Gay couples in South Carolina ask for marriage licenses

Wednesday, July 30, 2014 8:47 AM
Last updated 8:16 PM
  • Follow Latest News

GREENVILLE, S.C. — Six same-sex couples are going to ask the Greenville County Probate Court for marriage licenses.

The couples expect to be turned down Wednesday morning because South Carolina’s ban on gay marriage still stands.

The couples are part of Campaign for Southern Equality’s “We Do” campaign, where supporters of gay marriage get together for a rally, and then request marriage licenses they know will be turned down. This is the third event in Greenville County, and similar events have been held in other Southern states.

The Greenville event happens two days after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Virginia’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

South Carolina is in that judicial circuit, but the state plan to continue fighting a lawsuit to overturn the state’s gay marriage ban.

Comments (57) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
OJP
6951
Points
OJP 07/30/14 - 09:26 am
4
7
Good luck to the couples!

North Carolina's Attorney General just decided not to defend that state's ban on marriage equality. The way the bans are falling state by state, it is more and more a waste of taxpayer money to defend discrimination.

Farmboy
966
Points
Farmboy 07/30/14 - 10:30 am
4
4
If you listen carefully...

You can almost hear all the people out there typing away, ready and willing to chime in on this article.

Get out those soapboxes boys. Let's hear what you've got to say....

OJP
6951
Points
OJP 07/30/14 - 10:28 am
2
7
@billcass

It is a matter of equality as every federal judge who rules on the issue has agreed. If you have a law stating that two consenting adults can get married, you can't legally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

As for the rest of your point, to my knowledge there haven't been any recent challenges to such laws based on the number of parties involved in marriage (bigamy and polygamy) or familial proximity (incest). However, I don't really see any sufficient reason why the government should dictate the personal lives of bigamists or polygamists. There may be one for incestuous relationships in protecting the well-being of any children, but if the couple cannot reproduce (either due to natural causes or medical procedures), that issue seems to be moot. In other words, if everyone consents and no one is harmed, I don't see why the government has to get involved.

Dixieman
15999
Points
Dixieman 07/30/14 - 10:31 am
6
3
OJP

Wrong. Several Federal appellate judges have dissented in cases allowing gay "marriage".

OJP
6951
Points
OJP 07/30/14 - 10:37 am
2
6
@Dixieman

Pedantic but accurate. Am I wrong that every court that has struck the ban down since DOMA has framed the issue as one of equality (the relevant point of my response)?

GiantsAllDay
9865
Points
GiantsAllDay 07/30/14 - 11:20 am
3
9
Once Georgia and South

Once Georgia and South Carolina lose on this issue, the governors and attorneys generals of both states should be forced to pay all court costs out of their own pockets. The taxpayers of both states should not be on the hook for the hatred and bigotry of their so called leaders.

GiantsAllDay
9865
Points
GiantsAllDay 07/30/14 - 11:24 am
4
6
This is like if the Atlanta

This is like if the Atlanta Falcons were playing a group of Canadian high school boys in a game of football. It's late in the 4th quarter and the score is 150-0, yet there are some people out there (all born before 1980) who still believe the Canadians can win.

billcass
806
Points
billcass 07/30/14 - 11:40 am
9
3
Didn't disappoint

Thank you GAD for not disappointing. Obviously, if we disagree with so called gay marriage, we are haters and bigots. It can't be because our faith tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman, or because we wish to preserve the sanctity of traditional marriage. No, it is because we are haters, bigots and homophobes. You can always count on the left to denigrate the discussion into name calling, and you didn't disappoint.

OJP
6951
Points
OJP 07/30/14 - 12:06 pm
3
7
@billcass

What opponents of marriage equality fail to understand for some unknown reason is that this is just a rehashing of the interracial marriage debate. Then, as now, it was against God's word and what-not. God separated the races and man should not change that. Do you believe that those religious beliefs should have taken precedence over the rights of interracial couples to get married? Would someone who opposes marriage rights for interracial couples today justifiably be called a bigot/discriminatory in your opinion?

Many Christian denominations now accept marriage equality, which means that the doctrinal issue is not as cut and dry as opponents who hide behind their religion would like everyone else to believe. But leave the religious institution out of it (despite the obvious hypocrisy of not attacking divorce, remarriage, and the abuse of the sanctity of marriage by heterosexual couples as aggressively as gay marriage). There are no legitimate reasons to oppose extending the civil institution of marriage to homosexual couples (as court after court after court after court has agreed).

GiantsAllDay
9865
Points
GiantsAllDay 07/30/14 - 12:07 pm
2
7
Tell me, just in what way has

Tell me, just in what way has the sanctity of traditional marriage decreased now that 21 states allow marriage equality? And I suggest you change your terminology. Instead of traditional marriage, say "Kardashian Marriage". They are one and the same.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/kim-kardashian-kris-humphries-divorce/
I personally believe that the relationship of a same sex couple who have been committed to each other for 30 years has more sanctity than a lot of heterosexual unions. We are 14 years into the 21st century and your tired old ethics are dying, if not already dead. Try to deal with it in a healthy way.

billcass
806
Points
billcass 07/30/14 - 12:12 pm
7
0
You miss the point

I was not arguing against the merits of your point. I was merely pointing out that instead of trying to have a legitimate discussion on the topic you denigrated to the traditional liberal fall back position of calling people names and insulting them.

jimmymac
42941
Points
jimmymac 07/30/14 - 12:14 pm
0
0
MARRIAGE
Unpublished

Gay marriage doesn't impact me in any way. If the religious truly believe in God they must understand that only God can judge a person. Let gays be married and let them begin to know why so many people hate divorce lawyers. What happens in their live is none of my business. Stop hating people who are different than you.

OJP
6951
Points
OJP 07/30/14 - 12:17 pm
1
8
@billcass

"There are no legitimate reasons to oppose extending the civil institution of marriage to homosexual couples."

Therefore, the only reasons to oppose extending the civil institution of marriage to homosexual couples are illegitimate (e.g., bigotry, homophobia, discrimination). No racist wants to be called a racist; but if that's what they are, that's what they are.

GiantsAllDay
9865
Points
GiantsAllDay 07/30/14 - 12:33 pm
1
6
If you support denying

If you support denying liberties to a segment of your fellow human beings then you SHOULD feel insulted and ashamed all on your own. You don't need any help from me.

billcass
806
Points
billcass 07/30/14 - 12:40 pm
6
0
@OJP

And of course, any disagreement with gay marriage is illegitimate because, well, you say so. Got it.

World_these_days1
3
Points
World_these_days1 07/30/14 - 12:47 pm
1
6
Religion is not an argument

Any argument of faith is irrational. What ever happened to separation of church and state? Religion and faith should have nothing to do with lawmaking.

Stunned 2
5013
Points
Stunned 2 07/30/14 - 01:40 pm
6
2
Marriage is an institution of God. It is a contridiction to try

separating the two, in order to justify your argument. Find some other term to apply to the union of a homosexual arrangement. I have 'gay' acquaintances and I enjoy their friendship in many non discriminatory social & business situations. But, I will never support a parade or law that specifically targets encouraging a homosexual lifestyle. Don't demand that we change our religious beliefs because you want to sleep with men (or other women) AND increase your chances of contracting the deadly AIDS virus (or another STD). Don't try to take away our religious freedom by trying to impose self serving change onto our churches and demanding the government change laws to allow same-sex gay couples to 'marry'. Obviously, you are a God-less person that believes that you can knock down our churches by parading your vulgar lifestyle thru the street. Why don't you just try to blend in?
We don't approve of a lot of heterosexual's sexual lifestyle, either - such as adulterers - BUT, they don't stop traffic on city streets for parades or demand that religious people change their beliefs - and support their lifestyle.
Augusta should be unbiased when approving parade permits - and maybe next year have a parade for Cheaters. I might come to watch that one - I think their attire would be funnier than the get-ups that the gay's ware in parades.

Graymare
3373
Points
Graymare 07/30/14 - 02:01 pm
4
0
Live and let live

Live and let live. I may not agree with the lifestyle but, in the end, we all have to answer for ourselves. We've all got our own messes to take care of and should be too busy to point fingers at other folks sins. "And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should." Desiderata

Dixieman
15999
Points
Dixieman 07/30/14 - 02:13 pm
5
0
Well now

Are we losing this legal battle? Yes. But it won't be the first time judges have made stupid decisions. I accept that we have lost but don't have to agree with or like the decisions.
I'd like to be a surrogate mother and a wet nurse and my wife wants to be a sperm donor. When that happens, gay "marriage" will be okay.
I do not have a problem with gay people being able to enter into a civil contract giving them all legal rights (and responsibilities) of a married opposite sex couple. Why don't gays accept that?
Q: How many legs does a dog have if you count its tail as a leg?
A: Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.
Why must gays be constantly nattering in our faces and putting their sexuality out in the street? And don't tell me if I oppose your position that I am a hater, or afraid of something, or bigoted about something. I am just opposed to certain things on principle and practical grounds and principled opposition has nothing to do with hate, bigotry, or fear.
And the equality argument for gay "marriage" and the judges' acceptance of it applies with equal force to polygamous, bigamous, and incestuous marriages. Don't tell me "well, we're not at that point" because it is the next inevitable stop on your railroad.
I am sick unto death of this whole stupid debate. Mrs. Patrick Campbell, a British actress of the early 20th century once remarked upon learning of a male homosexual relationship, "I don't care what they do as long as they don't do in in the street and frighten the horses."
You have turned into an hysterical bunch of horse frighteners and need to ease back for a while. You may be winning in court but are alienating a lot of your friends, co-workers, and neighbors who accept you for who and what you are even if we disagree with some of your legal positions. There is no need to throw away several millennia of human history and social organization.

burninater
9684
Points
burninater 07/30/14 - 02:45 pm
1
6
"Don't try to take away our

"Don't try to take away our religious freedom by trying to impose self serving change onto our churches and demanding the government change laws to allow same-sex gay couples to 'marry'."
------
One person's marriage has zero, zilch, and nothing to do with another's religious freedom.

burninater
9684
Points
burninater 07/30/14 - 02:53 pm
0
5
"There is no need to throw

"There is no need to throw away several millennia of human history and social organization."
------
What has been thrown away? Gay marriage changes nothing except the legal status of two people that would have been married in everything but name anyways. Monogamous, cohabiting gay couples have been a part of human history and social organization for probably as long as there have been people. All that has changed is the extent to which society can legally marginalize, denigrate, and shame those folks. Is that the history and social organization that's being thrown away? Good riddance.

Stunned 2
5013
Points
Stunned 2 07/30/14 - 03:39 pm
5
0
Religious law has been adopted by all prosperous civilizations

because it works. It allows humans to live harmoniously and successfully. They procreate successfully and their kind survive. The civilizations that have carried God's word aren't the tribes living out in some jungle mating like animals & barefoot in primitive lifestyles. From a historical perspective: What is the long-term purpose of homosexuals being legally bound by the laws of man (government)? A change in governmental law to allow 'same-sex marriage' is a persuasion to satisfy a few. It has no merit.

corgimom
34196
Points
corgimom 07/30/14 - 03:40 pm
1
6
Billcass, no, nobody can

Billcass, no, nobody can marry anybody that they want. Every state has laws regulating marriage.

And to compare two gay couples to somebody committing incest is just plain sick.

Incest is a SEX CRIME, and how you can equate that with marriage is disgusting.

corgimom
34196
Points
corgimom 07/30/14 - 03:41 pm
0
5
"The civilizations that have

"The civilizations that have carried God's word aren't the tribes living out in some jungle mating like animals & barefoot in primitive lifestyles. "

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

corgimom
34196
Points
corgimom 07/30/14 - 03:44 pm
1
5
Marriage is designed to unite

Marriage is designed to unite a couple for economic reasons. We know that married people live more stable lives, and it is a public recognition of commitment.

As for the part about "God's word", marriage in the US isn't just for Christians only, it's for two consenting adults.

As long as we have legal, property, tax, health care, etc rights designed for married couples (which has NOTHING to do with God's word) then yes, gays should be allowed to marry.

burninater
9684
Points
burninater 07/30/14 - 05:27 pm
0
5
Stunned2, modern civilization

Stunned2, modern civilization runs on secular, not religious law. Other than Sharia, and maybe the Tibetan gov't-in-exile, are there any other forms of religious legal organization of modern states?

Bizkit
33044
Points
Bizkit 07/30/14 - 05:35 pm
3
1
It is both a religious and

It is both a religious and civil act and marriage is at an all time low. The "sanctity" of marriage died long ago-few care today. Probably within ten years more homosexuals will be "marrying" and few heterosexuals will if the present trend persists. Likely christian heterosexuals will evolve a new ceremony and call it "christian unions"-you just can't stop evolution. Equality under the law is applied capriciously in the US so it is a poor argument.

Bizkit
33044
Points
Bizkit 07/30/14 - 05:41 pm
2
1
With all the dog lovers and

With all the dog lovers and their anthropomorphic transformation of their pets to humanity and animal rights it will just be a matter of time that people will marry their pets as "marriage" becomes just a silly cliche'. I remember a lady in my home town was trying to register her dog to vote. Semantics of words change and "marriage" no longer means what it use to no more than "gay" means what it use to.

billcass
806
Points
billcass 07/30/14 - 07:25 pm
3
0
@corgimon

Years ago, homosexuality was a crime, but times have changed (and in this case for the better) and that is no longer the case. Currently, it is illegal for a man to marry his sister. But by your logic, that societal more' should also go away.

corgimom
34196
Points
corgimom 07/30/14 - 09:33 pm
0
3
OJP- bigamy most certainly is

OJP- bigamy most certainly is a crime, because the second spouse is not then legally married.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs