rhode Islanders favour extending some form of marriage (or civil-unions) to same-gender couples. It doesn't hurt that the mayor of the capital city is a gay man that won election with over 80% of the vote in a multiple candidate election.

Opposing bills expected soon in R.I. on same-sex marriage

Some legislation will aim to promote marriage rights for gay couples, but other legislation will aim to ban the unions.

Wednesday, February 11, 2004


Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE -- Several state lawmakers are expected to introduce matching bills in the House and Senate this week that would allow same-sex couples to marry in Rhode Island.

Meanwhile, two bills have been introduced in the House that would not only ban gay marriages, but also keep the state from recognizing marriage rights for gay couples wedded elsewhere.

Last year, bills that would have allowed so-called "civil unions," as well as bills promoting full marriage rights for gay couples, were introduced in the House and Senate. The House bills died in the Judiciary Committee after a hearing; the Senate bills were never heard.

This year, supporters say they are unifying behind bills promoting full marriage rights for gay couples, and abandoning civil-union proposals.

Rep. Arthur Handy, D-Cranston, said he expects to again be a sponsor of a gay-marriage bill this year.

The bill, he said, proposes creating what he is calling "civil marriage" for gay couples, and allows churches to opt in or out of performing such ceremonies.

"I feel like it's a matter of equal rights and equal protection under the law," he said. Handy said his discussions with House leaders had been preliminary, and he was unsure how the bill would be received.

Rep. Edith Ajello, D-Providence, a past sponsor of civil-union legislation, said she will join with Handy in support of the gay-marriage proposal this year.

Ajello said she found the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision "compelling" in arguing civil unions are really not "separate and equal" but "less than equal."

In the past, said Sen. Rhoda Perry, D-Providence, who expects to sponsor the marriage bill in her chamber, some in the gay community believed civil unions were a possible compromise. But now, she said, "I think there's no longer a split -- the marriage bill is looked upon as the fair bill, the equity bill, the 'same as' bill."

In the Senate, she said, "I'm confident, at the very least, of a hearing. We'll start from that point with wonderful Massachusetts at our side."

On the other side of the aisle, freshman Rep. Victor Moffitt, R-Coventry, recently introduced legislation he is calling the "Marriage Eligibility Act."

Moffitt's bill says a marriage "may only be entered into by one man and one woman."

It goes on to say that same-sex marriage "is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state."

"Basically I believe in traditional marriage. I always have," Moffitt said. "I believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman.

"All I want to do is define the definition so the courts can't interpret it in their own language," he said. But Moffitt said he was keeping an "open mind" on the option of civil unions.

His bill is cosponsored by Representatives Raymond E. Gallison Jr., D-Bristol; Henry C. Rose, D-East Providence; Kenneth Carter, D-North Kingstown; Arthur J. Corvese, D-North Providence, and Joseph A. Trillo, R-Warwick.

A similar bill was also introduced by Rep. Donald O. Reilly Jr., D-Cumberland, and cosponsored by Corvese, Moffitt, Trillo and Rep. Brian Coogan, D-East Providence.

Moffitt said yesterday he did not know of anyone planning to introduce any such measure in the Senate.

From The Providence Journal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

Will if SC is in the Dark Ages for talking about it, GA is even further behind. Seems the GA senate passed not just a law, but a GA consitutional amendment against gay marriage.

Ban of gay marriage advances

Proposed amendment to constitution goes to House


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 02/16/04

A constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage squeaked through the Georgia Senate on Monday, in what could foretell a tough battle in the House.

After more than two hours of pointed debate, the Republican-controlled Senate approved Senate Resolution 595 by a 40-14 vote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

I think GA might got (yes, this is a joke) one up on SC. It seems were still burning crosses, and do a bad job at it.

What a bunch of dumb asses.

ROME -- Six men who put a burning cross on a Dade County lawn, then had to call firefighters when they thought the blaze was getting out of control, pleaded guilty to civil rights violations in federal court on Monday.

The men, all Trenton residents ranging in age from 25 to 41, will be sentenced May 7.

On Nov. 4, Jerrell Timothy Garner, Stacy Paul Jones, Jeremy Ray Sims, Eric Shane Sullivan, Billy Richard Wells and Steven Garland Jones built the cross and wrapped it in a sheet doused with transmission fluid, according to the indictment. They said they used the chilling Ku Klux Klan tactic of putting a burning cross on the lawn of Eva Hurst because her daughter was dating a biracial man.

They lit the cross and left. Then they started thinking the flames might spread to the adjacent tinder-dry forest, so Sullivan called 911.

When the men were arrested in December, Hurst called them the "world's dumbest criminals."

The men did not make statements in court Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Harold Murphy has the latitude to sentence the men to probation or give them up to 10 years in prison, depending on how he sees each man's culpability.

"I can't imagine anybody not having to serve some time in jail," said defense attorney Scott Forster, who represents Steven Jones, "but that's just my opinion. I'm guessing the sentencing will range from 12 months to 41 months."

Albert Palmour, who represents Garner, 29, and Sullivan, 25, the two youngest defendants, said he hopes his clients' cooperation in the investigation will bring lighter sentences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, Michigan is also stuck in the dark ages.

The state is working to ammend the constitution so that gays can never get married or have any sort of civil unions. It is still in committee, but it looks like we'll be voting for an ammendment in November.

It disgusts me that in this day in age, in this country where everyone is supposedly treated equally, that we can have so much support of writing discrimination into the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It disgusts me that in this day in age, in this country where everyone is supposedly treated equally, that we can have so much support of writing discrimination into the Constitution.

Keeps everyone's minds off of airplanes hurtling into buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've lived in South Carolina before and while the place was certainly on the conservative side, it didn't struck me as directly homophobic but more of a "no show, no tell" type of place. Granted I was pretty young back then and the gay marriage issue wasn't brought up but the general impression I got was that gays do have their sexuality determined by birth more or less and don't deserve harassment, but if you were one it's in your best interest not to tell anybody - I guess that's what you expect out of a combination of traditional relationship oriented roots and "Southern hospitality".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in South Carolina and our state legislators are a bunch of idiots, just like in many other states. Many people in this state are apathetic about changing the status quo because the legislature is so out of touch. That said, SC is not a bad place to be gay unless you live in a small town or the SC Upstate. I live in Columbia and we have a large gay community and its a pretty liberal city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.