Tennessee allows Government Officials to refuse to approve marriages they don’t agree with

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why do you want the government involved in marriage at all?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?
Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

During a Presidential debate some time ago, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:
get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

Here’s the deal:  much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition.  Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds.  There is  little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).  However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship).  Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.).  Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible:  for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing.  This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples).  Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not.  Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”

To summarize the summary:  the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

See, the original post did not mention with parents consent.

So what? The new Tenneessee law might still apply

 

[White 6]

What you are failing to see are the practical concerns involving forcing them to officiate or give up their office, or not even run for it. You are confusing issuing the license with officiating the marriage.

Somebody said, somebody should give up their office? Who?

 

[martybegan]

Somebody said, somebody should give up their office? Who?

it's implicit in saying government officials that CAN be officiants at weddings have to officiate SSM's or else.

So if State law says a Mayor can officiate weddings, one assumes if they refuse to do so under the left's logic, they have to give up their office, or be impeached.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Have you ever signed a contract to buy or rent or own or ??

Have you ever entered into a contract with one other entity and tried to get a third party who is not a party to that contract to abide by and recognize provisions of that contract? See post 101

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Marriage is between the parties who marry. Not based on permission by the government.

That is true, the goverment does not give permission beyond certain basic requirement such as age of consent. But government regulates marriage and provides for certain benefits, and protections that many people enjoy. Let us know when you have developped significant political support for doing away with marriage

 

[Failzero]

But the fools who call it an invasion are intellectually and morally deviant. So normal people just laugh at you.

Until a recently arrived Migrant kills your Cousin orGranddaughter or your favorite Nephew dies from Fentanyl

 

[Robert W]

That is true, the goverment does not give permission beyond certain basic requirement such as age of consent. But government regulates marriage and provides for certain benefits, and protections that many people enjoy. Let us know when you have developped significant political support for doing away with marriage

I won't. I value marriage. I also value privacy. I do not accept that the Government has any role at all in all marriages. I also think the word is so valuable it must be defined. As a marriage between a man and a woman. Democrats forget what a woman is. A shame on them.

 

[fncceo]

If you think the bride is too ugly or too fat

Not such a bad idea. It's a goverment's duty to prevent suicides.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Bad law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I won't. I value marriage. I also value privacy. I do not accept that the Government has any role at all in all marriages. I also think the word is so valuable it must be defined. As a marriage between a man and a woman. Democrats forget what a woman is. A shame on them.

Too late on on that man /woman thing. That ship has sailed. Might as well get over it. You can still value marriage. Same sex marriage has not diminished marriage in the least bit. Rather it has made it stronger through inclusivness.

 

[Robert W]

Too late on on that man /woman thing. That ship has sailed. Might as well get over it. You can still value marriage. Same sex marriage has not diminished marriage in the least bit. Rather it has made it stronger through inclusivness.

It sailed as you say. I tried to help homosexuals. What they needed was not marriage, since it was defined as a man and a woman, and my help for them was to solve it by creating their own term. Especially for them so nobody could remove it. It was called the Civil Union law and was upheld by our Supreme court since it was in our Constitution when I lived in CA.

Today I smirk at a woman looking at a woman and saying meet my husband. Husbands are not supposed to have vaginas.

 

[Robert W]

Too late on on that man /woman thing. That ship has sailed. Might as well get over it. You can still value marriage. Same sex marriage has not diminished marriage in the least bit. Rather it has made it stronger through inclusivness.

A man calls himself HUSBAND, peers at the guy sitting by his side and says WIFE. Same for women. And you think that passes the smell test?

 

[Nobody911]

An obvious attempt to deny gays the right to marriage

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/21/us/tennessee-marriage-license-solemnize-reaj/index.html

But it does not limit itself to same sex marriage.

If a couple is interracial, can they be denied marriage?
If the couple has engaged in adultery, can you deny marriage for religious reasons.
If you think the bride is too ugly or too fat, can you deny the marriage because you find it repulsive?

The Hill ==> State lawmakers approved Tennessee House Bill 878 last week. The legislation states people “shall not be required to solemnize a marriage” if they refuse to doing so based on their “conscience or religious beliefs.” According to the Tennessee Legislature website, the governor signed the bill Wednesday.

My interpretations:
1. People do not have to perform a marriage if it goes against their conscience or religious beliefs.
2. People do not have to marry someone if it goes against their conscience or religious beliefs.

Well, I would let those LGBTQers fight for themselves. Gee, not only about the US Constitution, but also about sex life. Kinda privacy( incognito mode ). None of my business! lol.

Source :
Tennessee governor signs bill allowing public officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages | The Hill – Tennessee governor signs bill allowing public officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages

 

[rightwinger]

It sailed as you say. I tried to help homosexuals. What they needed was not marriage, since it was defined as a man and a woman, and my help for them was to solve it by creating their own term. Especially for them so nobody could remove it. It was called the Civil Union law and was upheld by our Supreme court since it was in our Constitution when I lived in CA.

Today I smirk at a woman looking at a woman and saying meet my husband. Husbands are not supposed to have vaginas.

Who are you to decide what they need?

 

[Robert W]

Who are you to decide what they need?

I see you now are a woman. Why didn't you tell us that earlier?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I see you now are a woman. Why didn't you tell us that earlier?

Trix, do you have to act like this ALL the time?

 

[rightwinger]

I see you now are a woman. Why didn't you tell us that earlier?

You are a Sick Fuk

 

[fncceo]

Bad, law.

Sorry...

 

[Robert W]

You are a Sick Fuk

Because I acted like a Democrat!!!! I was raised as one.