Tennessee Reminds SCOTUS: Separation of Powers: Passes Resolution Calling Out Gay Marriage Decision

[Silhouette]

The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...ticizing-same-sex-marriage-decision/81261642/

More:

the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..

The lawsuits...

http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...nti-same-sex-marriage-lawsuit-filed/79840040/ February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said

Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.

 

[Silhouette]

In the last GOP debate, Governor Kasich of Ohio called for an end to gays suing Christians for refusing to play along with gay marriage. He said if they continued, under his Administration, laws would have to be passed to force them to respect Christians' rights to passively refuse to play along with their behaviors. He agreed: Obergefell was a legal train wreck. Kasich from his comments almost certainly would appoint a Justice who would fill Scalia's shoes in the conservative interpretation of the Constitution which means, for just one example, that the Judicial Branch of government cannot amend it from the Bench as they did last Summer in Obergefell.

Tennessee is calling them out. Tennessee has an ally in candidate Governor Kasich..

 

[Silhouette]

More specifics on the lawsuits prompting the TN Legislature's actions:

The plaintiffs include three ministers, who say they are subject to criminal penalties under the Tennessee law if they fail to sign and return a marriage license to the issuing clerk's office within three days after solemnizing the marriage. The suit asks the court to declare that the criminal sanction is unenforceable if the ministers do not sign or return it because they are unsure if the license law is valid...."The bottom line is to say to the state courts of Tennessee, you have to decide what the Supreme Court of the United States really did," he said. "They purported to do two things that are mutually exclusive: rule a law invalid and then rule that everyone has a right to get married under an invalid law. That inconsistency must be pointed out, raised and resolved. And this lawsuit seeks to do that." New court challenge to same-sex marriage is filed in Tennessee

More:

In essence, Fowler said he believes that by striking down the part of Tennessee law that limits the issuance of marriage licenses to one man and one woman, the Supreme Court effectively made the entire Tennessee marriage license statute invalid under a legal doctrine called "elision" because the Tennessee Legislature never intended the license statute to apply to same-sex couples...But, he said, the court cannot and did not enact a new Tennessee marriage license law and neither has the Tennessee Legislature, which he said is the only entity with the legal power to write laws setting out the duties of Tennessee county clerks.

Hmm...I think what they're going to force SCOTUS to do is issue an Opinion that orders all states to pass laws that have language including "same sex couples" in what that state considers "married".

This will present a difficult to the High Court because for one, I'd think, polygamists would feel left out (if this is true "marriage equality" why are some consenting adults in love left out?). And also, the Court can't legislate...so...? Should be interesting..

In Loving v Virginia, which was about race and not just some of the Court's favorite deviant sex behaviors, the Court had two things to point to to find in favor of Loving. 1. The 14th Amendment which said states can't discriminate based on race and 2. the fact that Loving and spouse filled the requirements of state laws existing and enacted properly by their legislatures of "one man and one woman". Two clear cut languages of EXISTING law the Court correctly interpreted.. (not made).

This is not the case with "gay marriage" because there is no coverage anywhere in the Constitution for deviant sex behaviors, (remember, just some, but not all); even in the 14th. And if the 14th, then ALL deviant sex behaviors (including polygamy and incest between consenting adults) would immediately be legal at the same time "gay marriage" was.

And, I'd hope that during these deliberations, one of the attorneys would bring up the fact that marriage is a contract for life between two people, as currently stated in all state law or implied (implied contracts are as binding as written) which involves children's unique enjoyments separate from the adults involved. Therefore, since children had no representation at Obergefell, and it was Opined upon to their collective demise (no father or mother for life in "gay marriage"...a brand new and onerous term to children), Obergefell was a mistrial.

I know how much Skylar, mdk, Worldwatcher, Syriusly, ChrisL, and all the other LGBT cohort and socks regulars here at USMB hate this link. But I'm going to post it here again anyway: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

 

[midcan5]

Progress is a slow process for many people.

The right wing conservatives still puzzle over their identity. Listen wingnuts if you have these longings follow them, stop denying yourself. We know you are afraid of life as your love of guns and hatred for so many exemplifies, but try to grow up. Be yourself and let others be themselves, that's real freedom, something you righties have a hard time with.

know what really causes homosexuality....

Old post: George is our last president - somethings don't change.

Dear God,

This is a letter from James, but you already knew that. I know I am being presumptuous but I wanted to share some thoughts from this past week.

Isn't it great that some people are so bright they are working to cure Parkinson's and other serious illnesses? What do you make of this, surely you know we can do some good things - we sure as hell can do bad. Poor phrasing, huh? You think this is too close to messing with life? You should know all about that. Seems like great stuff. A reasonably good life in this vale of tears is all we can ask. What's wrong with hope I wonder and a little less suffering.

Have you told George to tone down the rhetoric. Seems he listens to you, all of a sudden he is confusing the heck out of me! Next he'll be saying he made a mistake, now wouldn't that be something! Imagine that, didn't you once say pride goeth before a fall. That was a very good observation.

All these people voting against gay marriage is too much. My brother is gay, I know you knew that but you must also know he was always that way, you made him right? Anyway I knew it quite young, no one decides those things. I can't remember when a woman with a beautiful figure woke up that longing. I know that was no balancing act, they still drive me wild, just less so. That Scarlett Johansson sure is something! Given poverty cancer terrorism hatred and other bad stuff seems we are voting about some pretty unimportant stuff.

Enough thoughts for now, hope the weather is nice where you are.

you know who

 

[mdk]

The Family Action Council is fooling themselves if they think this lawsuit will succeed. This is the legal equivalent of a 'Hail Marry' pass.

I wonder why they didn't cite Ferber or children being an implicit party to a marriage contract? lol

 

[Silhouette]

The Family Action Council is fooling themselves if they think this lawsuit will succeed. This is the legal equivalent of a 'Hail Marry' pass.

I wonder why they didn't cite Ferber or children being an implicit party to a marriage contract? lol

On the contrary. It's clearly a request for clarification from the SCOTUS. Since you're so rock sure of the Obergefell Ruling, you'd have no problem with its clarifying how states are to proceed with the laws they have on the books. Unless you're worried that few of them have "marriage is between a man and a woman" still on the books?...

 

[mdk]

The Family Action Council is fooling themselves if they think this lawsuit will succeed. This is the legal equivalent of a 'Hail Marry' pass.

I wonder why they didn't cite Ferber or children being an implicit party to a marriage contract? lol

On the contrary. It's clearly a request for clarification from the SCOTUS. Since you're so rock sure of the Obergefell Ruling, you'd have no problem with its clarifying how states are to proceed with the laws they have on the books. Unless you're worried that few of them have "marriage is between a man and a woman" still on the books?...

They won't need to when they deny certiorari. A few states still have sodomy laws on the books but that doesn't make them still valid after the Lawrence v. Texas. This does nothing but wastes the court's time and offers fools such as yourself false hope. It will be most delicious watching you cry when it goes down in flames.

 

[bucs90]

The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision

More:

the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..

The lawsuits...

Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said

Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...

Personally I don't give a crap about homo marriage one way or another. Doesn't affect me. If Mitchell and Cam from Modern Family wanna be married go for it.

But as a legal issue I do find it interesting. SCOTUS basically legalized one form of marriage but didn't specify where the line stops. By saying the state cannot define marriage they indeed legalized the type in question (same sex) but didn't that open the door to ANY marriage so long as the parties involved call it marriage?

For example...is polygamy now legal? If so....what's stopping a government employee from offering 10 different girls at a strip club a "marriage" so they can get on his government health insurance plan.....and then reap the fun from it as they then have good benefits and he can legally pay them for anything he wants since they're his "wives".

Sounds absurd. But under the ruling...isn't it legal now???? And if it is...honestly...I'm fine with it. I for one think we need to stop trying health insurance to employment.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.

SCOTUS can't make law.

 

[mdk]

The law on the books in the Commonwealth of PA clearly state that motorized vehicles are not to be sold on Sunday. We need to waste the court's time to see if it is really illegal or not. lol

 

[bucs90]

Ok. So in simple terms then....

What types of marriage ARE legal and which ARE NOT??? I'm 100% fine with gay marriage btw but I find the legislation aspect interesting.

We know:
Man and woman marriage is legal
Same sex marriage is legal

What else is or isnt....and where is the document or law stating it?

 

[mdk]

Ok. So in simple terms then....

What types of marriage ARE legal and which ARE NOT??? I'm 100% fine with gay marriage btw but I find the legislation aspect interesting.

We know:
Man and woman marriage is legal
Same sex marriage is legal

What else is or isnt....and where is the document or law stating it?

Two consenting adults regardless of gender that are not too closely related to one another can marry. That last part varies from state to state.

 

[bucs90]

Ok. So in simple terms then....

What types of marriage ARE legal and which ARE NOT??? I'm 100% fine with gay marriage btw but I find the legislation aspect interesting.

We know:
Man and woman marriage is legal
Same sex marriage is legal

What else is or isnt....and where is the document or law stating it?

Two consenting adults regardless of gender that are not too closely related to one another can marry. That last part varies from state to state.

But....SCOTUS said the state cannot define marriage. So...how can it vary state by state if the states cannot define it??

How can they limit it to 2...if they can't define it?
How can they limit relative status....if they can't define it?


Again...I'm fine with homo marriage.

But the legal ruling is interesting.

They're saying "the state cannot define marriage" and then we are told ....the definition must fit between two consenting adults of any gender who aren't blood relatives. That's the very limiting definition of marriage that they said states don't have the right to do.

It can either be defined or it cant. If the states cannot define it...who can??

 

[mdk]

Ok. So in simple terms then....

What types of marriage ARE legal and which ARE NOT??? I'm 100% fine with gay marriage btw but I find the legislation aspect interesting.

We know:
Man and woman marriage is legal
Same sex marriage is legal

What else is or isnt....and where is the document or law stating it?

Two consenting adults regardless of gender that are not too closely related to one another can marry. That last part varies from state to state.

But....SCOTUS said the state cannot define marriage. So...how can it vary state by state if the states cannot define it??

How can they limit it to 2...if they can't define it?
How can they limit relative status....if they can't define it?


Again...I'm fine with homo marriage.

But the legal ruling is interesting.

They're saying "the state cannot define marriage" and then we are told ....the definition must fit between two consenting adults of any gender who aren't blood relatives. That's the very limiting definition of marriage that they said states don't have the right to do.

It can either be defined or it cant. If the states cannot define it...who can??

The Windsor ruling makes clear that states still have the power to define marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional guarantees.

 

[Silhouette]

Ok. So in simple terms then....

What types of marriage ARE legal and which ARE NOT??? I'm 100% fine with gay marriage btw but I find the legislation aspect interesting.

We know:
Man and woman marriage is legal
Same sex marriage is legal

What else is or isnt....and where is the document or law stating it?

If a thing is arrived at "as legal" outside legal due process, then that thing isn't legal. That's the whole of the point of these lawsuits.

The Windsor ruling makes clear that states still have the power to define marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional guarantees.

Which certain constitutional guarantees prohibit states from limiting marriage to just one man and one woman? Where in the Constitution does it say "some deviant sex behaviors are a constitutionally protected class; while others (like polygamy) are not"?

 

[Skylar]

The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision

More:

the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..

The lawsuits...

Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said

Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states.

No it isn't. As the USSC only takes the case if it believes it should. Tennessee cannot force the USSC to grant cert. They can only come, hat in hand, requesting that the USSC grant cert.

And if the USSC decides not to......Tennessee alone has no recourse.

Debunking your entire 'forcing' fantasy.

Oh, and if all that wasn't enough.....none of the 'lawsuits' were filed by Tennessee. But by a guy named Dave.

From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...

Yeah, but your legal analysis has a perfect record of failure. You've never once offered a legal prediction that ever panned out. Not one. Demonstrating the value of what you can 'glean' from the law. Namely, nothing.

Oh, and Loving v. Virginia cites the right to marry. Which is what the ruling was cited in Obergefell to establish in precedent.

Nor is the constitution an exhaustive list of rights. Making 'no mention in the constitution' jabber meaningless, as a right need not be enumerated to be held by the people. See the 9th amendment for the founders beating you over the head with this very concept.

And finally, Lawerence v. Texas finds homosexuality beyond the State's authority to regulate. Once again obliterating your argument.

So much for 'what you can glean'.

 

[mdk]

Which certain constitutional guarantees prohibit states from limiting marriage to just one man and one woman?

The 14th Amendment. Perhaps you should actually read the Obergefell ruling instead of pretending your imagination is the law.

 

[Skylar]

The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision

More:

the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..

The lawsuits...

Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said

Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...

Personally I don't give a crap about homo marriage one way or another. Doesn't affect me. If Mitchell and Cam from Modern Family wanna be married go for it.

But as a legal issue I do find it interesting. SCOTUS basically legalized one form of marriage but didn't specify where the line stops. By saying the state cannot define marriage they indeed legalized the type in question (same sex) but didn't that open the door to ANY marriage so long as the parties involved call it marriage?

Why would the supreme court address issues that weren't before it? The question they were asked is if states have to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

The answer was yes.

And the USSC never said that states 'can't define marriage'. Quite the opposite. They said that subject to certain constitutional guarantees, ONLY the states can define marriage. I can quote the relevant passage from the Windsor ruling if you're interested.

For example...is polygamy now legal? If so....what's stopping a government employee from offering 10 different girls at a strip club a "marriage" so they can get on his government health insurance plan.....and then reap the fun from it as they then have good benefits and he can legally pay them for anything he wants since they're his "wives".

Is there any mention of polygamy in the Obergefell ruling?

Nope.

As the Supreme Court ever found that states are required to issue polygamous marriage licenses as part of the constitutional guarantees protecting marriage?

Nope.

Then refer to Windsor and the State's unique authority to define marriage. No state recognizes polygamy as legal. Thus, no. Its not legal.

Sounds absurd. But under the ruling...isn't it legal now???? And if it is...honestly...I'm fine with it. I for one think we need to stop trying health insurance to employment.

Nope. The ruling doesn't even mention polygamy, let alone legalize it.

 

[bucs90]

Ok. So in simple terms then....

What types of marriage ARE legal and which ARE NOT??? I'm 100% fine with gay marriage btw but I find the legislation aspect interesting.

We know:
Man and woman marriage is legal
Same sex marriage is legal

What else is or isnt....and where is the document or law stating it?

Two consenting adults regardless of gender that are not too closely related to one another can marry. That last part varies from state to state.

But....SCOTUS said the state cannot define marriage. So...how can it vary state by state if the states cannot define it??

How can they limit it to 2...if they can't define it?
How can they limit relative status....if they can't define it?


Again...I'm fine with homo marriage.

But the legal ruling is interesting.

They're saying "the state cannot define marriage" and then we are told ....the definition must fit between two consenting adults of any gender who aren't blood relatives. That's the very limiting definition of marriage that they said states don't have the right to do.

It can either be defined or it cant. If the states cannot define it...who can??

The Windsor ruling makes clear that states still have the power to define marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional guarantees.

Such as?