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

[Dekster]

An obvious attempt to deny gays the right to marriage

Loading…

www.cnn.com

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?

Sure why not. They can already do this. It isn't like anyone can force a preacher to perform their wedding even without this law.

 

[Seymour Flops]

An obvious attempt to deny gays the right to marriage

Loading…

www.cnn.com

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?

I didn't bother to click on the OP when I first saw it. I knew that title would be misleading. Here's what the law says, according to the OP's own link:

Last week, Tennessee state lawmakers passed HB 878

, which states “a person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage.”

There ya go. All it says is that a person cannot be required to do something against their will.

Marry whatever you want, just don't try to force me to officiate.

Don't be a child. Not everyone will agree with every decision you make.

 

[rightwinger]

Marry whatever you want, just don't try to force me to officiate.

If you are a Government official, your personal bigotry should not come into play
You treat everyone equally
Equal protection under the law

 

[Seymour Flops]

If you are a Government official, your personal bigotry should not come into play
You treat everyone equally

In what fantasy world does that happen?

 

[Robert W]

Sure why not. They can already do this. It isn't like anyone can force a preacher to perform their wedding even without this law.

I know a church that refuses to marry homosexuals to each other.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

WHAT??!! You wanted to help gays? How ? With some “separate but equal bullshit that smacks of Jim Crow era laws? They do not need marriage? Why not? They need it as much as anyone and for the same reasons I wrote this piece a while ago. Clearly with people like you still around, it is worthy of being published again

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era.

To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won’t cut it

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Today I smirk at anyone who is so ignorant and out of touch with reality as to think that a Lesbian would refer to her female spouse as her husband

 

[martybegan]

Today I smirk at anyone who is so ignorant and out of touch with reality as to think that a Lesbian would refer to her female spouse as her husband

You don't think the really butch ones don't go for that?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You don't think the really butch ones don't go for that?

You can stop trying to convince us all that you're a fucking idiot

 

[martybegan]

You can stop trying to convince us all that you're a fucking idiot

Like most SJW's the concept of humor is beyond you.

 

[Robert W]

WHAT??!! You wanted to help gays? How ? With some “separate but equal bullshit that smacks of Jim Crow era laws? They do not need marriage? Why not? They need it as much as anyone and for the same reasons I wrote this piece a while ago. Clearly with people like you still around, it is worthy of being published again

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era.

To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won’t cut it

You simply approve the Courts and the Federal Government, shockingly run only by Democrat, managing the life of the people who want two equal things.
Why did we in CA add homosexuals to our laws? We knew your argument. We did change our constitution. To help homosexuals. And some people not living in CA managed to get the Federal court to interject. We had fixed it for homosexuals. We heard them and went to work helping them out. I mentioned why is is stupid for any couple to claim to the other than what they are, women are wives only. Those women saying the woman they live with are husbands are talking in a stupid fashion. We have noted since the Federal Court took this up, we see schools trying to tell children that the boys can be women and the girls can be called men. This is way too bizarre to do this to children. All because Homosexuals did not then or today understand that marriage is a word they should not claim they have.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You simply approve the Courts and the Federal Government, shockingly run only by Democrat, managing the life of the people who want two equal things.
Why did we in CA add homosexuals to our laws? We knew your argument. We did change our constitution. To help homosexuals. And some people not living in CA managed to get the Federal court to interject. We had fixed it for homosexuals. We heard them and went to work helping them out. I mentioned why is is stupid for any couple to claim to the other than what they are, women are wives only. Those women saying the woman they live with are husbands are talking in a stupid fashion. We have noted since the Federal Court took this up, we see schools trying to tell children that the boys can be women and the girls can be called men. This is way too bizarre to do this to children. All because Homosexuals did not then or today understand that marriage is a word they should not claim they have.

Holy shit! Really? Clearly YOU are the one who wants to manage peoples lives while misrepresenting what they want. You are one hell of a confused dude, not to mention ill informed You continued claims that Lesbians referring to their spouses and husbands is clear proof of that . You are also dishonest in your claim that you wanted to help “homosexuals” If you wanted to help you would support true equality Rather you struggle to make a half baked case for civil unions while failing to respond to any of the points that I bad about why that just does not work .

Then on top of all of that, you clumsily weave in some codswallop about trans youth and try to link it to the issue of gay marriage, with some bizarre, non existent cause and effect relationshit, amounting to nothing more than pathetic blatherskite. And furthermre, your previouse inane suggestion that they do not need to marry has not been forgotten.

Your view that they have different needs than others along with the fact that you advocate unequal treatment of them amounts to nothing less than shameful bigotry. You have lost badly here. I don’t know why we are even having this discussion. It is not even an issue for most people any more. Marriage is marriage, love is love and "husband" and "wife" are based on gender

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You simply approve the Courts and the Federal Government, shockingly run only by Democrat, managing the life of the people who want two equal things.

PS : I just have to say one more thing about this one particularly egregious and quite frankly stupid passage. . How the fuck are liberals “managing the lives of gay people> We made is possible to get married. We DID NOT tell them that they must get married. Civil unions are still available to any who may want that.

Domestic Partnership vs. Marriage in California - What's the Difference? 2024

Discover the key differences between Domestic Partnership vs. Marriage in California. Know your legal rights and obligations. Get expert insights and make informed decisions.

www.drfamilylaw.com

YOU PEOPLE tried to manage their lives by forbidding them to marry. Is it possible that you do not understand how pathetically stupid it sound when you try to flip the script like that?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I mentioned why is is stupid for any couple to claim to the other than what they are, women are wives only.

Did you? I donn't recall. Why is it stupid for here to call her wife , her wife?

 

[Robert W]

Did you? I donn't recall. Why is it stupid for here to call her wife , her wife?

I admit several things in order to be a loyal Democrat.

"Women can be what they think, not what they are.
Children are so confused it is up to them to decide what sex they are and their parents do not know a thing about the children until the child says they are a he or a she."

I am not a loyal Democrat.

 

[Robert W]

PS : I just have to say one more thing about this one particularly egregious and quite frankly stupid passage. . How the fuck are liberals “managing the lives of gay people> We made is possible to get married. We DID NOT tell them that they must get married. Civil unions are still available to any who may want that.

Domestic Partnership vs. Marriage in California - What's the Difference? 2024

Discover the key differences between Domestic Partnership vs. Marriage in California. Know your legal rights and obligations. Get expert insights and make informed decisions.

www.drfamilylaw.com

YOU PEOPLE tried to manage their lives by forbidding them to marry. Is it possible that you do not understand how pathetically stupid it sound when you try to flip the script like that?

First, Democrats are not liberals. They only latched onto this genuine term to fake everybody else out. Were they liberals, they would have been fine with the system of this country since it's founding. But rather Democrats wanted change to give them more control.
And you admit it was Democrats. It was not we. I think you need to study a president you admired, FDR. FDR was this nation's most profound rule maker.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I admit several things in order to be a loyal Democrat.

"Women can be what they think, not what they are.
Children are so confused it is up to them to decide what sex they are and their parents do not know a thing about the children until the child says they are a he or a she."

I am not a loyal Democrat.

Good fucking grief! More nonsensical codswallop. Another attempt to evade the issue and try to squirm out of some crap that you posted but can’t defend. You said that “it is stupid for any couple to claim to the other than what they are, women are wives only.” which I take to mean, in your convoluted parlance , that a woman married to woman should not be referring to that woman as her wife.

Your blathering about children's gender identity is –in no way- a defense of that inane equine excrement. It is just another red herring logical fallacy intended to troll this topic into the ditch with the hope that we will forget what this is really about and the nonsense that you spew

However, I will say –for the record, -that children are aware of their gender identity at an early age and sometimes they are misgendered at birth for various reasons. Often there is underlying biological factors, and sometimes parents are unaware of gender dysphoria, but I do not expect you to understand that. But the bottom line is, that it has nothing to do with gender roles or husband / wife labels in marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

First, Democrats are not liberals. They only latched onto this genuine term to fake everybody else out. Were they liberals, they would have been fine with the system of this country since it's founding. But rather Democrats wanted change to give them more control.
And you admit it was Democrats. It was not we. I think you need to study a president you admired, FDR. FDR was this nation's most profound rule maker.

I am not going to get into this stuff about liberals and democrats and what they are or are not. This is yet ANOTHER attempt by you to create a smokescreen in order to obscure something stupid that you said and an attempt to derail the thread topic. I will just say “progressive” people who believe in progress, moving forward. People who are not stuck in the mud like you are –living in a world that does not exist anymore. People who actually believe in equality

So you say that Democrats wanted change to give them more control? Aside from the fact that that, like the rest of you post does not make a lick of sense, it in no way addresses the question that I posed and points that i made which is:

How the fuck are liberals “managing the lives of gay people> We made is possible to get married. We DID NOT tell them that they must get married. Civil unions are still available to any who may want that.

YOU PEOPLE tried to manage their lives by forbidding them to marry. Is it possible that you do not understand how pathetically stupid it sound when you try to flip the script like that?

Now answer the fucking questions. Try harder. You are so fucking bad at debating. You are making an ass of yourself

 

[Robert W]

Good fucking grief! More nonsensical codswallop. Another attempt to evade the issue and try to squirm out of some crap that you posted but can’t defend. You said that “it is stupid for any couple to claim to the other than what they are, women are wives only.” which I take to mean, in your convoluted parlance , that a woman married to woman should not be referring to that woman as her wife.

Your blathering about children's gender identity is –in no way- a defense of that inane equine excrement. It is just another red herring logical fallacy intended to troll this topic into the ditch with the hope that we will forget what this is really about and the nonsense that you spew

However, I will say –for the record, -that children are aware of their gender identity at an early age and sometimes they are misgendered at birth for various reasons. Often there is underlying biological factors, and sometimes parents are unaware of gender dysphoria, but I do not expect you to understand that. But the bottom line is, that it has nothing to do with gender roles or husband / wife labels in marriage.

I hit that nerve I know would show up. Look, all you did was brand yourself as incompetent. Some would say you want to post to lie to posters.

Apparently you are very loose and wild when it comes to definitions.
It sounds to me like you think a wife is a man or a woman. That is crazy as hell.

 

[Robert W]

I am not going to get into this stuff about liberals and democrats and what they are or are not. This is yet ANOTHER attempt by you to create a smokescreen in order to obscure something stupid that you said and an attempt to derail the thread topic. I will just say “progressive” people who believe in progress, moving forward. People who are not stuck in the mud like you are –living in a world that does not exist anymore. People who actually believe in equality

So you say that Democrats wanted change to give them more control? Aside from the fact that that, like the rest of you post does not make a lick of sense, it in no way addresses the question that I posed and points that i made which is:

How the fuck are liberals “managing the lives of gay people> We made is possible to get married. We DID NOT tell them that they must get married. Civil unions are still available to any who may want that.

YOU PEOPLE tried to manage their lives by forbidding them to marry. Is it possible that you do not understand how pathetically stupid it sound when you try to flip the script like that?

Now answer the fucking questions. Try harder. You are so fucking bad at debating. You are making an ass of yourself

Go back and study my posts. I do not talk down to people as you do. I do not need filth to make points. You prove that you do.

And you are not liberal. A True liberal would not demand I reply to things they say as were they genuine points.