UPDATE: Judge Rules Against Florist Who Refused Service To Gay Couple

I’ve written about Barronelle Stutzman and her Richland Washington flower shop, Arlene’s Flowers, several times, the first time almost two years ago, so let’s replay the back-story first:

Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed live in Washington, and, having been together for a while, and since Washington made all of its citizens equal, they decided to get married in September 2013.

And, since during their nearly decade-long relationship they ordered special occasion flowers — birthdays, anniversaries, condolences and such — from Arlene's Flowers, they decided to use the same florist for their wedding flowers, But Arlene’s owner, and that would be Barronelle Stutzman, turned them down because, as she says:

"Rob came into the store and was talking about getting married. I told him because of my relationship with Jesus Christ that I couldn't do his wedding."

Robert Ingersoll talked with Stutzman a bit, respectfully, but he felt hurt by the rejection:

"It really hurt because it was somebody I knew. We laid awake all night Saturday. It was eating at our souls. There was never a question she'd be the one to do our flowers. She does amazing work."

Ingersoll wrote a Facebook post about their disappointment in Stutzman and Arlene's Flowers, and suddenly the story was everywhere, with people leaving comments, both positive and critical of the florist who won't do same-sex weddings.

Many pointed out that Stutzman's refusal to provide flowers for the Ingersoll-Freed wedding just might be against Washington law because, while state law exempts religious organizations from having to perform same-sex weddings, it doesn't allow the same exemptions for businesses.

All of which lead to a lawsuit when Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a consumer protection lawsuit today against Arlene's Flowers, Barronelle Stutzman, for refusing provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

The lawsuit alleges that when Stutzman refused to provide goods or services on the basis of sexual orientation in a place of public accommodation, she was violating the state's anti-discrimination law and was, therefore, also violating laws designed to protect consumers. Since Stutzman operates a business that sells floral arrangements for opposite-sex weddings, Ferguson says she must provide that same service to same-sex couples.

This all went back and forth about The Gays and the baby Jeebus and flowers and cakes and weddings and religion and public businesses, and it is still going on because last week Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom decided that the state of Washington has the authority to bring a consumer protection lawsuit against Barronelle Stutzman for refusing to do a floral arrangement for The Gays; he also ruled that Stutzman can be held personally liable for violating the Consumer Protection Act.

The judge still has two more motions to rule on in the lawsuit, including whether the facts case show the florist violated the Consumer Protection Act and the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

Stutzman’s lawyers are saying she declined not because of the couple’s sexual orientation, but because of her religious views on marriage.

But it was her views on marriage of a gay couple, a couple with a different sexual orientation than, allegedly, her own, so that argument is kind of ridiculous; if she didn’t provide flowers because of her views on marriage wouldn’t that mean she wouldn’t provide flowers for straight couples, too?

Look, it boils down to this: the state attorney general is asking for a permanent injunction requiring Stutzman and her shop to comply with the consumer protection law. Simple. You sell flowers, sell flowers, and keep the Baby Jeebus out of it.

I mean, does she check the religious status of all her customers? Does she find out what all the arrangements are for before she makes them? She doesn’t think The Gays should be married because, in her tiny head the Baby Jeebus told her so, but she can’t let the Baby Jeebus tell her how to run her business.

This would have all been a non-story had she just made the flowers. Now it’ll drag on and on … and she’ll still lose.

via LGBTQ Nation

Back Story from ISBL:
Barronelle Stutzman, of Arlene's Flowers, and The Baby Jeebus, Don't Sell Flowers For Same-Sex Weddings
Barronelle Stutzman Gets Busted!

Today In Christian Love: You Can Be Fired For Supporting Equality

As usual, there’s Good News and Bad News.

The Good News is that marriage equality has come to Florida … finally … while the Bad News is that the Catholic Church is so incensed over the idea of equality that the Archdiocese of Miami has threatened to fire anyone who works for the Church if they voice support for equality.

So, let me get this queer: the Catholic Church is anti-0marriage equality and anti-Freedom of Speech? How Christ-like, no?

Archbishop Thomas Wenski has sent out a letter warning employees that they could be fired for any conduct that is “inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church"  and that "because of the Church’s particular function in society, certain conduct, inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, could lead to disciplinary action, including termination, even if it occurs outside the normal working day and outside the strict confines of work performed by the employee for the Archdiocese.”

See, if you work for the Church and then go home and, say, get on the Facebook and support marriage equality, you’ll be fired; if you, say, Tweet to your cousin who just married his longtime partner because equality came to town, you can be fired. If you have a blog and show support for the rights of all Americans to be treated equally under the law, you’ll lose your job.

For having an opinion, and voicing an opinion, you can be fired.

And they like to say there’s a war on religion? It looks like religion is firing the first shots at anyone who supports marriage equality and voices their support.

Again, how f**king-Christ-like.

via NBC Miami

SC Taxpayers Billed For Both Sides Of The Same-Sex Marriage Fight

I’ve often claimed that, down here in South Carolina, it’s not the heat, but the stupidity that’ll get you, and, well, my point has been proven yet again.

As has been happening around the good old US of A lately, when a state's same-sex marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional that state’s government officials unleash the hounds, er, lawyers, to defend the ban, to request stays and to file appeals

And those of us who live in those states, like South Carolina, get a little annoyed by that, because since our Attorney General Alan Wilson has refused to admit he’s lost, We The People of South Carolina, through our tax dollars, will pay for those appeals and the stays and the lawsuits. But, what many don’t realize is that it is not just the defense case the taxpayers will fund; we may also be responsible for the legal bills of the gay couples who successfully challenged South Carolina’s marriage ban.

See, federal law requires the losing party in cases involving basic constitutional rights to pay the legal fees of the winning plaintiffs and South Carolina just got its first bill from the seven Charleston attorneys who successfully challenged the state's same-sex marriage ban. Those attorneys have filed a petition in federal court seeking $152,709 in attorneys’ fees, which, if they are successful, will be paid for by, ahem, We The People of South Carolina.

And, since Wilson has vowed to continue defending South Carolina’s same-sex marriage laws in several other cases in both of the state’s federal district courts, those plaintiff's lawyers can ask to be reimbursed for their costs as well. And when Wilson loses those cases, all the way to the Supreme Court if he gets his way, We The People of South Carolina might be on the hook for those costs, too.

Yup, we’re paying to defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage and we’re paying to have the ban declared unconstitutional; we pay both sides.

But, and this is where I forget about how stupid some in South Carolina can be and a great big grin spreads across my face, any monies these seven attorneys are awarded will not be accepted by them; instead, they have announced plans to donate their fees to the LGBT rights groups that hired them to sue the state, including Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the South Carolina Equality Coalition.

So, and this is where I smile, because I imagine this will irk Alan Wilson even more, the harder he fights to keep the ban in place, the more money it costs the people of South Carolina, and the more money gets donated to LGBT groups in the state.

Hmmm, maybe not so stupid after all?

via NCRM

The Weddings Have Begun ... With More To Come

It’s game, er, wedding on!

A Charleston County judge has issued South Carolina's first same-sex marriage license to Charleston County councilwoman Colleen Condon and her fiancé, Nichols Bleckley; it’s only fitting since they were the first couple to have their application for a marriage license accepted in Charleston County last month.

"I do hope that every parent, teacher takes a moment today to explain to kids what's going on and how historic this moment is."—Nichols Bleckley.

"We knew this was never about just the two of us. We wanted it for us, but we knew that we were a part of hundreds, thousands in South Carolina who were ready to get married right away."—Colleen Condon

And Judge Irvin Condon will be issuing the licenses to the couples who applied before he was ordered to stop by the state Supreme Court. Condon can issue the licenses due to a US district court ruling filed this past Tuesday that ordered South Carolina to legally recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in other states where same-sex marriage is legal; he began issuing the licenses to applicants who met all qualifications yesterday morning.

And it’s already happened for one same-sex couple.  First thing yesterday morning, Kayla Bennett and Kristin Anderson held their marriage ceremony right outside the Charleston County Probate Court and had South Carolina’s first officially recognized same-sex wedding.

South Carolina. Same-sex marriage. Who knew?

Congratulations to all the couples in the state — myself and Carlos included, as well as our good friends Bill and Michael who were married in New York on October 24 — who are now legally married, and best wishes to all those that come after.

source

UPDATE: It's Marriage Equality, Y'all!

It’s a great day in South Carolina.

Barring a stay, or emergency order, from the Supreme Court of the United States, marriage equality has come to the state; twice! A pair of rulings released yesterday by two different federal courts have basically dismantled South Carolina's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage clearing the way for the state to become the 34th state — and the first in the deep South — to legalize marriage equality.

And it all happened so quickly; yesterday afternoon I was not married in South Carolina, and then shortly after dinner I was, when the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson’s request for an emergency stay on last week’s court ruling that declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional; the unanimous three-judge ruling said:

"Upon consideration of submissions relative to appellant's motion for stay pending appeal, the court denies the motion and denies the alternate request for a temporary stay."

And that simply means that, starting tomorrow at noon, same-sex marriages in South Carolina can proceed.

Still, Alan Wilson, obviously stomping his feet and twisting his head around in circles, has vowed to fight on; he  says the laws were voted on by the people of South Carolina in 2006 and that a court shouldn't overturn what the people chose.

Ah, Alan, but they did; in South Carolina and elsewhere, because, something you might have learned in law school you don’t let the majority vote on the rights of the minority. We did not let racist white America vote on the Civil Rights of black Americans; we did not let America vote on interracial marriage; we did not let America vote on the rights of women to vote; we should never have allowed Americans to vote of the marriage rights of gay Americans.

Pretty simple. Still, Alan Wilson released a statement after the ruling saying the issue has not been resolved nationally:

"It is still likely the U.S. Supreme Court will address conflicting rulings between federal circuit courts of appeal. Therefore, today's ruling by the Fourth Circuit does not end the constitutional obligation of this Office to defend South Carolina law. We continue to believe the doctrine of federalism and the Tenth Amendment should allow South Carolina's unique laws to be considered at the highest appropriate court of appeal. We will be seeking an application to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay shortly.”

Of course the ruling has not been resolved nationally, though it will, and sooner rather than later, but the issue has been resolved in this state, by the 4thy Circuit Court — twice — and by two separate federal judges.

Alan, honey, build a bridge and get over it. And take Governor Haley with you; she also released a statement saying she has a "responsibility to defend the Constitution of South Carolina and supports the Attorney General."

You mean the Constitution that treats some South Carolinians as second class citizens? That Constitution, Governor? Sit down.

And stay seated because right after the 4th Circuit told Alan Wilson to stop talking, Judge Michelle Childs — presiding over the case of Bradacs v South Carolina, the case for which The Will of the People Fund was created — ruled  that the marriage of Katie Bradacs and her wife, Tracie Goodwin-Bradacs — and all other same-sex couples in South Carolina who married elsewhere — should be recognized in the state because the constitutional ban "impermissibly violate [the] Plaintiffs' fundamental right to have their marriage recognized."

"We believed when we filed this case nearly two years ago that we were right, and Judge Childs agreed with us. It is such a great day for us and our family. It is a great day in South Carolina for marriage equality! Our family unit is complete!"—Tracie Goodwin-Bradacs

It is a great day for South Carolina.

sources:

MSNBC

Salon

WIS

UPDATE: South Carolina Marriage ... Where We Stand Today

Where do we stand … let’s see:

Last week, in an historic advance for marriage equality, and LGBT Rights, in South Carolina, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel ruled that the state's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional. Still, he also held up his ruling until noon this Thursday to give Alan Wilson, South Carolina's Asshat Attorney General who is defending the state's ban, time to appeal.

After Gergel’s ruling, Wilson filed notice that he plans to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and then asked the appellate justices to issue an emergency stay to halt same-sex marriages in South Carolina while the appeal is pending. Wilson believes that allowing same-sex marriages would cause "irreparable harm" to the state because we won’t have that right if the appellate court overturns Gergel's decision.

See, it would hurt South Carolina if The Gays could get married because the Fourth Circuit Court could overturn Gergel’s ruling making same-sex marriage still illegal even though the Fourth Circuit Court has already ruled that marriage bans are unconstitutional.

How does Alan Wilson not see that his circular argument has absolutely no merit?

He doesn’t, but the attorneys for Charleston County Councilwoman Colleen Condon and her fiancée Nichols Bleckley, do see it, and have asked the Fourth circuit Court to reject Wilson's request and allow the weddings to begin on November 20th:

"Currently 34 states permit same-sex couples to marry, or recognize marriages legally celebrated by same-sex couples in other states. If history is any indicator, the State's claim of potential harm here is overstated, if not completely contrived."

Oh, it’s completely contrived, as is Wilson’s claim that South Carolina’s Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is like no other ban in any other state anywhere — including states where the bans have been overturned — and therefore should be allowed to let stand.

Seriously.

Malissa Burnette, lead attorney for Condon, feels very optimistic that the Fourth Circuit will uphold Gergel's ruling since it’s the same court that struck down Virginia's ban last month. And, as for Wilson’s argument that the State’s ban differs from all other bans, Burnette is quick to point out that it is nearly identical to the ban struck down in Virginia.

South Carolina is the only state covered by the 4th circuit still contesting same-sex marriages because, well, Alan Wilson. He is the only thing standing in the way of equality for gay and lesbian South Carolinians.

So, barring a higher court's intervention, the day after tomorrow gay couples across South Carolina will be able to march down to their local courthouses to apply for marriage licenses. It could be a great day, and a great sign that South Carolina is pulling its head out of the Dark Ages and joining the rest of the world in the 21st Century.

Funny Sidenote: the judge who ruled that South Carolina’s ban is unconstitutional, Richard Gergel, has previously received support from one Lindsey Graham, one of South Carolina’s biggest Same-Sex Marriage opponents. Graham, who has previously expressed support for a national constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, has yet to comment on Gergel’s ruling.

Still, it’s funny that our own ambiguously gay Senator, who says he isn’t gay and says marriage is one man and one woman, is a great supporter of the judge who ruled differently.

I imagine Miss Lindsey is clutching her pearls about now.

Gay marriages shouldstart Thursday without court intervention, attorneys argue

Gay Marriage Could Happen By Thursday In SC

Hot.Smart.Compassionate.LGBT-Ally. Did I Mention Hot?

But first, a disclaimer.

I find Colin Farrell hot; extremely hot. I always have. He’s been easy on the eyes and, because I love a man with an accent, the ears, ever since I first saw him. I even found him hot during those years when he was kind of an unkempt man-whore — I saw that ­video — and I would have hit it then; sure, maybe after he’d taken a bath and been detoxed and undergone an STD screening; I’d wait. He’s that hot.

You can have your Brad Pitts or Idris Elbas or Hugh Jackmans — yes, even Huge Ackman — just leave me Colin.

And it didn’t hurt that he’s an outspoken ally of the LGBT community; he’s stood up for anti-bullying campaigns and is an out-loud proponent of marriage equality. In fact, he served as his brother Eamon’s best man when Eamon married his partner Steven in Canada in 2009. 

And now, Colin is writing for marriage equality in Ireland, so Eamon and Steven can be husband-and-husband in their own country.

And that’s hot … too.

I’ve been fortunate enough to never have any issue with the idea of gay union. 

I think I found out my brother wasn’t groveling in heterosexual mud like most boys our age when I was around 12. I remember feeling surprised. Intrigued. Curious. Not bi curious before you start getting ideas. 

I was curious because it was different from anything I’d known or heard of and yet it didn’t seem unnatural to me. I had no reference for the existence of homosexuality. I had seen, by that age, no gay couples together. I just knew my brother liked men and, I repeat, it didn’t seem unnatural to me. 

My brother Eamon didn’t choose to be gay. Yes, he chose to wear eyeliner to school and that probably wasn’t the most pragmatic response to the daily torture he experienced at the hands of school bullies. 

But he was always proud of who he was. Proud and defiant and, of course, provocative.

Even when others were casting him out with fists and ridicule and the laughter of pure loathsome derision, he maintained an integrity and dignity that flew in the face of the cruelty that befell him. 

And this is why the forthcoming referendum is so personal to me. It’s about inclusion. It’s about fairness. 

It’s about giving our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers back a right that should never have been stolen from them in the first place. 

Speaking out in support of equality in all its forms is a moral necessity if we’re to have a society where peace, compassion and kindness become the ruling classes. 

Only love in action can stamp out the wilting toxicity of the intolerant among us. Only ink on paper can truly prove that the Irish people are who we’ve held ourselves proudly to be – a people who, in the majority, are deeply feeling and have a natural and abiding lean towards inclusion and fairness, heart and hospitality.

This referendum is a chance for us to arise. To wake up to the conviction that true love from the heart of one being to another cares not for the colour, nor the creed, nor the gender of who it chooses to share that path with. 

We have a chance to effect a change that’s about recognising no one love is greater than another by virtue of tradition. We have a chance to simply tip our hats to love in all its kaleidoscopic and majestic forms.

I’m not sure if I can vote online. As I write this in my bed at 2am I realise I’ll have to check that out. If I can’t, then these words stand as my testament to what my heart believes. 

Eamon did not choose to be gay, no more than I chose to be straight. It’s all a trick, a sleight of nature. 

I don’t know where those bullies are now, the ones who beat him regularly. Maybe some of them have found peace and would rather forget their own part of a painful past.

Maybe they’re sitting on bar stools and talking about “birds and faggots” and why one’s the cure and the other the disease. 

But I do know where my brother is. He’s at home in Dublin living in peace and love with his husband of some years, Steven. They are about the healthiest and happiest couple I know. They had to travel a little farther than down the aisle to make their vows, though, to Canada, where their marriage was celebrated. 

That’s why this is personal to me. The fact that my brother had to leave Ireland to have his dream of being married become real is insane. INSANE.

I can jump into my car now, drive four hours to Vegas from Los Angeles, get drunk and meet a woman and have Elvis marry us for $200.

And yet in many states in America, if I were gay, I couldn’t marry. 

In Ireland, a gay couple who wish to share their lives together, who wish to make that ultimate declaration which strikes the fear of God into some of us, are legally not permitted to do so. 

It’s time to right the scales of justice here. To sign up and register to vote next year so that each individual’s voice can be heard. So that future generations will know that there was a day when the people of Ireland staked claim once more to their independence and that we chose to live independent of inequality.

This for me is all about the heart, not the gender. If it’s about the idea of love between consenting adults, then this referendum is as much a heterosexual issue as it is a gay issue.

It is for all of us that civil marriage equality must be realised. There are too many things that divide us as a people, let not this be another one. 

Let this be about not only the matrimonial unity of a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but let it be also about the unity of a community, the unity of an island which has at its heart a gold that this vote speaks to.

How often do we get to make history in our lives? Not just personal history. Familial. Social. Communal. Global. The world will be watching. We will lead by example.

Let’s lead toward light.

Like I said up there: hot, smart, compassionate, LGBT-ally. And hot.

Sunday World

How Would You Like Your Marriage Voided?

I know firsthand what a feeling it was to go from being “partnered’ to being married; it’s really a subtle difference, maybe a change in speech — This is my husband versus This is my partner — but it felt huge.

Now, imagine that you’ve married your partner, girlfriend, boyfriend, significant other, and you’re feeling that joy, that sense of newness, that sense of equality, only to have the rug yanked out from under when a Circuit Court decides that marriages bans against the gays are just fine.

That’s what happened when the 6th Circuit Court recently ruled that marriage bans are legal and, somehow, just. And since that ruling the state of Michigan is trying to declare that the 300 same-sex couples who received licenses last March, and were subsequently legally married in the state, are now no longer husband-and-husband or wife-and-wife.

How’s that for equality?

The weddings were performed by county clerks March 22, a day after U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman struck down Michigan's same-sex marriage ban; that same day the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati issued a stay on those marriages, but it came after those 300 couples had legally completed the steps to be married.

Now, Michigan Governor, and ISBL Asshat winner, Rick Snyder would like those marriages voided since the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, along with bans in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

You can’t get married; you can get married; now your marriage is void. It never existed. You don’t exist as a married couple. Ain’t that America?

Lawyers for the governor, and for the state of Michigan, are saying that "from a legal standpoint, because the marriages rested solely on the district court's erroneous decision, which has now been reversed, it is as if the marriages never existed.”

I mean, bad enough that we are being treated like second-class citizens; bad enough that we are expected to do as everyone else in this country is supposed to do, work, pay taxes, be responsible citizens, vote, and yet we do not have the same rights as those other citizens; bad enough. But to allow us the opportunity to get married when the law is changed, and then to change it back and sue to have our marriages declared void?

That is not America; that cannot happen. These cases need to go before the Supreme Court and have marriage equality declared the law of land everywhere in this country.

Case closed.

Appeals ruling voids300 gay marriages, Michigan argues

South Carolina Marriage Equality: Where We Stand

So, we had kind of a big day here in South Carolina yesterday after Judge Richard Gergel, a US District Court judge, struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban saying it violates the U.S. Constitution. Gergel did, however, issue a stay on his order until noon on November 20th, allowing for an appeal, and until that time no marriage licenses can be issued.

So, the dust is settling, but while we all celebrated the news, the story is far from over.

As expected, before the ink was dry on Gergel’s ruling, South Carolina’s Attorney General Alan Wilson said he will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court. And that’s good, because the Fourth Circuit Court has already ruled that marriage bans are unconstitutional, and that ruling applies to Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina — who chose not to fight the ruling — and to Maryland, where marriage equality is already legal; only rabid dog Alan Wilson, is still fighting.

"Today's ruling comes as no surprise and does not change the constitutional obligation of this Office to defend South Carolina law, including, but not necessarily limited to, appeal to the Fourth Circuit." — Alan Wilson

This case was brought by SC Equality and Lambda Legal after Colleen Condon and her partner, Nichols Bleckley, applied for a marriage license in Charleston; a local probate court judge agreed to receive the couple's application and filings from other gay couples, and another judge, this one in Columbia, also began issuing licenses for same-sex couples.

But Wilson disagreed, and filed a motion that same day asking the South Carolina Supreme Court to stop the licenses from being issued, which it did the next day. That court said a separate decision being heard by the US District Court in South Carolina must be heard first before the state's ban could be tossed out.

And that case involves Katie Bradacs and her wife, Tracie Goodwin-Bradacs — and is the case for which The Will of the People Fund was created — who were married in 2012 in Washington DC and are suing to have their marriage recognized in this state. U.S. District Judge Michelle Childs is still considering that case and a ruling is expected soon.

But Gergel's ruling states that South Carolina’s law infringes on the US Constitution's due process and equal protection clause, and his order stops Wilson and any other law enforcement body in the state from enforcing the current ban.

"This court has carefully reviewed the language of South Carolina's constitutional and statutory ban on same sex marriage and now finds that there is no meaningful distinction between the existing South Carolina provisions and those of Virginia declared unconstitutional. The Court finds that [the Virginia decision] controls the disposition of the issues before this court and establishes, without question, the right of Plantiffs to marry as same-sex partners. The arguments of Defendent Wilson simply attempt to relitigate matters already addressed and resolved in [the Virginia decision.]”  — Richard Gergel

And that’s where Wilson is looking more and more like a fool. He seeks to appeal Gergel’s ruling to the Fourth Circuit Court which has already ruled, by virtue of its decision in Bostic v Virginia, that South Carolina’s marriage ban — and, really, all marriage bans are unconstitutional; Wilson maintains that South Carolina's law is unique:

"Our state's laws on marriage are not identical to those in other states. Therefore, based on the time-honored tradition of federalism, this Office believes South Carolina's unique laws should have their day in court at the highest appropriate level."

That’s not actually true; the ban in our state is exactly like bans in other states — notably North Carolina — where the people voted to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, and where the ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court has already struck those laws down. Wilson stands in direct contrast to attorneys general in both North Carolina and West Virginia, who refused to defend their own states' bans following the Fourth Circuit ruling.

Alan Wilson is just a dog with a bone; and a hard-on for keeping gay couples as second class citizens in South Carolina. But, as we’ve seen in rulings by both the Fourth Circuit Court and the US Supreme Court — which just ruled that the stay on same-sex marriages is Kansas is over — Wilson will end up being swatted on the nose by the US Constitution.

Bad dog ... or, as Tuxedo says:

Judge Strikes Down SC Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Yep, Alan Wilson Is Still Defending The Gay Marriage Ban
SC Attorney General To Appeal Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

NEWSFLASH!! Love Wins in South Carolina!

I'm a little shocked, a lot happy, and somewhat weepy, so I'll just copy and paste the story ...

via LGBTQNation:

"A federal judge struck down South Carolina’s ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, though marriage licenses can’t immediately be handed out.

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel gave state Attorney General Alan Wilson a delay until Nov. 20.

A spokesman for Wilson said he’s reviewing the ruling.

Last month, Colleen Condon and Nichols Bleckley applied for a same-sex marriage license in Charleston County.

The U.S. Supreme Court last month refused to hear an appeal of a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision allowing same-sex marriage in Virginia. That development opened the way for same-sex marriages in other states in the 4th Circuit. South Carolina was the only state in the circuit refusing to allow such marriages.Meanwhile, the nation’s highest court was considering Wednesday whether to block Kansas from enforcing its ban on gay marriage while federal courts review a legal challenge. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit last month on behalf of two lesbian couples who were denied marriage licenses.

A federal judge ordered the state to stop enforcing its ban as of 5 p.m. Tuesday – when county courthouses were closed for Veterans Day. Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt appealed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She put the federal judge’s order on hold and gave the ACLU a chance to respond to the state’s request to maintain the ban for now."

I'm sure the Attorney General won't let this alone, but, yeah, Love Wins in SC!!

What's Up With Marriage Equality In South Carolina?

It was almost a month ago that the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban; and it’s been just a few weeks since other states in that court’s jurisdiction have complied with the ruling, with both West Virginia and North Carolina deciding to let equality stand.

But one state refuses to budge and, well, any guesses which one it is? If you said South Carolina, order some grits and take a seat, you win.

Here’s what’s happening in South Carolina, where it’s not the heat it’s the stupidity.

In Columbia Federal Court, we are awaiting movement on the case of Bradacs v Nikki Haley and Alan Wilson, et al. This is the case for which The Will of the People Fund — on which Carlos and I are board members — was created.

The case is simple: South Carolina Highway Patrol Trooper Katherine Bradacs and her wife, US Air Force retiree Tracie Goodwin-Bradacs want South Carolina to recognize their legal marriage that was performed in Washington DC back in 2012.

Attorney General Alan Wilson said in a filing last month that the couple is suing the wrong people in the wrong court. He argued marriage is an issue for the state courts and that he and Governor Haley, the named defendants, lack the enforcement power over the state’s same-sex marriage ban.

But in a response this week, Carrie Warner and John Nichols, attorneys for the Bradacs, renewed their request that Judge Michelle Childs rule in their favor without a trial. They argued that federal suits are allowed against state officers who enforce unconstitutional laws and since the governor and attorney general are required to enforce the state constitution, they are the proper defendants.

And, down in Charleston, Colleen Condon and Nichols Bleckley applied for a same-sex marriage license last month and are asking that U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel issue a preliminary injunction preventing the state from enforcing its ban, effectively opening the way for same-sex marriages.

In a response to that case filed this past Monday, Attorney General Alan Wilson said he opposes the request and argues that “because this case seeks to decide the core question of two people’s marital status, it belongs in state court rather than federal court.” He also argues that the Charleston court should put a hold on the case until a decision in the Columbia case which is farther along in the legal process, or, in the case that Gergel issues a preliminary injunction, the injunction be put on hold until the state can appeal to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The same court, by the way, that has already ruled same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.

In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] and South Carolina Equity are suing South Carolina’s Department of Motor Vehicles in federal court in Greenville on behalf of three people who had same-sex marriages in other states and changed their surnames. The suit alleges that DMV officials refused to allow them to use the names on their licenses.

There’s the update, but let’s break it down very simply: say that Judge Childs rules favorably in the case of Bradacs v Haley, Wilson, et al, which she’ll have to do because a ruling from a higher court has already been given. Well, then Nikki Haley and her Little Lap Dog Alana Wilson will file an appeal and take their case to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who will, and I’ll put this in laymen’s terms and avoid the legalese, look at Haley and say, “Bitch, please! You’re wasting time and tax dollars. This case was decided in October. Take your hate, put it on a shelf and move on."

Undoubtedly, though, Nikki Haley who doesn’t understand when she is wrong — something she is most of the time — will them have Toto, er, Wilson, file an appeal to the US Supreme court and they will say, “Bitch please! We said we would let the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling stand. You have no case. Go home.”

And then she might, after having wasted time she could have spent on governing the state, and tax payer dollars that could have gone to something more important t than the fight against equality.

I said this the other day, but I’ll say it again; back in the 1960s Alabama Governor George Wallace blocked a schoolhouse door to keep Black children from entering the schools. That is his legacy, being on the wrong side of the Civil Rights movement and literally standing in the way of equality.

By comparison, Nikki Haley is figuratively barring the door to marriage for same-sex couples in South Carolina, and that will be her legacy; she will be remembered for a few things, but one of the most prominent will be her fight against marriage equality even after the battle for equality has been won.

It’s time to step aside, Governor Haley; you’ve lost.

Build a bridge … and get over it.