Discussion: SC Bill Compares Gay Marriage To Japanese Internment, Forced Sterilization

Discussion for article #244394

1 Like

South Carolina is one of the few states that I’ve never visited. I think I’ll give it a miss.

2 Likes

a) No such thing as “natural marriage”

b) Being SC, I can’t tell if they’re trying to endorse or attack gay marriage by comparing it to forced sterilization and Japanese internment

11 Likes

Now I’m confused. I thought rightwing nutjobs thought Japanese internment was a good and necessary thing. Make up your minds wingnuts.

10 Likes

[T]he United States Supreme Court is not infallible and has issued lawless decisions which are repulsive to the Constitution and natural law, including Buck v. Bell, Korematsu v. United States, Roe v. Wade, and, most recently, Obergefell v. Hodges,” reads the legislation. It is sponsored by state Reps. William Chumley ®, James Burns ®, Richard Yow ®, and Lonnie Hosey (D).


The relevant one that wasn’t on the list. After all the justices ignored all of the symptoms surrounding Louisiana’s post Civil War policy towards blacks, because according to a majority of justices, the 14th amendment allowed for discrimination in regards to certain allowances.

The modern day GOP: Stephen Douglas is a better American compared to that lot.

4 Likes

Wow, they didn’t mention ‘Loving v Virginia’. Imagine that!

9 Likes

These bill sponsors are getting me wondering why forced sterilization of imbeciles is really such a bad thing.

Well, I’m hoping I could visit Charleston some day, check out the architecture, try that low country cuisine, do some fishing. Wouldn’t constitute an endorsement of this particular bill. I just like architecture and fishing and food.

10 Likes

I sincerely doubt “forced sterilization and Japanese internment” created a catering boom…

7 Likes

Look at the sentence I made from the sponsors names:

Chumley burns hosey, yow!

4 Likes

3 Likes

bought up, because the high court refused to review this Minn. case, because there was supposedly no grounds for the federal government to address the matter.

The couple first contended that Minnesota’s marriage statutes contained no explicit requirement that applicants be of different sexes. If the court were to construe the statutes to require different-sex couples, however, Baker claimed such a reading would violate several provisions of the U.S. Constitution

Ninth Amendment (unenumerated right to privacy), and
Fourteenth Amendment (fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause and sex discrimination contrary to the Equal Protection Clause).

I’t like saying Affirmative Action is discriminatory to whites or like when RWNJs compare themselves to Rosa Parks.

2 Likes

These are the kinds of bills you get when you allow theocrats to become politicians. You can expect similar bills in most of the GOP states over the next year as these politicians pander to the Religious Right (or Reich, as my ex calls them). However, comparing same-sex marriage which is not mandatory for anyone to participate in to Japanese-American internment or forced sterilization is disgusting. In those two situations, the people affected had no choice. That the religious folks in the State of South Carolina think that they have the right to judge anyone else’s actions or take away their rights under our Constitution shows us clearly the dangers of mixing church and state. Perhaps it is time that they stopped worrying about evolution being taught in their schools and started worrying about whether history is being taught, because obviously their representatives have very little understanding of our Constitution and the rights it affords to its citizens. (and if they are so worried about same-sex marriages happening, perhaps they could console themselves that same-sex couples cannot procreate, meaning that they can be available to adopt all the children that are the result of “natural marriages” which does not necessarily include a legal or religious ceremony, only a sexual act and could be forced into the adoption pool when their mothers cannot get abortions.)

4 Likes

The South Carolina bill, prefiled Dec. 3, would attempt to nullify the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision.

I’m not even going to wish you folks the traditional elitist, snarky ‘Good Luck With That!’
:neutral_face:

3 Likes

Just wait until they start aiming cannon at Ft. Sumter.

2 Likes

I’m like you – I’d love to see what I hear is wonderful architecture. Here in Charlottesville, we have some in the older (richer and poorer) neighborhoods. Living in San Francisco all those years, I would go for hours-long walks through The City and never tire of gazing at the old stuff. I do wish we would enter another era of building lots of aesthetically pleasing and structures (and styles) meant to last. I, too, wish to visit Charleston someday for exactly this reason.

1 Like

Be sure to tell any Tea Party locals you run across that you wanted to visit Charleston before it was swallowed by rising sea level.

An abnormally high tide of 7 feet was predicted for two dates during the study year (dark blue areas). Adding sea level rise of 1.6 feet means tidal flooding would become more frequent and the extent of flooding would be much greater (light blue areas) during these periodic high tides.
https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/chsflood.jpg

3 Likes

Those high tides are a librul conspiracy, I tell ya!

4 Likes

Pipe down and get over here so we can pull you into the boat.

3 Likes

“[T]he United States Supreme Court is not infallible and has issued
lawless decisions which are repulsive to the Constitution and natural
law, including Buck v. Bell, Korematsu v. United States, Roe v. Wade, and, most recently, Obergefell v. Hodges,” reads the legislation. It is sponsored by state Reps. William Chumley ®, James Burns ®, Richard Yow ®, and Lonnie Hosey (D).

Since the SCOTUS is populated by humans I would assume they are not infallible, but having said that…the SCOTUS is a court of law charged with interpreting the Constitution. Consequently I do not see how their decisions are “lawless” by definition. Lawmakers should be able to understand this point.

3 Likes