Jackson Jambalaya

he is a slimy politician with more dedication to his supposed congregation than the people of his state. I wish I could spit in his face

I wish I could spit in his face

What is stopping you? He's not in hiding.

He could never scrap up enough courage for that debate because if he knows Mrs. Patterson, he knows that he would be exposed for the mental midget that he is. She would at least be kind about it though.

Gipson has some hate in his heart

And divorce lawyers don't want to give up the gravy train.

Gipson makes $$$$ off the backs of hurt women....having to prove a ground is expensive....gets more cash for Andy and his brood.

You know...the Lords work.

Tresa is Judge Barksdale's daughter. Super smart. She would destroy the preacher in a debate.

I'm a Christian and Andy Gipson is a reprobate. Just wait till his daughter or other kin is in a marriage with an abusive spouse. He will do a 180 if still in office. In the bible (Hosea 8-7).They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind.

Reprobate(Christian Theology) a sinner who is not of the elect & is predestined to damnation.

I graduated law school with Andy. He graduated number 1 in our class. Guy is smart. Just saying.

I would buy a ticket.

Wait.....what is tresa doing out of the kitchen?

1. If you spit in his face, Andy would probably turn the other cheek. But, he'd finger his revolver first.
2. Andy may be a lot of things, but he's not fearful of much but God, alcohol, and maybe an apoplectic Adrienne Wooten.
3. Andy will pray for you. He really will. He'll also pray for God to make him just and kind. That's Andy.
4. Andy is an extremely intelligent attorney (and minister) who will not be out-prepared. As 9:29 says, he was #1 in his class.

I don't think that I would have done what Andy did - though I understand his belief that abuse is already covered as grounds. That said, Andy isn't what the above posters think either.

Seriously, he looks like an actor from Mississippi Burning and could be on a poster for why people don't move here.

@9:57
No one doubts his sincerity or questions his morals. All the more reason for him to agree to the debate.

9:57

He said 2 completely different things to justify killing the bill.

He lied...both reasons cannot be (and indeed are not) true.

So he can be number one in his class, best bugler in the corps, best lover of Jesus and other Mexicans....

But he will always be a damn liar on this point.....and he can prepare all day long....but there is no squaring what he said....

Speaking of abuse; the most painful thing I've suffered lately was listening to Hob Bryan whining on Gallo Rewind the other day.

Don't let the "awe shucks, Mayberry act" fool you. Gipson was number 1 in his law school class with a perfect GPS and is a securities lawyer at a very prominent firm. The same could not be said of his proposed opponent. That doesn't make Andy right on this or mean that he couldn't lose the debate, but to act as if he's a Neanderthal is a stretch.

Now I will concede if the debate turns nasty and the two lawyers devolve into discussions of anti trust and other such mean nasty securities type issues which have not a damn thing to do with the issue....he could just pull it off

it appears that we have two too many sanctimonious Baptists in seats of power. Gibson uses his personal views to block reasonable divorce reform; Gunn uses his personal views to block a vote on a state lottery.

both need to be sent back to their pews...

Unfortunately, Mississippi College School of Law is ranked in the bottom 25% of all law schools, so being first in his class may not have been all that hard.
Being first in your law school class does not mean you are an ethical, moral person or psychologically healthy whatever school one attends.
Being a preacher doesn't mean you are an ethical, moral, psychologically healthy person either as Jim Bakker and others have proven.
A man's words and deeds are more revealing.
He thinks gay men should be put to death apparently since he quoted that passage from Leviticus ( 20:13) and didn't apologize for doing so.
So I suspect that women who don't submit to their husbands demands , no matter how bizarre, being beaten or killed bothers him either.
I don't think there's much difference between Gipson and the Imans who preach radical Islam without actually telling the young men to go kill and beat their wives but who use the Koren to justify doing those things.
Such men are either evil or nuts or both as far as I'm concerned.
Tresa can take him and he's egotistical enough to give her the chance.

I love it when small government republicans make it harder, under law, to exercise their free will to leave a marriage. Like the government (Andy) knows best.

I don't give a shit where he landed in his law class. This was a short sighted emotional decision that will cause someone to end up in the hospital. Andy is all for personal freedom and small government (unless his personal beliefs say differently -- then he's justified in the government overreaching into our lives).

Few points:
I wonder how Andy would feel if a sister or daughter were beaten once and the judge required they get the shit beat out of them a few more times before he granted a divorce.

I also think he would feel differently if a devout Muslim ran his committee according to their religious beliefs.

If Andy thinks you can get a divorce under law when abused, and judges and case law don't bare that out... why not clarify legislative intent?

Andy Gipson is a good man, and has done a lot of good for this state. Even if you disagree with him on this one, he is undeserving of this vitriol.

What 7:55 said. I'll say that threads such as this are why we don't have better people in government. Who would want to sign-up to better their community or state and subject themselves and their families to this (it occurs on both ends of the ideological spectrum) vile sentiment and obfuscation of statements?

I think Andy is wrong here, but he doesn't deserve this either. We've raised our daughter to be an independent and kind woman, and I'd be glad if she brought home someone like Andy.

Honest question: If the problem with existing law from the point of view of Sally Doty and the pro-Add Another Ground For Divorce folks is that some judges interpret cruel and inhumane to require a pattern of behavior, why not just define cruel and inhumane to include a single instance of the abuse of your choice? Then again, I'm one who'd like to see the state get out of the marriage licensing (and "unlicensing") business altogether.

Separately, it's a sad person who resorts to ad hominem attacks on a person just because they don't agree with his/her position. That goes as much for people who call Michelle Obama a gorilla because they don't like her school lunch program as for half of the people who have commented about Gipson on this thread.

Who knew the abusive husband lobby was so powerful in Mississippi?

Anonymous at 6:49, being a sanctimonious anonymous blog poster does not make you much of an expert on anything either. At least the individual you choose to lambast (as part of the clearly organized effort of a few, led by ???) is willing to state his position underneath his name, just as Treasa is willing to do.

Gipson makes valid points as to why this statute is redundant and not needed. But just as there are on damn near everything, some folks with individual interests always want laws tweeked. Case law being a precedent seems not to matter to them, they want their two bits thrown into the statute.

I don't give a damn either way whether this law passes or not. It doesn't affect me - I was handed a divorce many years ago by an unhappy spouse. Wasn't any DV, just middle age frustration with life. I didn't like it at the time either, but didn't have much choice. But the real problem with divorce laws in this state is not in the statutes but in the disparate treatment by different judges - just as we constantly read on JJ about the disparate treatment of criminals in the differing Circuit Courts of Rankin and Hinds Counties.

But I would love to attend this debate should it ever occur. Two very intelligent people discussing a current issue? Hell yes. Would be much better than most of the other crap going on in government in this city. Both sides would declare themselves the winner, and truth be known that may actually be the case. Both would be able to make their argument, and everybody watching would be more confirmed in their preconceived notions.

Well, on one hand, one spouse treats signing divorce papers as a form of control or abuse. The other spouse wants out but one wants to use the signature as a form of control over the other.

As for domestic violence, Mr. Gipson must not practice divorce law. Yes, a spouse can file charges for domestic violence. However, many judges also will not adjudicate the charges until the divorce is completed. A catch-22. One of the main reasons is because Mississippi has very weak laws in terms of filing charges against someone. Write an affidavit, sign it, and presto, an arrest warrant is issued. There are quite a few BS charges that are filed just for the purpose of getting a leg up in a divorce. I saw one case where the parents had joint custody- week on, week off. It got to the point where a security guard would be hired for the exchanges because both of them got in the habit of filing charges and having the other arrested at the exchange. Thus victims suffer and the so-called habitual cruelty ground is almost useless.

And if an abusing spouse is really good, what he or she will do is make up stuff and cite the victimized spouse for habitual and cruel treatment. Yup. The poor victim is now the abuser and loses custody as well as all kinds of other rights.

Of course, I suspect the reason why some legislators oppose these bills (not Mr. Gipson) is because they don't want to make it easier for their wives to divorce them because they act anything but married while they are here in Jackson.

SB 2703 deleted "habitual" and added "including spousal domestic abuse" to "cruel and inhuman treatment." that's it. probably took 2 minutes to draft the new bill. that would supposedly leave us with the ability to get a divorce after one incident of "spousal domestic abuse." Sure that would include a husband beating the shit out of his wife one time. no doubt. but what else does it include? what if my wife got angry and told me she wished i would die. does it matter if she meant it or not? What if she swung at me and missed? That is absolutely spousal abuse. Is it my word against hers? You put this piss poor bill in the hands of someone who cares about the sanctity of marriage and what do you expect? This is a far cry from being "divorce reform."

in other news, I see the Senate Jud A killed Gipson's bill to implement more "tort reform" the same day the House Jud B (Gipson) killed this "divorce reform" bill. This is bullshit politics folks. and now the divorce lawyers are using it to drum up free advertising. you want to know why it takes so long to get a divorce in MS? because the longer it takes the more money the lawyers make.

how about a law that automatically terminates every marriage where one or both spouses are convicted of domestic violence? no additional proof necessary. no civil litigation necessary.

Kingfish, they aren't all saints, but the era of cell phone video cameras has significantly changed how legislators act. And, it's good and bad. People behave better, but they interact with the opposite party/viewpoint less and don't build the personal relationships that grease legislation and get the sausage made. That's part of why we end up with all or nothing laws (that and district polarization - largely because of VRA).

To 2:56 a.m., first, get some sleep man. Second, Trhesa Barksdale is every bit as smart as Andy Gipson, and much more knowledgeable on the subject of divorce law. She graduated in the top of her class at Ole Miss law, graduated undergrad from UVA, and is the daughter of a federal appellate judge (a very bright one at that).

What a co-inky dink Russia just legalized domestic abuse or should I call it domestic correction.

Wait, Gipson is a minister, too? We may have hit on the problem here. How many other ministers are in the Legislature?

Gipson"s Biblical basis for his objection to the amendment (and his single-handed blockage of the bill's path to the House floor) is the very behavior that the 1st Amendment's "Establishment Clause" was intended to prohibit.

I'm against murder because the Bible says so. Dammit, we should legalize murder.

It is my belief that many marriages are invalid because one or both persons were mentally unable to commit. I kind of like 9:41's last sentence. Only problem is some would beat up their spouse to get a quick and cheap divorce. Assets and child custody would be a problem too.

The guy is a freak. They will find a small naked child chained in his closet one day. Any bill that addresses a penis or a vagina, he is all over it, complete with interpretations of the Bible that no reasonable Christian would espouse. The fact that Phillip Gunn made him a chairman is a testament to...I don't know. Somebody ask Gunn. Perhaps he fell down the Capitol steps that day.

I think very highly of Chairman Gipson both as a person and as a lawmaker. Nonetheless, I am dismayed he did not bring up this bill and equally dismayed the Speaker did not lean on him to do so. I understand his concern about protecting marriage, and I am of a political opinion that the state does have some role to play in supporting institutions, like marriage, that are good for society. However, killing the bill because it might further undermine societal support for marriage in general is trying to catch the horse after it's already out of the gate. If the state wants to support healthy marriages it should support (in my opinion with politically conservative) efforts that provide a foundation for stable families via employment and education, and society in general should pull its head out of its ass and stop vilifying the traditional. Killing a bill that makes it easier to escape a poisonous marriage is unhelpful at best and more likely than not dangerous.

I've known Andy around a long time. He is just smart enough in his outlandishly, deeply prejudiced, back woods, sanctimonious, holier than thou (and shame on us all!), literalistic, mean spirited Old Testament beliefs to be dangerous to all Mississippians, our reputation nationally and our ability to live a decent life here in peace and happiness and free from old timey primitive kind of Baptist oppression. If he runs for Governor (GOD FORBID), then he must be opposed because he might as well be wearing an SS uniform underneath his street clothes the whole time (handsome though he thinks it makes him). I abhor his willfully limited view of life that makes him stand up for the right of a man or woman to beat the sh*t out of their spouse and hold them in a marriage, or the right of the State of Mississippi to attempt to foster discrimination against gay people who are what God and genetics made them. At some point I hope that even the people of Braxton will stand up and tell him NO.

Gipson is a good lawyer, and I expect that he's a good preacher. He's got an upbeat personality, with strains of corniness and excessive earnestness. He's what you expect.

Problem is, he has the dreaded odor of piety, like he's got a direct line to the Deity. He's a half step away from Christian Nationalism, but at least he's not a White Identity man.

What we most need is true No-Fault Divorce. Keep religion out of it.

12:38 - you have done a good job of combining Andy's statements on two separate and distinct divorce bills and made it look as if his opposition to the one under discussion here (the domestic violence bill) is connected to his answer on the other bill. Nice job - either Brandon instructed you well, or you might be helping others with their 'talking points'.

And, Bill Dees, the establishment clause does nothing to keep 'preachers' or any other profession out of the legislative, executive, or judicial branches. Nice attempt, but you obviously didn't do as good as Thresa or Andy in your constitutional law classes.

Someone referenced Gipson's class standing, then complained about Hob Bryan. Interesting fact: Bryan graduated No. 1 in his law school class to -- at the University of Virginia, no less, one of the top law schools in the nation. So...

Gipson said:

"At a time I think we need to be adopting policies that promote marriage and people sticking together, I have some serious concerns about opening the floodgates any more than they already are. I think the floodgates are already open and this just tears the dam down.”

So it's his view that domestic violence is so prevalent in this state, that making it a ground for divorce would "tear the dam down" and result in a flood of divorces.

Any decent human being who actually believed what he was saying would immediately turn to doing whatever's necessary to reduce this "flood" of domestic violence.

Whether Gipson is insincere or just evil, I do not know. But it's one or the other.

Just goes to show that any schmoe can get into UVA Law and come out more stupid on the back end.

I believe evil, although he hasn't a clue in his head that he's anything but a better Christian than you or I. He can't see his limitations. I'm counting on his Braxton constituency to get embarrassed enough by him some way, some day to boot him back to private law practice where he would do less harm to the State and our reputation.

2:03 Your comment is right on point, and the one I had when I read his outrageous statement.

I'm glad the sonbitch wasn't at my Mardi Gras party! He would have had an eye full!

Gipson is living in the 1950s.

All you pro divorce people are a disgrace. I made a vow to my wife. That I'd stand by her for better or worse. Richer or poorer. Respectable people don't get divorced.

@ 9:02, Andy is living in the 1930's or 1940's. That said, there are some admirable things about thise time periods that we would do well to emulate. There are some awful things from the time period that we would do well to avoid.

9:23, so if you're hitting your wife, is she allowed to declare you no longer respectable?

Please answer. I'm so very curious.

9:23. Til death do you part does not mean you get to kill or maim your wife and keep her in a marriage because that is "respectable" in parts of Mississippi. Sick. And Andy is sick. No excuse for it.

Time to send Andy back to the cow shit for good.

My name is Timothy Ferrell Stubbs. I don't do anonymous. I am often contacted and asked if I posted such and such on JJ or CL. Well, if it doesn't have my name on it I didn't do it. And please don't assume that everything that mentions Russia or Ukraine comes from me. See first four sentences. I do not know Andy Gipson. Would not know him if he knocked on my door. I have never talked to him. However, I was indeed attempting to get a bill changing the Chancery Court and the guardian ad litem process in MS changed. Rankin County's on Mark Baker vowed to kill it. So it was sent to Gipson after Baker promised our Rankin chancellors he would kill it. Gipson quickly brought it out of committee and the House passed it (albeit gutted to some extent, but everyone knows I'm coming back to finish the job next year). My point is ... Gipson got my bill through and whether he knows it or not, helped do exactly what I was hoping...and I can only assume his intentions were good, like mine. If they were not, it is irrelevant because I just needed what was passed to be passed and I'll hve it tweaked next year after my point is proven.

I don't know Andy Gipson but I do know Matthew Thompson. Thompson is as genuine and knowledgeable as you can get with divorce and custody law in MS. He has forgotten more than anyone else in this State will ever remember. I encourage Gipson to talk to Matthew Thompson and let him explain the "reality" as opposed to the morality or whatever Gipson claims he based his decision on. I also don't understand why one man thinks it's ok for his personal opinion to keep the rest of the House from getting to vote their opinion. But alas...not everyone is as smart as Matthew Thompson, Andy Gipson, Mark Baker, and myself so why should they get to vote? (Please recognize my sarcasm).

Unbelievable that all of you think it's ok to bash Rep Andy Gipson! You should all pray God does not strike you dead! You owe him an apology! The bill has been worked out between the two. Just goes to show what can be accomplished . Glad it's worked out, sad y'all are mean and nasty!

Me Stubbs

Mark Baker is a petty arrogant mean hypocritical lying back stabbing bitch.

If anyone serious wants to run against him I will donate $5000

This is not a joke

Well anonymous offering $5,000 for campaign against Mark Baker. Although I have been told exactly what you posted by others before ... I also do not know Mark Baker. Never met him. Never talked to him. Word was sent to me that he was going to kill the bill I was pushing. Somehow that problem took care of itself because he wasn't assigned the bill. I am not in the business of getting legislators that I know little or nothing about defeated. However, I am highly considering getting in a similar business with a particular chancellor and already have six figures pledged if I find someone to run against this chancellor. I likely would be interested if Baker had indeed killed my bill. Regardless, last time I took a check from "anonymous" it was no good. I would love to discuss with you....I think you can find me if you would like to talk about it. I will not disclose who you are!