Tennessee passes bill gutting marriage rights

[Voltaire 5,316]

More MSM lies and framing that the forum's unthinking left just swallows.

We've seen this before. State law doesn't overturn national law. We already know what happens when a county clerk refuses to certify gay marriage  because we've been down that road before.  This exact scenario came up in Kentucky. The clerk went to jail and some junior staff members certified the marriage. Then the gays sued the state of Kentucky and taxpayers there had to foot the bill for the gay couple's legal defense. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/23/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-suit-court-rules-kentucky-must-pay-fees/2101785001/

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,446]

7 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Nope. The mainstream media is almost always accurate. They were in this case. The “alternative” conservative media lie constantly. It’s not a “both sides” thing; it never has been. 

Russia, Covid. Yup , the MSM is on a roll. 

[Dizkneelande 1,101]

24 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Russia, Covid. Yup , the MSM is on a roll. 

It’s best to just ridicule this clown 

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

10 hours ago, shorepatrol said:

Phags should keep to pushing in colons and not pushing legislation.  

Imagine if there were a condom which could test for early signs of colon cancer, maybe by some noticeable color change.  That one invention could reduce the spread of Aids and reduce deaths from colon cancer.  The gay community would benefit greatly.

[Voltaire 5,316]

7 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Nope. The mainstream media is almost always accurate. They were in this case. The “alternative” conservative media lie constantly. It’s not a “both sides” thing; it never has been. 

The very thread you posted this in is based on a blatant, easily disproven MSM lie.

Someone who thinks the MSM is almost always accurate needs to inform The New Republic that this situation has already happen and been decided in court very unfavorably for the clerk who refused to recognize gay marriage and to stop lying to and gaslighting people.

Its especially enforceable in Tennessee which shares the same 6th Circuit district with Kentucky, where the original federal lawsuit originated.

[RLLD 4,231]

12 hours ago, dogcows said:

My point is that despite the fact that our healthcare system is supposedly far superior to other countries, a backwards country like Cuba has a longer life expectancy than we do. I thought the most basic function of healthcare was to keep you alive? 

If we can’t match a totalitarian dump like Cuba for life expectancy, how can we possibly say we have a good healthcare system?

You are confusing correlation and causation.   You assume it is the healthcare system in Cuba that is resulting in the longer life. There are other reasons for longer life, as with the island of Ikara.  What you are doing, unfortunately, is regurgitating the political gamesmanship instead of looking at the multi-variate analysis....and it is lifestyle choices that dominate the influence on lifespan and not healthcare systems. 

[seafoam1 3,031]

12 minutes ago, RLLD said:

You are confusing correlation and causation.   You assume it is the healthcare system in Cuba that is resulting in the longer life. There are other reasons for longer life, as with the island of Ikara.  What you are doing, unfortunately, is regurgitating the political gamesmanship instead of looking at the multi-variate analysis....and it is lifestyle choices that dominate the influence on lifespan and not healthcare systems. 

Not to those who believe the government is our primary caretaker in life. This is how the liberals think and vote. They don't think of themselves being in charge of themselves when it comes to personal accountability. They believe in what their preferred liberal handlers tell them.

[Sean Mooney 1,983]

At the very least a reasonable person can see that this is "canary in the coal mine" legislation.

 

Which yes- before people get their panties in a wad....both sides are guilty of

[dogcows 1,030]

32 minutes ago, RLLD said:

You are confusing correlation and causation.   You assume it is the healthcare system in Cuba that is resulting in the longer life. There are other reasons for longer life, as with the island of Ikara.  What you are doing, unfortunately, is regurgitating the political gamesmanship instead of looking at the multi-variate analysis....and it is lifestyle choices that dominate the influence on lifespan and not healthcare systems. 

Please explain your criteria for what you think makes a good healthcare system. So far, nobody here has done so.

[MDC 7,435]

7 hours ago, Voltaire said:

More MSM lies and framing that the forum's unthinking left just swallows.

We've seen this before. State law doesn't overturn national law. We already know what happens when a county clerk refuses to certify gay marriage  because we've been down that road before.  This exact scenario came up in Kentucky. The clerk went to jail and some junior staff members certified the marriage. Then the gays sued the state of Kentucky and taxpayers there had to foot the bill for the gay couple's legal defense. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/23/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-suit-court-rules-kentucky-must-pay-fees/2101785001/

 

 

I sort of remembered this case and skimmed the article. It’s unfortunate that taxpayers had to foot the bill but the ultimate responsibility lies with the clerk. If certifying marriages is part of the job description and you can’t or won’t perform those duties, get another job? One that you can do.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

Render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceasar's and unto God the things which are God's.

 

I never understood religious folks trying to impose their values on others in the secular world.  The problem lately is that not only do therse types of folks still exist, but now there is a religious otrthodoxy to liberalism which also wants to impose views on others.  Both sides, leave the rest of us alone, please! 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,446]

34 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Please explain your criteria for what you think makes a good healthcare system. So far, nobody here has done so.

Sunshine and clean water is good for you. 

[League Champion 1,911]

48 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Please explain your criteria for what you think makes a good healthcare system. So far, nobody here has done so.

I pay well over a thousand a month for health insurance and get the same care as a Hood Rat on Welfare. That makes sense

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

16 hours ago, dogcows said:

The license isn’t valid until it’s been solemnized.

You have to get somebody to perform the ceremony within 30 days.

More info on the TN laws here:

https://www.ulc.org/wedding-laws/tennessee#:~:text=The state of Tennessee allows residents and nonresidents,more before a marriage license can be granted.

PS - Online ordinations are not valid if you want to perform a marriage in Tennessee.

 

16 hours ago, MDC said:

Thank you.  

Ok, so the license isn't valid until it's been solemnized.  Has that changed?  No, it hasn't.  Neither has the process of getting the license.  NO ONE can be DENIED a license.

Second, so what if the ceremony has to be performed within 30 days?  Has that changed?  No, it hasn't.  People are going to go about their wedding plans long before getting the license.  They're going to have someone already in line to perform the ceremony long before they even get the license.

Lastly, you're wrong.  Tennessee absolutely does recognize recognize online ordinations.

https://freeordination.com/how-to-get-ordained/online-ordination-by-state/tennessee-online-ordination/#:~:text=The first thing you should,weddings anywhere in the State.

Quote

If you are considering getting ordained online to officiate weddings in Tennessee, then you have come to the right place. The first thing you should know is that it is 100% legal for you to get ordained online in Tennessee to officiate weddings.

Any more "misinformation" you want to throw out there?

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

16 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

How is this right being threatened? 

Remember the baker who got sued by a gay couple because he wouldn't make their cake?  That's the right that's being protected.  Tennessee is being proactive.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

7 hours ago, Voltaire said:

More MSM lies and framing that the forum's unthinking left just swallows.

We've seen this before. State law doesn't overturn national law. We already know what happens when a county clerk refuses to certify gay marriage  because we've been down that road before.  This exact scenario came up in Kentucky. The clerk went to jail and some junior staff members certified the marriage. Then the gays sued the state of Kentucky and taxpayers there had to foot the bill for the gay couple's legal defense. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/23/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-suit-court-rules-kentucky-must-pay-fees/2101785001/

 

 

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.

Quote

HB 0878 was introduced by Representative Monty Fritts (R - Kingston) and he said on the House floor that he was not aware of anyone who was forced to solemnize a marriage against their beliefs.

 

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.

[RLLD 4,231]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

Please explain your criteria for what you think makes a good healthcare system. So far, nobody here has done so.

Oh my, well my criteria is going to be my own subject requirements of course so my individual thoughts on it should be colored by my own needs I surmise.

But I might propose that most people would assert that have ready-access to some basic health care is a must, and then having quality services and quality professionals ( not diverse.....but quality), and then having it be affordable would be a 3rd consideration.  If cost is your issue, then you must be willing to give up speed and quality. The triple constraints are always in effect no matter what it is you are undertaking, and they cannot be violated. As a further aside, having access to qualified ( not diverse....but qualified) individuals for escalated care, regardless of cost...

Most people require basic healthcare, unless their personal health choices have put them in a place where they have more serious problems. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

15 hours ago, Horseman said:

I agree, but they are, and taxes and SS are tied to it so in the end it's all about getting the benefits.

Sure, but you don't need to get the governments "permission" first, they in fact should be the LAST to know.  Marriage's are personal contracts, not public.  Here's how it should work.

1. Every state (or even federally), should have a "Standard Marriage Contract", meaning, what information must be on it.
2. People wanting to get married can just download it, got to city hall to pick it up, or go to ANY library in the state to get one.
3. Ordained clergy signs after performing the ceremony.
4. People return it to city hall.

Done.  That's it.  All the state has to do it provide the form for you to have to fill out and get signed.  After that, they can get notified when the process is complete.  Doesn't even matter where, when, how, or why the marriage happened.  You can get the form when you're 18 and get married when you're 55.  Who cares?  It's none of their (the governments), business who you are and who your significant other is... nor is it their business WHEN you finally choose to do it.

[MDC 7,435]

26 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

 

Ok, so the license isn't valid until it's been solemnized.  Has that changed?  No, it hasn't.  Neither has the process of getting the license.  NO ONE can be DENIED a license.

The change seems to be that clerks and other government employees can now refuse to solemnize the license on religious / moral grounds, right? So you could potentially have to find another county clerk or government employee if you wanted to get married.

[League Champion 1,911]

Ohh thank God, Queers can still get married!

Because this is really what we need to be focusing on right now, not Joe Biden's cluster F of a Presidency.  

[MDC 7,435]

Just now, League Champion said:

Ohh thank God, Queers can still get married!

Because this is really what we need to be focusing on right now, not Joe Biden's cluster F of a Presidency.  

You’re right we should focus on the big issues, like tranny bathrooms and drag queen story hour.

Maybe get some CRT in there too.  

[GutterBoy 2,899]

2 minutes ago, League Champion said:

Ohh thank God, Queers can still get married!

Because this is really what we need to be focusing on right now, not Joe Biden's cluster F of a Presidency.  

I agree, which is why is makes no sense for Republicans to keep passing legislation taking away gay rights.

Maybe Republicans should focus on ideas to win back the WH and make this country better.

[RLLD 4,231]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

You’re right we should focus on the big issues, like tranny bathrooms and drag queen story hour.

Maybe get some CRT in there too.  

No No I have it, lets pass the Emmitt Till Act, that should be a nice fix for our issues for sure!  

[MDC 7,435]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

No No I have it, lets pass the Emmitt Till Act, that should be a nice fix for our issues for sure!  

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.  

[Horseman 2,459]

30 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Sure, but you don't need to get the governments "permission" first, they in fact should be the LAST to know.  Marriage's are personal contracts, not public.  Here's how it should work.

1. Every state (or even federally), should have a "Standard Marriage Contract", meaning, what information must be on it.
2. People wanting to get married can just download it, got to city hall to pick it up, or go to ANY library in the state to get one.
3. Ordained clergy signs after performing the ceremony.
4. People return it to city hall.

Done.  That's it.  All the state has to do it provide the form for you to have to fill out and get signed.  After that, they can get notified when the process is complete.  Doesn't even matter where, when, how, or why the marriage happened.  You can get the form when you're 18 and get married when you're 55.  Who cares?  It's none of their (the governments), business who you are and who your significant other is... nor is it their business WHEN you finally choose to do it.

If they are personal contracts then why do you have the state (or even federally) issue them?  What's the purpose?  Just have your religion do it or if non-religious make your own declaration.

[The Real timschochet 6,774]

2 hours ago, Voltaire said:

 

Someone who thinks the MSM is almost always accurate needs to inform The New Republic

This is wrong because The New Republic is an opinion magazine, not a reporter of the news. 

And this is a common error made by those who attack the MSM as inaccurate: almost always your evidence is some opinion piece. In this instance the MSM reported this story accurately as they always do. The New Republic offered their own spin on it, as they always do. But the New Republic’s spin was not false reporting because they are not reporters. They are offering an opinion. 

[jerryskids 6,800]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

Please explain your criteria for what you think makes a good healthcare system. So far, nobody here has done so.

I'm open to improvements in our system, but it is extremely simplistic to look at life expectancy (LE).  Here are a few reasons:

1. Population:  US is #3 in the world; our LE is higher than the rest of the top 10, it isn't until Japan at 11 which is 1/3 the size.

https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/

2. Diversity:  The US is the most ethnically diverse country by far, and as such needs to deal with ethnically diverse medical issues.  Japan is extremely homogeneous; there probably aren't a lot of people suffering from sickle cell anemia there like we do with our black population, for instance.

3. Lifestyle:  As has been mentioned, we are a bunch of morbidly obese fat focks, much more so than many other industrialized nations.

4. Research:  The US is #1 in medical advancements and there is no comparison, but that development costs money.  Honestly I don't know why we don't charge the fock out of other nations to use our advancements.  Unfortunately, like the military, we seem happy to just let other people ride our coat tails and then pompously tell us how much better their system is than ours.  

[The Real timschochet 6,774]

3 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Russia, Covid. Yup , the MSM is on a roll. 

And here we have, in a few words, the result that happens when people distrust the MSM. The reporting on Russia (I’m assuming you’re referring to their involvement in the 2016 election?) was accurate. The reporting on Covid was accurate. Yet because alternative conservative news offered a false, operative narrative, you’re confused and in an unfortunate state of delusion. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

20 minutes ago, MDC said:

The change seems to be that clerks and other government employees can now refuse to solemnize the license on religious / moral grounds, right? So you could potentially have to find another county clerk or government employee if you wanted to get married.

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

You would only need to find another government agent if you wanted them to actually perform the rights.  As I said above, if you're so apathetic towards marriage that you're fine with a mayor or judge (again... performing marriage rights DOES NOT automatically come with the job of "clerk"), then why do you care if you have to go to another judge or mayor to get married?

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

6 minutes ago, Horseman said:

If they are personal contacts then why do you have the state (or even federally) issue them?  What's the purpose?  Just have your religion do it or if non-religious make your own declaration.

As you said, it's tied to taxes, SS, and other benefits.  You just have to let them know that it's done.  You have a standard so that the proper information is filled out, so that nothing is overlooked when it comes to taxes, benefits, etc.

[dogcows 1,030]

1 hour ago, League Champion said:

I pay well over a thousand a month for health insurance and get the same care as a Hood Rat on Welfare. That makes sense

This is a great argument for a universal system. Everybody would have to pay, and everybody would be covered. Right now, 10s of millions get government Medicaid. Many millions more seniors get Medicare. But unless you’re in poverty or old, you have to buy private coverage while paying for others’ Government care that you can’t use.

American healthcare is by far the most expensive in the world. But it is far from the best in the world. Countries with universal systems pay way less than we do per person, and many of them have better care than we do too.

Our current system is good for health insurance executives, and not much of anybody else.

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

10 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Nope. The mainstream media is almost always accurate. They were in this case. The “alternative” conservative media lie constantly. It’s not a “both sides” thing; it never has been. 

Ignorance is bliss in your world.  Must be nice.

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

31 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I agree, which is why is makes no sense for Republicans to keep passing legislation taking away gay rights.

Maybe Republicans should focus on ideas to win back the WH and make this country better.

Confirmed troll.

[jerryskids 6,800]

9 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?

You would only need to find another government agent if you wanted them to actually perform the rights.  As I said above, if you're so apathetic towards marriage that you're fine with a mayor or judge (again... performing marriage rights DOES NOT automatically come with the job of "clerk"), then why do you care if you have to go to another judge or mayor to get married?

 

In fairness, IMO the question is whether or not the bolded is true in Tennessee.  If clerks are also required to be ordained to perform the "solemnization," then they have a reasonable point to require it as part of the job.

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

5 minutes ago, dogcows said:

This is a great argument for a universal system. Everybody would have to pay, and everybody would be covered. Right now, 10s of millions get government Medicaid. Many millions more seniors get Medicare. But unless you’re in poverty or old, you have to buy private coverage while paying for others’ Government care that you can’t use.

American healthcare is by far the most expensive in the world. But it is far from the best in the world. Countries with universal systems pay way less than we do per person, and many of them have better care than we do too.

You want a good healthcare system?  No insurance for everyday issues... only catastrophic, such as dismemberment, cancer, ALS, etc.

You know why Cuban's live longer?  Because they aren't entitled, spoiled, or lazy and gorge themselves on horrible American diets.  The #1 cause of our expensive healthcare system is unhealthy decisions when it comes to exercise, eating, and general habits.

[League Champion 1,911]

9 minutes ago, dogcows said:

This is a great argument for a universal system.

Exactly, why the hell should I pay anything when someone else can get it for nothing and get the same care? At least put us paying customers to the front of the lines. It's sad to have to say that but it is what it is. 

[Horseman 2,459]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

As you said, it's tied to taxes, SS, and other benefits.  You just have to let them know that it's done.  You have a standard so that the proper information is filled out, so that nothing is overlooked when it comes to taxes, benefits, etc.

Ok, then you still have a contract with the government.  I thought we were going to get rid of the marriage tie to taxes and SS etc., to me that's a much more interesting discussion.  

Personally, I don't believe in the tradition of marriage.  It's a dumb tradition, like the Christmas tree is a dumb tradition.  Who in their right mind brings a dead pine tree into their house and wraps electrical cords around it?  Similarly why interject the concept of monetary benefits into the most personal of personal relationships?

It's simple, file taxes individually or jointly, who cares if you're married.  A dependent is a dependent.  Name a beneficiary to your SS.  A living will ought to be required for inheritance, which overrides family relationships anyway. Etc. etc. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

In fairness, IMO the question is whether or not the bolded is true in Tennessee.  If clerks are also required to be ordained to perform the "solemnization," then they have a reasonable point to require it as part of the job.

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.

[The Real timschochet 6,774]

12 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Ignorance is bliss in your world.  Must be nice.

I’d like to be ignorant of the alternative news. I wish we all were. Unfortunately neither is the case. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

2 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Ok, then you still have a contract with the government.  I thought we were going to get rid of the marriage tie to taxes and SS etc., to me that's a much more interesting discussion.  

Personally, I don't believe in the tradition of marriage.  It's a dumb tradition, like the Christmas tree is a dumb tradition.  Who in their right mind brings a dead pine tree into their house and wraps electrical cords around it?  Similarly why interject the concept of monetary benefits into the most personal of personal relationships?

It's simple, file taxes individually or jointly, who cares if you're married.  A dependent is a dependent.  Name a beneficiary to your SS.  A living will ought to be required for inheritance, which overrides family relationships anyway. Etc. etc. 

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.

Sure, the taxes and alike can and should be done that way, but I don't think you can just flip a switch.  If you can, then that's the way to do it.