The last dregs of the Confederacy are in the midst of full frontal freakout mode.
South Carolina state Sen. Lee Bright (R) began debate about removing the Confederate flag from the statehouse grounds on Monday with a passionate plea for lawmakers to focus on same-sex marriage instead.
As the senators prepared to debate a measure that would remove the flag, Bright took to the floor to point out that President Barack Obama had sang “Amazing Grace” at the funeral for nine black church members in Charleston and then later that night the White House was illuminated in rainbow colors to celebrate a Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage.
“I watch the White House be lit up in the abomination colors!” Bright said. “It is time for the church to rise up…. Romans chapter 1 is clear, the Bible is clear. This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and they are under assault by men in black robes who were not elected by you.”
The “take back our country” contingent of ‘Murica is, as Bob Cesca so eloquently puts it, “losing their shpadoinkle“. Power never voluntarily relinquishes anything, however, and when forced to, things invariably get ugly. Back to Sen. Bright:
Bright suggested that the state of South Carolina might have to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether.
“Now, I believe that the Christ teaches us to love the homosexual, but he also teaches us to stand in the gap against sin,” he opined. “And we need to make our stand. I know how people of all colors feel about this.”
“Let’s find some way to deal with marriage. If we’re not going to find some way to deal with marriage like our forefathers did or push back against a tyrannical government like he founders of this nation did, let’s at least not put these citizens in South Carolina in a position where they’ve got to choose between their faith and their jobs.”
Marriage two weeks ago, sacrosanct cornerstone of American society and foundation of family life. This week, LOL why bother bros? Let’s kill marriage and punish everybody!
Republicans are the insane tantrum babies we always knew they were.
NonyNony
I said this at RawStory already, but it deserves to be said again:
Do it, jackwagons. Take away the marriage contract from everyone in your state out of spite. Let me know how that goes for you.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Deadline: July 19.
That’s when the KKK shows up and throws a pro-rag rally, plenty of locals will be there too, attracting every damn news outlet in the world. No help for it, they’ll show what a racist shithole Charleston is. If the reporters actually take a drive for twenty minutes in any direction outside of downtown, they’ll find some footage that’ll make South Carolina look like a tropical version of the fucking Sudan, and then you can kiss all that lucrative grift bye-bye for a while.
Better move that legislation along, boys! Clock’s ticking!
Betty Cracker
Which would be the “abomination colors”? All of ’em, Katie! (Would also make a decent band name, etc.)
Origuy
A ballot initiative in Colorado would do that, although not intentionally:
Betty Cracker
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
Maybe. Instead, I hope many thousands of black and white Charlestonians appear at the rally to stand up to the Klan, shout down their nonsense, and unite in love to show the world that the KKK is a relatively small band of pathetic, hateful losers.
SenyorDave
Aside from the obvious comment about the senator’s name (bright???), when I read about a person like this talking about what would Jesus do, I think back to one of my favorite lines from the Odd Couple (sitcom version). Felix is arguing with the clown who is supposed be performing at his daughter’s birthday and says at one point, “You remember children, sir. When you were young you used to beat them up.”
Mr. Bright is like so many self-professed Christians. He pontificates about the evils in the world, sits in judgment of all, but apparently was absent for all those icky parts of what Jesus said, you know that stuff about compassion and tending to the poor.
Omnes Omnibus
@Betty Cracker: I saw them on a double bill with The Catherine Wheel back in 1996. They were okay.
dmsilev
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Petigru )
maurinsky
Funny that the “abomination colors” are the colors that God sent to Noah after the big flood as a sign of His covenant between him and the earth!*
*I don’t believe in God, but I think Bright is being selective in his reading of the Bible and his interpretations thereof.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
abomination colors! put that one on tee-shirts and display them next to the ones with “Just Ask the Nearest Hippie!”
“men in black robes”? RBG, SoSoto and Elena the K say what the fuck, cracker?
Belafon
@Origuy: When someone points out that this will end an income tax deduction for getting married, the bill will quickly die.
Belafon
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I had an argument with a guy about the Confederate flag and one of his retorts was “but the White House covered itself in the colors of the gay flag.”
NonyNony
@Origuy:
Oh please tell me that the person who wrote this up was a Discordian out to ratfuck the Christian right. Please, please, please!
Because that’s just so precious. Normally a moron would write it so that the law wasn’t allowed to define marriage in a way that was in opposition to any particular marriage belief (in ignorance of the fact that there are religions who believe in same sex marriage AND egalitarianism and so that alone would be sufficient to force the state to stop issuing marriage licenses until court cases could straighten it out). But it takes a true act of either monkeywrenching or moronitude to slip the phrase “or agreement” in there.
The state can’t recognize any marriages that any religion opposes. It also can’t recognize any marriages that any religion agrees with. It’s truly brilliant in it’s stupidity.
SFAW
@Origuy:
“… that shall not be abridged through the state prescribing or recognizing any law that implicitly or explicitly defines a marriage in opposition or agreement with any particular religious belief.”
So if they are not allowed to recognize a marriage that is in agreement with a particular religious belief, i.e., that marriage is between one man and one woman, does that meant he state no longer recognizes “traditional” marriage? There are so many double- and triple-negatives in there, I’m wondering whether they even understand what they wrote.
And if some genius decides to amend the wording to “marriage, pedophilia, and murder are recognized as forms of religious expression of the people of Colorado,” does that mean anti-Thuggee discrimination will be a thing of the past, and L&O:SVU will never be based in Denver?
MattF
Hey, crazy and racist is their heritage. Who are we to disagree?
kindness
My grief goes out to all those who feel their marriages are now tarnished and degraded because gays now have the same right to marry. Bless their hearts.
Zandar
@Betty Cracker: Betty Cracker And The Abomination Colors is the name of my all-tuba Rush tribute band.
Gindy51
@SenyorDave: Maybe this poor slob was teased as a child, you know Rainbow Bright? Might explain part of why he is such an asshole.
KG
@Belafon: not to mention the needless administration costs for proving paternity (the law presumes that when a married woman has a child her spouse is the other parent (it use to be the law presumed her husband was the father, but we apparently need to change some language now)). I’d say these assholes don’t realize how entwined with the law “marriage” is, but they do because they wrote the laws. so they’re just assholes.
shawn
He’s right, the state should NOT be issuing marriage licenses of any kind. But jumping on that ship now is not okay. You need to have been on it from the get go. Marriage is a religious institution and the government can’t be involved in religion. But that ship has sailed and so now they really have to issue them to same sex or different sex couples alike – and they are so hooray. I have asked every one of my “protect marriage” friends why they weren’t upset that the gov had their hands on marriage in the first place – no answer.
NonyNony
@kindness:
They started issuing gay marriage licenses in my city within minutes of the SCOTUS ruling.
Apparently my marriage is now less than it was a month ago. Or so I’ve been told. I haven’t noticed it myself. I guess the remedy would be to get a divorce? If gays can marry then straights shouldn’t anymore?
(Their arguments don’t really make any sense. After listening to them for a while it really starts to feel like they’re the Star-Bellied Sneeches who are suddenly upset that the Plain-Bellied Sneeches now have stars. And they’re going to rip their own stars off in protest or something. If anyone is devaluing marriage it’s those guys – treating it like it’s some kind of status symbol instead of a collection of rights and responsibilities…)
Punchy
I’m sure SC’s florists, caterers (sp?), convention center managers, and tuxedo rental store owners are THRILLED at the prospect of eliminating marriages in their state.
Davebo
@Zandar:
No room for a baritone? Cause I love playing baritone!
chopper
wot, no abortion? you guys have really slipped recently.
NonyNony
@shawn:
NO! You are buying into an ahistorical lie.
Marriage is a civil contract between two parties. Historically that contract was between a future husband and his future father in law. Later it shifted to a civil contract between a husband and a wife, but that’s a fairly recent modern development that has little to do with “religion” per se and more to do with the Enlightenment and the general recognition that Women Are Actually People.
The only reason that “marriage’ is historically tied to religion is because historically religion and government were one and the same thing. The Catholic Church, for example, operated like our Federal Government when it came to certain kinds of contract disputes in Europe – including marriage contracts – because the Church took over for Rome as the government of last resort when Rome fell. That’s it.
Rome had civil marriage long before Christianity ever existed. Like everything to do with the Roman government it had religion mixed in with it, but that’s because the concept of separation of Church and State wouldn’t even exist for hundreds of years after the fall of the Roman Empire, not because there’s anything inherently religious about marriage.
Marriage is a contract. That’s it. That there are modern religions that want to celebrate that contract is fine and dandy but that’s on them. Two atheists can enter into that contract just as easily as two Methodists can – putting a lie to the idea that marriage has anything to do with religion at all in this day and age.
SFAW
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
You want a theocracy, move to Iran, you fucking moron.
KG
@shawn:
Bullshit. going back to ancient Greece in the west and Hammurabi’s Code in the Mid-East and ancient Chinese laws governing marriage between the classes, marriage has been as much a civil institution – a governmental institution as it has been a religious one. You can’t untie that knot – it predates Christianity and Judaism.
ETA: also, what @NonyNony said.
wasabi gasp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa2il_zHFm8
chopper
i’ll bet he does.
boatboy_srq
@Betty Cracker: I suddenly understand why Technicolor and RCA prove Satan exists. ,-)
Matt McIrvin
@shawn: Marriage is not a religious institution just because religious people say it is. Funeral rites are often religious but it doesn’t mean the state can’t issue death certificates.
In many countries, they’ve dealt with church-state separation by requiring civil marriage to be completely separate from any religious ceremony you might want to have. The priest can’t legally marry you; you have to go to the town hall for that. But they still call it marriage!
Jim, Foolish Literalist
kind of on-topic, is “His kids are for gay rights!” gonna be the new “His wife is pro-choice” for Republicans?
”
(Mrs Walker got a puff piece from the Washington Post today, President Nixon does not approve
Richard M. Nixon @ dick_nixon 2h2 hours ago
The Post’s article on Walker’s wife reads like it is written by one of their own people for “Redbook” magazine.</em)
the Conster
@shawn:
So in your brilliant analysis, which institutional authority would deem a marriage legal, if either or both parties were non-religious?
NonyNony
@Punchy:
I wonder if you put it to a choice to the hypothetical homophobic florists out there – you can either serve gay weddings or we can have no weddings at all – what would their answer be?
Would they hold to their “fundamental religious principles that insist that they never sell flowers to gay people for the purposes of matrimony”, or would they possibly reconsider that gun that is pointing at their foot?
SFAW
@NonyNony:
Not QUITE as easily: I think finding someone who will provide the Hellfire necessary for an Atheist wedding will be a tad difficult. And God, being so busy with deciding which high school sports team will win, may not have the time to rain Hellfire down himself.
rikyrah
KAY,
DID YOU SEE THIS???!?!
Ohio lawmakers scrap elected school boards and union contracts, usher in private control after barring opposition testimony
By Doug Livingston
Beacon Journal education writer
Published: June 25, 2015 – 09:23 AM | Updated: June 26, 2015 – 08:14 PM
In a bold move that has the potential for booting teachers unions from schools, stripping local voters of their authority over their school districts and turning operations over to for-profit companies, the Ohio legislature introduced and passed legislation in a matter of hours with no opportunity for the public to deliver opposition testimony.
The bill began innocuously in the House as an effort to help communities turn schools into comprehensive learning centers for the neighborhood. The bill passed from the House to the Senate a month ago with an overwhelming 92-6 vote.
Almost everyone liked it — until Wednesday.
The Ohio Federation of Teachers, one of the state’s unions representing teachers, was prepared to testify in favor of the bill as it headed for a committee vote.
But Melissa Cropper, president of the union, got wind of the amendment that could disenfranchise unions and voters and turn operations over to private interests.
When it came time for her to speak, she attempted to oppose the new provision, but was told that the amendment had not yet been offered, so she could not address it.
She sat down. The amendment was introduced and four men in line behind her who had traveled from Youngstown stepped up to give favorable testimony.
http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/ohio-lawmakers-scrap-elected-school-boards-and-union-contracts-usher-in-private-control-after-barring-opposition-testimony-1.603233
Capri
Remember way back when allowing gays in the military was going to cause the nation to collapse? Somehow we’ve muddled through. As soon as the next outrage comes along this will be forgotten as well, and 4 years from now everyone will wonder what the big deal was.
NonyNony
@SFAW:
Ah, atheists don’t wait for the gods to hand them fire. They figure out how to make it for themselves. So they’ve got that one covered.
scav
Christianity didn’t even bother itself with marriage for a solid while, just floated alongside whatever the local traditions were: Roman, Greek, Celtic, Germanic, whatever, until suddenly they decided priests should be more actively involved. How “the church” recognized, sanctified and intervened in marriage evolved over quite a time.
Paul in KY
@Betty Cracker: Be a speed-metal or goth-metal band.
Punchy
Someone misspelled “pandering” at the end of that sentence.
KG
@scav: and it probably involved tithing, I’m sure.
Belafon
OT: If you want to read something awesome, watch Trump get into a twitter battle with Danny Zuker, a writer for Modern Family: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/06/1399563/-Donald-Trump-gets-into-Twitter-war-with-Modern-Family-writer-is-obliterated.
SFAW
@NonyNony:
Ah, but Hellfire is a Special Kind of Fire, reserved for those anti-Americans who refuse to accept Jesus the Lawgiver – well, one of them Jooooooish guys, anyway – as their Savior, etc.,
SatanicPanic
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: nice comparison there. I wonder what they hope to accomplish with that. Is it a way to suggest they’ll change their minds?
Roger Moore
@SFAW:
My immediate interpretation is that they’re saying that legally marriage is a civil matter only, so the state isn’t allowed to define it in terms of anyone’s religious beliefs. But the whole thing is so badly written that it’s impossible to know for sure what it’s supposed to mean, and I would expect the courts to toss it as too vague for exactly that reason.
Paul in KY
@Belafon: I remember the Hell that was unleashed in SCarolina when the 14th Gaywad Division (motto: Sparkly Death from the Rear) stormed into the rebel fortifications, blasting their sparkle bombs & forcing all captured men to be gay married to their horses. It will be remembered forever in Charleston.
Darkrose
@NonyNony:
That’s perfect. That’s exactly it. Meanwhile, Sylvester McFoxNews McDuggar McBean is raking in the sweet grifting dough and chuckling, “You can’t teach a Sneech.”
the Conster
@Belafon:
A Trump presidency would be a wonderful pastiche of coast to coast lawsuits, firings and twitterwars.
scuffletuffle
@NonyNony: neither, they would whine incessantly about the incursion on their right to practice their religion.
Ira-NY
James Pettigrew a Congressman from the Palmetto State, immediately before the Civil War famously remarked: “South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum.”
low-tech cyclist
Mr. Bright, do you mean these colors, as described in Genesis 9?
Yes, you are describing the colors of the sign that God gave Noah as “abomination colors.”
Congratulations! You regard a sign from God as an abomination. Interesting belief system you have there.
Matt McIrvin
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Wasn’t this going on with Obama for a while, before his position had “evolved”? Who knows, it could be a trial balloon for the guy changing his mind.
NonyNony
@scuffletuffle:
To be honest, I don’t know any of these homophobic florists or bakers.
I do know a florist, and her attitude is “Are they paying me for the flowers? Then I don’t care.” She said that if anyone was stupid enough to advertise themselves as people who turned away business she’d not only take their business, she’d stand in front of their store pointing and laughing while waving a copy of the receipts for business they sent her way and let me post it to YouTube.
She basically told me that she wished some of her competitors were stupid enough to do that. Apparently the florist business is more cutthroat than I ever suspected…
Omnes Omnibus
@shawn: No, marriage is not a religious institution. It is state institution that provides a variety of legal rights and obligations.
Lihtox
@NonyNony: Marriage can be a religious institution, a civil institution, AND a covenant between two people. Three things, and we use the word “marriage” to refer to all of them…that’s probably the mistake.
IMHO, the personal covenant is the most important part.
Matt McIrvin
@scav: I seem to recall reading that in colonial America, marriage was usually considered a matter between the married couple exclusively; if the two of you thought you were married, you were married, in the eyes of the law. And it might have continued that way, except that governments soon realized that keeping it informal created all manner of trouble with property rights and inheritance.
Betty Cracker
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: That article also revealed that poor Ms. Walker was named for a home-perm product. As if being married to the Goggly-Eyed Homunculus wasn’t humiliating enough!
shawn
@the Conster: i’m not brilliant but thank you for the sincere compliment, that is so sweet of you – in fact it looks like i had it wrong about it being a religious institution – one of those things that if people say it enough – ive never been able to understand how anybody can care enough to oppose gay marriage – maybe i accepted their premise and was trying to meet them on their ground – because even their premise that it is doesn’t give them ground to oppose it
chopper
@low-tech cyclist:
you missed line 17:
dww44
@BelafonThe rainbow lighting of the White House that evening really was the last straw for those who are opposed to gay marriage. They, like my extremely Catholic sister (not born into it;converted to it,) have just gone over the top with the SC gay marriage ruling and that bathing of the White House in the rainbow colors was the salt being rubbed into the wound. They are genuinely upset and feel that this was entirely inappropriate on the part of the Obama Administration. It’s not something they are likely to put behind them anytime soon.
Tree With Water
My reaction was the the precise opposite of that mean spirited Foghorn Leghorn from South Carolina.
The first few times I saw the photo of the rainbow White House, I assumed it was digital magic at work. Having learned otherwise, it reminded me of John and Yoko at their most inspired. There’s a story behind it, too, and one day we’ll learn it. Because you know someone in the loop must have said, “Oh, hell no, we can’t do that! Republican pissants will howl!”. Advice that, to his credit, Obama obviously ignored. Mucho kudos to the person(s) who thought it up, and made it happen.
mdblanche
The story of the last seven years. We had a financial collapse and the election of the first black president happening at practically the same time, and both bringing broader trends to a head. Which one galvanized the bigger reaction? And what does that tell you about American politics?
NonyNony
@Lihtox:
The “personal covenant” definition is also the newest. Even 150 years ago the idea that marriage was about a personal commitment between two people would have been considered dubious, weird, and possibly very “Bohemian” (the “hipster” designation of its day).
It may be the most important when it comes to the two individuals on a day-to-day basis, but when your husband is in the hospital and you need visitation rights, or when your wife has a job offering health insurance to spouses and you don’t have health insurance, it turns out that the rights and responsibilities granted by a civil marriage contract are damn important.
From a Christian perspective at least, the religious marriage contract is only important when you’re dead and being judged for the final disposition of your soul. Did you live in sin with another person, or was your life blessed by the church? This will be a crucial question you have to answer to for Saint Peter, but really isn’t important at all as far as anyone else is concerned.
Paul in KY
@dww44: Good. Fuck em, BTW.
shell
@SFAW:
Which church? Catholic? Presbyterian? Baptist? Jehovah’s Witness’? Methodist? Lutheran? Seven Day Adventists?
Eric U.
I just saw a pickup with an American flag and a confederate traitor flag flying from the bed. What occurred to me is they want to go back to an America that was never theirs in the first place. It was never the way their country was, and we are not going to allow it to become that country.
@Tree With Water:
I was really impressed by the rainbow lighting. I suppose you can hire a company to do that without too much trouble, but I like the fact that they did it
Tree With Water
@mdblanche: An interesting part of the equation is the realization by Americans that the country was betrayed into waging war. Indeed, it was arguably the most vital factor that served to defeat Hillary, and secure Obama’s 2008 election. People acted on the knowledge, even if so many of them still can’t bring themselves to speak of the betrayal aloud.
the Conster
@shawn:
Marriage is a legally recognized union between two people after providing evidence of name, residency, birthdate, and consent, and is recorded, like land records, birth certificates and death certificates, in the jurisdiction where the marriage was conducted. If anyone needs proof as to whether two people are entitled to the rights that accrue from marriage, you go to city hall where marriages are recorded. Weddings are not the same as marriages, and those tend to be religious, but without a marriage license, you can have all the weddings in the world but that doesn’t make you married in the eyes of the law. When people say government should get out of marriage, it’s like saying government should get out of making laws.
shawn
@Tree With Water: I wondered about this too – but the gay community has had way more than salt rubbed in for so many years – i do think the left takes the low low low road on so many issues they are correct on (which i guess is better than the right also taking the low road and being on the wrong side of the issue to boot like they are in this case) and that is disappointing but this isn’t an example of that – but i dont know what to say to somebody who was super offended by that – you just have to shrug and say ok, i guess youre just offended – i mean i guess you could try to explain that but if they are already that far over on that side i wonder…
Redshift
@Eric U.:
An essential feature of conservatism in all its manifestations is a desire to return to a mythical idealized past that never existed.
shawn
@the Conster: i already said i was wrong….
boatboy_srq
Edited for accuracy.
shell
If you ever needed a more perfect example of the phrase ‘Cutting off your nose to spite your face….’
boatboy_srq
@shell: The First Xtian Church [of Mammon]. It’s the only one these wingnuts recognize.
The Pale Scot
@Belafon:
What deduction? Combined incomes might put you in a higher bracket.
Roger Moore
@NonyNony:
Funny, because that’s not what Jesus said you’d be judged on at the final judgment. He said you’d be divided based on whether you had fed the hungry, watered the thirsty, sheltered the homeless, clothed the naked, treated the sick, and visited the imprisoned. It’s all right there in Matthew 25. He did also say you would be judged based on whether you had committed adultry, but he didn’t say anything about “living in sin” with another person who hadn’t been married.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
OT: It begins. The egos have landed
Does/Will Christie have enough support to get on the stage with Cruz?
SFAW
@shell:
Them’s what hates gays.
The Pale Scot
@shawn:
Didn’t know the local court doubled as a temple.
Origuy
The Catholic Church recognized marriage as a sacrament at the Council of Verona in 1184. It’s therefore been a part of Christianity for less than half of the religion’s history.
Patrick
Also from the bible:
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
I doubt Mr Bright is without sin. By the way, why are people like Bright only going after sinners (per his view) such as gays, but at the same time not blinking an eye when it comes to adulterers etc?
Corner Stone
@NonyNony:
I blame the diamond industry. And Obama.
*my addition
Corner Stone
Damn South Carolina! I wish they’d just go ahead, get it over with and secede already!
Corner Stone
Damn Colorado! I wish they’d just go ahead, get it over with and secede already!
The Pale Scot
@shawn:
Yea, pointing out facts is such a scummy thing to do.
Especially when the opposition responds by repeatedly denying the facts.
Really, when will the left learn to be polite?
KG
@Patrick:
Old joke about that line from the bible… the elders bring a woman accused of adultery to him for judgment and he says “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, everyone is quiet and suddenly a stone flies out of the crowd, hitting the girl. Jesus looks around and says, “dammit, mom, stop it.”
bemused
@The Pale Scot:
From what I can gather from the rightwing is that it’s only the left that is required to turn the other cheek.
Tree With Water
@shawn: That’s where you and I part company. I feel nothing but mean and ugly where the GOP is concerned, and have never felt otherwise. I don’t think “the left”, i.e., the democratic party, has taken the low road nearly enough. It too long accorded the republican party the respect due an honorable opposition. Worse, it extended them that due as if the party leaders actually believed it. It was this preposterous sense of political solidarity with republicans that enabled Bush-Cheney to successfully plot war. The democratic party lost its edge along the way, and with it also its capacity to wield effective power. In the normal course of things, that fact could be (and was, and still is) sustained by fast talking democrats-in-sheeps-clothing. But the Iraq War exposed all of them. Beyond the politicians that supported Bush-Cheney, the democratic party itself was exposed as a cipher in matters of war and peace… Suffice to say, don’t me started on the call to “look forward, not back”.
Fred
The whole rant about gay marriage that Sen. Lee (no less) Bright plunged into was in the debate to address the issue on the Rebel Flag flying on the state house grounds. This is classic GOPer change the subject tap dance strategy because the GOPer position on the subject at hand is indefensible.
geg6
@Origuy:
Yes, this. I have been arguing this for weeks now. Marriage, as religious institution, is very, very new, at least in respect to Christianity. And even after the Church created it as a “new” sacrament, very few people other than the aristocracy went and got formally hitched in a church. Typically, your every day couple in the Middle Ages just got together, moved in together, had kids and called each other husband and wife. If they had a priest in the family, they might go the more formal route, but there really was no reason to. If you didn’t own property in significant amounts, there was no real reason to worry about what your husband/wife and/or kids might be able to legally claim. That was only for the wealthy merchants, some of the skilled tradesmen, and the aristocracy. And for all of those people of property, the “bond” between man and woman was nothing more than a business transaction. It wasn’t some mystical thing, like these assholes think. It was all about cold, hard cash.
Gavin
Fun fact: After the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1840, the law of the land was for the North to actively return slaves to the South.
Northern states exercised states’ rights in not enforcing that law.
The South revolted because the North wouldn’t obey.
Tasha
@Omnes Omnibus:
I saw Insane Tantrum Babies at the same show.
philpm
So rainbows are an abomination now? Has someone informed Noah?
bystander
“I watch the White House be lit up in the abomination colors…”
Possibility if the transcription is faulty that he actually said, “…be lit up by the abomination coloreds.”
feebog
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
No, the question is whether the stage will have enough support to hold Christie.
22over7
I love these how these babies threaten to shut down the civil act of acquiring a marriage license. Not going to happen. The first time a relative of theirs can’t get a license for their little girl, after the venue, the dress, and the banquet order has been paid for and the invitations sent, laws will be reinstated quickly and quietly. Do not mess with the mother of the bride.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
Thanks to the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, South Carolina banning the issue of new marriage licenses wouldn’t be a big deal, because people could just hop across the state line to a neighboring state and get hitched.
The only thing that MIGHT make a difference would be to declare all current marriages in South Carolina to be null and void. Including, of course, Mr. Bright’s.
He will of course be willing to take one for the team and annul his own marriage, right? Or is he yet another hypocritical Republican who’s unwilling to live up to the standards he expects other people to live by?
/rhetorical question
MCA1
Well, anyhoo…while this Bright guy managed to hoodwink all y’all into discussing same sex marriage all day, apparently he didn’t have the same Jedi mind trick impact on his fellow state senators. 37-3 in favor of removal. In the end, then, while it was entertaining to read Bright’s little misinformed tirade, I guess it was sort of premature nutpicking. I’m sort of glad that there wasn’t a sizeable majority of dead enders – I’m sure there weren’t actually 90+% of them in favor of taking down that flag, but it’s encouraging that the politics were seen as so bad that some of them found not relenting unpalatable, and/or perceived there to be no possible gain in fighting for it. On to Mississippi?
CONGRATULATIONS!
@MCA1: Not done yet. Senate gets one more whack at it, and then on to the House! Maybe they’ll pass it, maybe they won’t. Who knows?
Tick-tock, assholes. The 18th is twelve days away, including the weekend! Best step it up!
boatboy_srq
@22over7: Unh-unh. They’ll quietly change the venue to some state that still HAS civil marriage, just the same way they took the little debutante over state lines to see a “specialist” for her “little condition.” Food and guests are portable, and printing and postage are surprisingly cheap, so the venue is the only real sticking point – and if Columbia says “no” then Charleston is out but Charlotte or Savannah would do nicely in its place.
The Lodger
@shell: Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?
jake the antisoshul shoshulist
@Matt McIrvin:
You once heard the term “common-law wife. Which, at least in some jurisdictions meant that a couple that cohabited continuously for seven years or more were considered legally married. Though possibly not married by some churches.
22over7
@boatboy_srq: I know this is@boatboy_srq: I know this is a dead thread, but nossir. Those things have to be reserved and paid for months in advance. Most couples don’t get their licenses until right before the ceremony. To move the whole ridiculous enterprise would be impossible, unless the enterprise is small and quiet. Those aren’t the sorts of people who’ll rain hellfire upon anyone who gets in the way of Betty and Bobby’s 300-person ceremony and sit-down dinner.
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@dww44:
Oh no! Religious zealots are never going to forgive Obama for this!
MCA1
@CONGRATULATIONS!: I was not aware of any second bite in the state Senate, but if there is one, there doesn’t seem any reason to doubt it’ll get through easily again. I mean, it was 37-3. My bet on the House is that after (i) Bright’s lunacy and the wide, mocking coverage it’s getting, and (ii) the overwhelming vote today, the votes there clear the 2/3 bar pretty easily without as many yahoos whelping out loud as there may have been without those factors. We’ll see, of course, but Haley’s been pretty vocal, the Senate did the right thing with only one embarrassing loudmouth, and no one wants this to string along until the triple K gets to town.
Kerry Reid
@NonyNony:
“Apparently the florist business is more cutthroat than I ever suspected… ”
What, you never heard of Dean O’Banion?
BruceFromOhio
@Zandar: Late to the party, but this is just stand-alone awesomeness.
“Opening for Rash, it’s Betty Cracker and the Abomination Colors! Labor Day at The Agora”
SFAW
@The Lodger:
Heretic.
brantl
like the founders. And I hope these assholes do it, I hope everyone who wants to get married has to go out-of-state for a while. Imagine all the businessmen and women who will go apeshit over the dropping business. Imagine all the bakery workers voting Democratic for a generation…….
BruinKid
Lol, “men in black robes”, indeed. Methinks Mr. Bright prefers men in white robes.