Jump to content
GutterBoy

Tennessee passes bill gutting marriage rights

Recommended Posts

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS A DISASTER, GO ASK CANADA HOW THAT'S WORKING OUT. 

THEY HAVE TO COME ACROSS THE BORDER TO BE SEEN BECAUSE HOSPITALS ARE FULL AND IT TAKES MONTHS TO SEE A REGULAR DOCTOR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Patented Phil said:

I've completely given up on Liberal media.  My default presumption is that they have knowingly misrepresented the issue. These lying sacks of shitt have thoroughly earned that lack of faith.  And no, Conservative media isn't the same, and here's the difference.  Liberal media intentionally misrepresents the facts, whereas Conservative media simply doesn't show the Liberal perspective.

You'd have better footing for this pov if Fox wasn't going through their battle.   It's a laughable position to take that only one is misrepresenting facts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, League Champion said:

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS A DISASTER, GO ASK CANADA HOW THAT'S WORKING OUT. 

THEY HAVE TO COME ACROSS THE BORDER TO BE SEEN BECAUSE HOSPITALS ARE FULL AND IT TAKES MONTHS TO SEE A REGULAR DOCTOR. 

I have numerous relatives in Canada. I’ve seen the system up close. It is not appreciably better or worse than ours in quality. But nobody goes bankrupt over medical bills. People actually go to the doctor when they’re sick instead of waiting until it’s an emergency and hitting the ER like many here in the US. There are complaints about any system, but when my Canadian relatives complain about their system, I tell them about ours… and the complaints become quiet.

The cries that our system’s quality would rapidly diminish if we had universal coverage are BS, boosted by rich healthcare profiteers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

You'd have better footing for this pov if Fox wasn't going through their battle.   It's a laughable position to take that only one is misrepresenting facts.  

Clear and obvious proof that Fox has been lying about the 2020 election for years now, and they still continue with claims that every other news source is the problem. Whatever bad things one can say about Fox, I can say one good thing. They are the absolute best at brainwashing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

Who said anything about getting rid of marriage ties to taxes, etc?  I just said the actual "marriage" part does not belong tied to the government.  They should have no say what-so-ever in the allowance of a marriage.

I did. Because you can't have your cake and eat it too.  You don't want it to be a government contract yet you want to keep it tied to government benefits.  (Or more specifically to this thread: You don't want government passing laws on marriage requirements.)  Certainly you can see why that's a contradiction?  It's either controlled by the government or it's not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dogcows said:

They are the absolute best at brainwashing.

Irony at it's best.

Do you still think online ordained people can't perform marriages in Tennessee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Horseman said:

I did. Because you can't have your cake and eat it too.  You don't want it to be a government contract yet you want to keep it tied to government benefits.  (Or more specifically to this thread: You don't want government passing laws on marriage requirements.)  Certainly you can see why that's a contradiction?  It's either controlled by the government or it's not.

 

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

There's no "have your cake and eat it too", here.  The government is a processing agent, that's all they are/should be.  People tell the government that they got married and the government says, "ok, let me file the paperwork".  That's it.  Done.  They shouldn't be involved in the marriage process, as is in the who, what, where, when, why, and how part of it.

Like I said above, I'm perfectly happy with people just adding a second person to anything... be it taxes, benefits, etc, regardless of a marriage or not (as long as their living together).  I just don't think a flip of the switch like that can happen.  If it can, great, let's do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Even if they can, it's still irrelevant.  The clerk is still legally bound to hand over the license and then file it.  As I keep saying, if the people are so apathetic about who performs the rites of marriage, it shouldn't be hard to find someone to do it.  Also, that person is likely to be found MONTHS before the license is even acquired.

You aren't responding to my point, which is IF the clerks are REQUIRED to be ordained such that they can perform the solemnization, then they have a point because it is a part of the job definition.  Your opinion of apathy is irrelevant, as is how hard you think it should be or how likely it is that they found someone months earlier.  Somebody will sue and win.

If the job description does NOT require it, then never mind.  :cheers: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, MDC said:

I think the key difference is nobody at the GC would support that act, but some of you spend seemingly hours thinking about where ladyboys pinch one off in public. :unsure: 

There is no difference.  All of these silly motions by government are a waste.  A waste of time, money and opportunity.  

Government needs to stay in their lane, and stay the fock out of our lives.

If there is a difference it is that there is an allowance for liberal-centric waste and where conservatives challenge it there is mockery instead of commiseration. 

Time to stop pretending Republicans are good or Democrats are good.   These are just average people pandering to the loudest voice or the most money to secure their place of power. 

Now if we want to fix things, step 1 is getting the government to fock off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The cries that our system’s quality would rapidly diminish if we had universal coverage are BS, boosted by rich healthcare profiteers.

Instead of worrying about student debt we should be worrying about medical debt. 

How about we start there, F student loans, they chose to go to school. Let's forgive medical debt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

There's no "have your cake and eat it too", here.  The government is a processing agent, that's all they are/should be.  People tell the government that they got married and the government says, "ok, let me file the paperwork".  That's it.  Done.  They shouldn't be involved in the marriage process, as is in the who, what, where, when, why, and how part of it.

Like I said above, I'm perfectly happy with people just adding a second person to anything... be it taxes, benefits, etc, regardless of a marriage or not (as long as their living together).  I just don't think a flip of the switch like that can happen.  If it can, great, let's do it.

You might as well flap your wings and fly to the moon if you think the government is going to pass a law that doesn't allow them to decide who they are dolling government money out to.

Hey IRS, I've decided I'm poor and shouldn't have to pay any taxes! Plus I'd like welfare and food stamps!  Thank you for letting me set my own limits!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

So it's protecting people's rights to religious freedom.  Why are you against that?  You're opposed to people exercising their rights?

Because I don’t think your religious freedom includes a right to not perform a core function of your job. 

HTH :( 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MDC said:

Because I don’t think your religious freedom includes a right to not perform a core function of your job

I can appreciate that. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MDC said:

Because I don’t think your religious freedom includes a right to not perform a core function of your job. 

HTH :( 

The core function of this job is their religion.  HTH :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GutterBoy said:

It's disingenuous to say these are lies and "unthinking", whatever that means.

There are multiple problems with this bill.  I will lay them out to you.

1) The bill was written in a way that is open to interpretation.  So if you don't believe in gay marriage, you're going to interpret the bill the way you are "It's no big deal, it's just protecting a judge or clerk from having to perform a wedding ceremony for 2 gays".  And the other way, if you support equal rights, is that "This bill gives people the right to refuse gays or interacial or whoever they don't like to receive a marriage license".

So we have 2 interpretations based on a poorly written bill, both of which could be argued as correct.  It is interesting though that you posted an article about Kim Davis refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays and how you went to jail which I would assume you have a problem with and this bill is attempting to stop, which brings me to my next point

2) The intent of the bill is what?  Again if you don't believe in gay marriage, you would argue that they intent of the bill is to not force anyone to marry some gays, and you cite that Kim Davis case as precedent, and this bill as a way of protecting the Kim Davis's of the world from refusing to give licenses to gays

Two problems here.  The first being the very obvious in that fock Kim Davis, if she can't license some gays to get married then get a new job.  The other is that you would support her behavior and the intent of this bill to protect her.

The second is the intent was never made clear.  The guy who introduced the bill said he wasn't aware of anyone ever having to solemnize a marriage against their will.

 

So you have a bill that was introduced and passed in one house to address a problem that the author agrees does not exist.  Well you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on here.

I just wish you would be honest and say "Yes this is a shot at limiting or excluding gays from being married, and I support that because I don't think gays should be married" rather than your "It's lies, it's misinformation, etc" act that you're putting on.

  • The law does not end gay marriage nor prevent the issuance of marriage licenses. It protects bakers who don't want to be bullied into baking cakes or photographers who can't stomach taking close up pics of gay men kissing to have to do so.
  • The bill does not / cannot protect county clerks. We already have clear precedent that county clerks CANNOT refuse issuing a license.   If the county clerk do anything other than rubberstamp the marriage, they go to jail and their state picks up the gay litigant's legal bill.
  • The bill is NOT open to interpretation. Tennessee and other states cannot pass state laws that violate federal law. They do not have the authority to do so.
  • Tennessee lawmakers realize The Kim Davis ruling in Kentucky was handed down by the 6th Circuit court, the exact same circuit that has jurisdiction over Tennessee
  • My opinion of gay marriage is irrelevant. It doesn't change the law.
  • Tennessee's legislature's opinion of gay marriage also is irrelevant and doesn't matter since they can't change the law either. This is coming down on them from the federal level.
  • The ignorant fool who wrote The New Republic article has the IQ of a tree stump.
  •  The writer also decided to throw in interracial marriage without evidence for sensational reaction.
  • If someone shows you clear evidence of the MSM lying to you, and that the article writer is a retard with an agenda, maybe it warrants looking into closer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The core function of this job is their religion.  HTH :dunno:

No, it’s not. The core function in this case is solemnizing the marriage certificate. And if your religious, moral or political believes prevent you from doing that, you should get a new job. HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MDC said:

No, it’s not. The core function in this case is solemnizing the marriage certificate. And if your religious, moral or political believes prevent you from doing that, you should get a new job. HTH

I agree with you. If you don't agree, don't take the job, it's quite elementary. 

And if you're queer go to California. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I have numerous relatives in Canada. I’ve seen the system up close. It is not appreciably better or worse than ours in quality. But nobody goes bankrupt over medical bills. People actually go to the doctor when they’re sick instead of waiting until it’s an emergency and hitting the ER like many here in the US. There are complaints about any system, but when my Canadian relatives complain about their system, I tell them about ours… and the complaints become quiet.

The cries that our system’s quality would rapidly diminish if we had universal coverage are BS, boosted by rich healthcare profiteers.

Most Canadians have supplemental healthcare 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MDC said:

No, it’s not. The core function in this case is solemnizing the marriage certificate. And if your religious, moral or political believes prevent you from doing that, you should get a new job. HTH

What people are you talking about... priests?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Voltaire said:
  • The bill is NOT open to interpretation. Tennessee and other states cannot pass state laws that violate federal law. They do not have the authority to do so.
  • Tennessee lawmakers realize The Kim Davis ruling in Kentucky was handed down by the 6th Circuit court, the exact same circuit that has jurisdiction over Tennessee

There is no federal law that states that country clerks cannot deny a marriage license.

Quote

 

In late December, President Joe Biden signed gay marriage legislation into law at the federal level. That law was designed to safeguard gay marriages should the U.S. Supreme Court reverse the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex unions. It also protects interracial marriages.

The law did not require states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but says states will need to recognize marriages from elsewhere in the country.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

What people are you talking about... priests?

Public employees. I have no problem with a priest or church refusing to recognize a union on whatever grounds they want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

There is no federal law that states that country clerks cannot deny a marriage license.

 

No there isn't, but that's besides the point. The Supreme Court bypassed the legislature and extracted a ruling whole cloth out of their ass in a blatant overreach of judicial authority, but that's beside the point. Since they took the initiative to do so, the results are the same.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MDC said:

Public employees. I have no problem with a priest or church refusing to recognize a union on whatever grounds they want. 

I'm under the impression that this is purely for the public, not public employees.  I don't think it can legally apply to public employees such as Judges and/or Mayors, who are allowed to solemnize marriage.  The reason I don't believe this applies to them is because when they perform these duties, they're doing it as allowed by law... not by religion.  If a clerk is to say no, it's because they are ordained outside of work.  That person is protected... but that person can not deny the license or processing of the license, because that's their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

No there isn't, but that's besides the point. The Supreme Court bypassed the legislature and extracted a ruling whole cloth out of their ass in a blatant overreach of judicial authority, but that's beside the point. Since they took the initiative to do so, the results are the same.

 

No it's not. :lol:

Because the next judge can make a different ruling.  That's how it works.  And that's why it's important that we have good laws on the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I'm under the impression that this is purely for the public, not public employees.

This law is for public employees, govt employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For fok sake!   Just read it if you're going to post about it.  It's only one paragraph and the new law inserts a single sentence.

It's for anyone solemnizing a marriage. Both public and private.  It lists out ministers, preachers, pastors, priests, rabbis AND mayors, judges, chancellors, county clerks.

SMH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I'm under the impression that this is purely for the public, not public employees.  I don't think it can legally apply to public employees such as Judges and/or Mayors, who are allowed to solemnize marriage.  The reason I don't believe this applies to them is because when they perform these duties, they're doing it as allowed by law... not by religion.  If a clerk is to say no, it's because they are ordained outside of work.  That person is protected... but that person can not deny the license or processing of the license, because that's their job.

The law seems to apply to any public / government employee who can solemnize a marriage. County clerks are the example I’m seeing most often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

No it's not. :lol:

Because the next judge can make a different ruling.  That's how it works.  And that's why it's important that we have good laws on the books.

Having a law on the book is the way it's supposed to work but that's not how it does work. Congress never wants to get their hands dirty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MDC said:

The law seems to apply to any public / government employee who can solemnize a marriage. County clerks are the example I’m seeing most often.

It should not apply to government officials acting in their government duties.  In the bill, it did not mention that it applies to government officials.  My guess is that it does not.  Reason being, "clerks" are the ones that are constantly being thrown around.  Don't you think that if it did apply to government officials, the libtards would be calling out judges and mayors instead of paper pushers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

It should not apply to government officials acting in their government duties.  In the bill, it did not mention that it applies to government officials.  My guess is that it does not.  Reason being, "clerks" are the ones that are constantly being thrown around.  Don't you think that if it did apply to government officials, the libtards would be calling out judges and mayors instead of paper pushers?

County clerks are government employees.

FFS :doh: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MDC said:

County clerks are government employees.

FFS :doh: 

Have we figured out if clerks solemnize weddings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MDC said:

County clerks are government employees.

FFS :doh: 

It's amazing how stupid some people are and how strong their convictions are.  Dunning Kruger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Have we figured out if clerks solemnize weddings?

Yah that was like Wednesday.

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — A bill that would allow county clerks and officiants to refuse solemnizing marriages based on personal belief passed the Tennessee House of Representatives on Monday.

https://www.wbir.com/amp/article/news/state/tennessee-bill-to-allow-clerks-not-to-solemnize-some-marriages/51-bd8d46ff-8e23-4001-b8b9-d5f1f0be1f65

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MDC said:

County clerks are government employees.

FFS :doh: 

 

38 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

It's amazing how stupid some people are and how strong their convictions are.  Dunning Kruger.

No kidding.  Clerks are more important than Mayors and Judges in your world apparently. :dunno:  More important than Senators, Congressmen and women, etc... because why is everyone so hung up on a paper pusher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MDC said:

Yah that was like Wednesday.

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — A bill that would allow county clerks and officiants to refuse solemnizing marriages based on personal belief passed the Tennessee House of Representatives on Monday.

https://www.wbir.com/amp/article/news/state/tennessee-bill-to-allow-clerks-not-to-solemnize-some-marriages/51-bd8d46ff-8e23-4001-b8b9-d5f1f0be1f65

We discussed that that article was crappily written.  It does however contain a link to the actual statute though:

Quote
  1. All regular ministers, preachers, pastors, priests, rabbis and other spiritual leaders of every religious belief, more than eighteen (18) years of age, having the care of souls, and all members of the county legislative bodies, county mayors, judges, chancellors, former chancellors and former judges of this state, former county executives or county mayors of this state, former members of quarterly county courts or county commissions, the governor, the speaker of the senate and former speakers of the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives and former speakers of the house of representatives, members of the general assembly who have filed notice pursuant to subsection (l ), law enforcement chaplains duly appointed by the heads of authorized state and local law enforcement agencies, members of the legislative body of any municipality in this state, the county clerk of each county, former county clerks of this state who occupied the office of county clerk on or after July 1, 2014, and the mayor of any municipality in the state may solemnize the rite of matrimony. For the purposes of this section, the several judges of the United States courts, including United States magistrates, United States bankruptcy judges, and federal administrative law judges, who are citizens of Tennessee are deemed to be judges of this state. The amendments to this section by Acts 1987, ch. 336, which applied provisions of this section to certain former judges, do not apply to any judge who has been convicted of a felony or who has been removed from office.
  2. In order to solemnize the rite of matrimony, any such minister, preacher, pastor, priest, rabbi or other spiritual leader must be ordained or otherwise designated in conformity with the customs of a church, temple or other religious group or organization; and such customs must provide for such ordination or designation by a considered, deliberate, and responsible act. Persons receiving online ordinations may not solemnize the rite of matrimony.

So it does not appear to define "clerk" as any shmo who hands out licenses in the courthouse, but rather an official (likely elected) position of "county clerk."  I'm not necessarily saying that it is any better, although you can argue that they can be voted out.

It also isn't clear to me if the non-religious folks need to be ordained; it appears not from their exclusion in paragraph 2.  So... once you have been a clerk, or speaker of the house, you can marry people for the rest of your life?  Seems poorly written.

Anyway, I'm not comfortable with any of the government officials in that list being able to turn down the solemnization.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sikhs that work for the government get exemptions for their religion.   So do Jewish people and other religious groups. So the can o worms has already been opened on this stuff. But of course it’s only a problem of it’s perceived whitey is doing it.  Too be clear, I don’t think any of the exemptions should exist. But they do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with the bill applying to the general public.  I'd prefer it not apply to government employees, since we are a country of separation of church and state.  However, it's states rights... they can do what they want.  The citizens elected these people and they're living with the results.  If the citizens don't like it, they can vote out the people in office and elect others who will do what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Sikhs that work for the government get exemptions for their religion.   So do Jewish people and other religious groups. So the can o worms has already been opened on this stuff. But of course it’s only a problem of it’s perceived whitey is doing it.  Too be clear, I don’t think any of the exemptions should exist. But they do. 

I've never noticed.  What exemptions do they get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

 

No kidding.  Clerks are more important than Mayors and Judges in your world apparently. :dunno:  More important than Senators, Congressmen and women, etc... because why is everyone so hung up on a paper pusher?

Your comments just keep getting dumber and dumberer. You can have the last word, dealing with you is like explaining something to a small dim child. :doh: 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×