Tennessee Seeks tonBar Same Sex Marriage

[Aba Incieni]

I still do not understand why same sex marriage is an issue. It is consenting adults entering into the state of matrimony. It has no effect on anyone else except those who marry someone of the same gender.

Because once you redefine what marriage is, you’re fucked. Pretty soon, muslims will demand the “equality” for their form of marriage. Guess what that means for your company-provided health insurance when they - by law - have to provide healthcare benefits for 14 fucking wives? It means the company says “fuck this shit” and you lose your benefits.

And that’s not all. By law, a spouse gets access to their S.O. in an ICU and has decision making powers. Which means, a hospital will have to let a damn harem of wives into an ICU. And on top of that nightmare, what happens legally when 7 wives want to pull the plus and 7 wives don’t?

Our entire way of life was built on marriage being 1 man and 1 woman. The moment you redefine marriage to be anything else, you open Pandora’s Box.

Wow..................had to go straight for the scary Muslim angle right off the bat, didn't you? Why didn't you mention those who are Mormon who believe in polygamy? They have been trying for YEARS to get the right to marry more than one wife.

As far as what Islam says about polygamy? Well, it says that you can have up to 4 wives (not the 14 you are asserting), but if you are unable to be fair to all your wives, then you are to marry only one.

Polygyny in Islam - Wikipedia

Opinions of classical Islamic scholars on polygamy
Whilst traditional Islamic scholarship upholds the notion that Islamic law permits polygyny and furthermore enforces the divine command to "marry only one" where the man fears being unable to fulfil the rights of all his wives in a fair manner, a substantial segment of the Islamic scholarship elaborates further on the ruling regarding men who are able to ensure complete equality amongst the multiple wives.[9]

Their opinion was derived from performing ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) which determined their belief that it is to be deemed preferable (even for the male individual who is capable of delivering justice to the multiple families) to refrain from joining more than one wife in the marital bond.

This opinion has been codified into the official positions of the Hanbali and Shaafi’i schools of jurisprudence which assert that it is held recommended for a Muslim male to have only one wife, even if he may act equitably with more than one woman.


Ash-Shirbeeni from the Shaafi’i School of jurisprudence, said: "It is a Sunnah not to marry more than one wife if there is no apparent need." [Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/207].[10]


Al-Maawardi, from the Shaafi’i School of jurisprudence, said: "Allaah has permitted a man to marry up to four wives, saying: {…two or three or four…}, but Allaah advised that it is desirable for man to marry only one wife, saying: {…But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one}" [al-Hawi al-Kabir 11/417].[10]


Ibn Qudaamah from the Hanbali School of jurisprudence, said in Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer: "It is more appropriate to marry only one wife. The author of Al-Muharrar [i.e. Abul Barakaat Al-Majd ibn Taymiyyah] said this, based on the saying of Allaah (which means) {…But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one}." [Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer authored by Shams-ud-deen Ibn Qudaamah].[10]


These scholars felt that adherence to monogamy would minimise the risk of oppression because the requirement of meting out justice amongst a plurality of wives would be immensely challenging for any man. Therefore, they opined that it is preferable to avoid polygamy altogether, so one does not even come near the chance of committing the forbidden deed of dealing unjustly between the wives.[9]


Imam Ahmed ibn Naqib al Masri, from the Shaafi’i School of jurisprudence, said ‘’It is fitter to confine oneself to just one’’ [Umdatu Salik].


Imam Ghazali, from the Shaafi’i School of jurisprudence, stated: "It does not call for two wives, [since] plurality may render life miserable and disrupt the affairs of the home." [Kitab al Nikah, Ihya Uloom ud Din].


Imam Shaafi’i offered an additional exegesis for the final clause of the pivotal verse discussing the divine legislation of polygyny and the divine limitations imposed upon this ancient institution.[9] He espoused that the closing clause of verse 4:3, usually interpreted as ‘that is more suitable that you may not incline to injustice’ should be understood as ‘that is more suitable that you may not be financially strained by numerous children’.

Imam Shaafi’i reasoned that divine decree had already listed fear of committing injustice as a reason to not wed more than once, hence it was pointless for the same reason (for not wedding more than once) to be expounded twice in the same verse.

His alternative interpretation pursued the perception which held that the presence of a plurality of women in a man's conjugal life would produce undesirably large numbers of offspring, which could be a potential cause of financial hardship and poverty in the future.

Given the emphasis that Islamic law stipulates on the welfare of children and nurturing children with permitted means of income, Imam Shaafi’i opined that it was legislated for a man to marry just once as an increase in the population of a family due to multiple marriages could potentially harbour harmful monetary consequences for the man who marries more than once.[9]


Ash-Shaafi’i is of the view that it is desirable to confine oneself to marrying only one although it is permissible for him to marry more than one. This is to avoid being unfair by being more inclined to some of them than others, or being unable to financially support them. [al-Hawi al-Kabir 11/417].[10]

They follow mohamed. One of his wives was still in Pampers.

 

[P@triot]

As far as what Islam says about polygamy? Well, it says that you can have up to 4 wives (not the 14 you are asserting), but if you are unable to be fair to all your wives, then you are to marry only one.

And yet all of them have way more than 4 wives. Dumb ass.

Besides, your argument that all of this will be “better” because it’s “only” 4 wives rather than 14 is as laughable as it is absurd and immature.

If you have to change the subject, you really shouldn’t comment at all.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, it is because once a right is given, it cannot be taken back.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, it is because once a right is given, it cannot be taken back.

Remind us again where that federal law can be found...?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

It's not about rights vs. privilege . It about equal protection under the law and due process. Debating right vs. privilege is just a red herring logical fallacy to diverge from the real issue, which is, you cannot arbitrarily discriminate and deny to one group,, what another can take for granted. In order to do so, the government must provide a compelling state interest, or at minimum a rational basis for doing so, and the states failed miserably . Deal with it smiley.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I still do not understand why same sex marriage is an issue. It is consenting adults entering into the state of matrimony. It has no effect on anyone else except those who marry someone of the same gender.

Because once you redefine what marriage is, you’re fucked. Pretty soon, muslims will demand the “equality” for their form of marriage. Guess what that means for your company-provided health insurance when they - by law - have to provide healthcare benefits for 14 fucking wives? It means the company says “fuck this shit” and you lose your benefits.

And that’s not all. By law, a spouse gets access to their S.O. in an ICU and has decision making powers. Which means, a hospital will have to let a damn harem of wives into an ICU. And on top of that nightmare, what happens legally when 7 wives want to pull the plus and 7 wives don’t?

Our entire way of life was built on marriage being 1 man and 1 woman. The moment you redefine marriage to be anything else, you open Pandora’s Box.

Slippery slope logical fallacy, the sky is falling idiotic horseshit. Obergefell made it clear that the same at same sex couple would afforded the same rights as opposite sex couples -nothing more and nothing less-than opposite sex couples. Opposite sex couples cannot marry more than one person and if any wish to, they would have to go through the legal/ legislative process and justify it on it's own merits. So your post is complete and utter fear mongering bullshit.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

'Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act' seeks to strip gay marriage rights


I really have to wonder what the fuck is wrong with these people! My only question is, are they so stupid and blindly driven by their bigotry that they don't know that any federal judge will immediately slap on injunction on this- because they would have to given the Obergefell precedent- OR is a a strategy to get the case back to SCOTUS?

My guess is that they are anticipating and provoking a court fight, but even if it gets to SCOTUS there is no certainty that Obergefell will be overturned. Never in our history a right-once established- been revoked. A Roberts, who seems to have become the new swing vote, is aware of the outrage that would insue and the stain on his legacy that it would inflict.

Nearly four years after the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal throughout the U.S. in its landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee are attempting to turn back the clock with legislation aimed at barring gay marriage in the state.


The "Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act," which was first proposed in 2016, seeks to "defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." The bill, which was reintroduced on Friday, would deem the high court's Obergefell decision "unauthoritative, void, and of no effect."

And that is not all

The reintroduced "natural marriage" law, however, "isn't the only anti-LGBT bill on the docket right now," noted Sanders. He said there are at least five other bills in the state legislature that may threaten the rights of LGBTQ people in Tennessee. One of these bills, which was introduced in both the state House and Senate (Pody is the sponsor of the Senate bill), seeks to allow private adoption agencies to decline to participate in any child placement services that would "violate the agency's written religious or moral convictions." This type of legislation, which can already be found in 10 states across the U.S., creates barriers for LGBTQ individuals and same-sex couples looking to adopt or foster.

These people have to be, and will be stopped.

You whities once had the right to own black slaves.

Thank you for that brilliant and most appropriate commentary and a subject that involves real human beings. As always you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And it’s further confirmation of the fact that most on the right have nothing but contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

You’ve got one thing right...I’ve got nothing but the deepest contempt for your fantasy “case law” bullshit. When fascists little pricks can’t get the votes they need to amend the U.S. Constitution for their oppression, they resort to “case law” to get around it.

Your knowledge of constitutional law is truly impressive. We can all learn so much from you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No reason to be alarmed. This will fail like the two other times it was introduced.

Exactly. And, probably for the same reason that they failed to repeal it in CA. The judges in that case said that since the right to marry had already been extended to gay couples, and had been in effect for a year, it was not right to take those rights back.

Well there is some brilliant liberal “logic”. It had been illegal for 240 years before that. So using that same line of “logic”, it was never right to take that back and make it legal.

No it wasn't The law was previously silent on same sex marriage. It was only when gay people began to try to get married that states began to pass laws against same sex marriage. Again, equal protection under the law....a concept that you are apparently unable to grasp.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As far as what Islam says about polygamy? Well, it says that you can have up to 4 wives (not the 14 you are asserting), but if you are unable to be fair to all your wives, then you are to marry only one.

And yet all of them have way more than 4 wives. Dumb ass.

Besides, your argument that all of this will be “better” because it’s “only” 4 wives rather than 14 is as laughable as it is absurd and immature.

If you have to change the subject, you really shouldn’t comment at all.

Who gives a fuck what the Quran says. Muslims like everyone else in this country are bound by US law. Why aren't you bitching about the Mormons who were practicing polygamy long before Muslims were on anyone's radar? Do tell us, how many people, in the years since Obergefell have attempted plural marriage, citing that case as precedent?

 

[WinterBorn]

Actually, it is because once a right is given, it cannot be taken back.

Remind us again where that federal law can be found...?

A law could be rescinded. What changed is that the SCOTUS rules that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment applied to marriage. So, unless you do away with gov't benefits and sponsorship of marriage, you cannot exclude same sex couples. Personally, I think the gov't should not be involved in the marriage business. The fact that we willingly line up to purchase a marriage license is a sign of the ever invasive nature of the gov't.

But all of that aside, there is no logical reason why the laws should be changed to exclude same sex couples. Their marriage has no effect on you whatsoever.

 

[WinterBorn]

And it’s further confirmation of the fact that most on the right have nothing but contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

You’ve got one thing right...I’ve got nothing but the deepest contempt for your fantasy “case law” bullshit. When fascists little pricks can’t get the votes they need to amend the U.S. Constitution for their oppression, they resort to “case law” to get around it.

It was not "case law" that ended the prohibition of same sex marriage. It was the SCOTUS ruling whether or not a law was unconstitutional. That is their expressed purpose.

Votes are not needed if a law is unconstitutional. We are not a democracy.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

Yes, you are correct that there is not "right" to be married. However, if the gov't offers benefits to citizens, they must be offered equally.

The 14th Amendment is the law of the land. The equal protection clause applies here.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I still do not understand why same sex marriage is an issue. It is consenting adults entering into the state of matrimony. It has no effect on anyone else except those who marry someone of the same gender.

They are offered equally to those who meet the criteria of potential parenting. Procreation. Hetero relationships. Homos can’t procreate as homos.
This is the same worn out, lost argument that close minded homofascists won’t give up on.

 

[Aba Incieni]

'Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act' seeks to strip gay marriage rights


I really have to wonder what the fuck is wrong with these people! My only question is, are they so stupid and blindly driven by their bigotry that they don't know that any federal judge will immediately slap on injunction on this- because they would have to given the Obergefell precedent- OR is a a strategy to get the case back to SCOTUS?

My guess is that they are anticipating and provoking a court fight, but even if it gets to SCOTUS there is no certainty that Obergefell will be overturned. Never in our history a right-once established- been revoked. A Roberts, who seems to have become the new swing vote, is aware of the outrage that would insue and the stain on his legacy that it would inflict.

Nearly four years after the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal throughout the U.S. in its landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee are attempting to turn back the clock with legislation aimed at barring gay marriage in the state.


The "Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act," which was first proposed in 2016, seeks to "defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." The bill, which was reintroduced on Friday, would deem the high court's Obergefell decision "unauthoritative, void, and of no effect."

And that is not all

The reintroduced "natural marriage" law, however, "isn't the only anti-LGBT bill on the docket right now," noted Sanders. He said there are at least five other bills in the state legislature that may threaten the rights of LGBTQ people in Tennessee. One of these bills, which was introduced in both the state House and Senate (Pody is the sponsor of the Senate bill), seeks to allow private adoption agencies to decline to participate in any child placement services that would "violate the agency's written religious or moral convictions." This type of legislation, which can already be found in 10 states across the U.S., creates barriers for LGBTQ individuals and same-sex couples looking to adopt or foster.

These people have to be, and will be stopped.

You whities once had the right to own black slaves.

Thank you for that brilliant and most appropriate commentary and a subject that involves real human beings. As always you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB

Good to see you admit you were wrong. Or lying.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

Yes, you are correct that there is not "right" to be married. However, if the gov't offers benefits to citizens, they must be offered equally.

The 14th Amendment is the law of the land. The equal protection clause applies here.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I still do not understand why same sex marriage is an issue. It is consenting adults entering into the state of matrimony. It has no effect on anyone else except those who marry someone of the same gender.

They are offered equally to those who meet the criteria of potential parenting. Procreation. Hetero relationships. Homos can’t procreate as homos.
This is the same worn out, lost argument that close minded homofascists won’t give up on.

If procreation were a criteria of marriage, you might have a point. It isn't. You don't.
I have been married twice. No where in any license was there mention of children. Hetero couples who are sterile are allowed to marry. How many women who have had their uterus removed have gotten married? Homosexual couples have children via other means, just like many, many heterosexual couples.

The "marriage is for procreation" is what is the same worn out, lost argument. It doesn't hold water. The proof is in the fact that those who cannot possibly have children are still allowed to marry.

As I said, same sex marriage has no effect on you. Why do you care?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

Yes, you are correct that there is not "right" to be married. However, if the gov't offers benefits to citizens, they must be offered equally.

The 14th Amendment is the law of the land. The equal protection clause applies here.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I still do not understand why same sex marriage is an issue. It is consenting adults entering into the state of matrimony. It has no effect on anyone else except those who marry someone of the same gender.

They are offered equally to those who meet the criteria of potential parenting. Procreation. Hetero relationships. Homos can’t procreate as homos.
This is the same worn out, lost argument that close minded homofascists won’t give up on.

If procreation were a criteria of marriage, you might have a point. It isn't. You don't.
I have been married twice. No where in any license was there mention of children. Hetero couples who are sterile are allowed to marry. How many women who have had their uterus removed have gotten married? Homosexual couples have children via other means, just like many, many heterosexual couples.

The "marriage is for procreation" is what is the same worn out, lost argument. It doesn't hold water. The proof is in the fact that those who cannot possibly have children are still allowed to marry.

As I said, same sex marriage has no effect on you. Why do you care?

We’ve been through this too many times; the people who invented marriage, legal or otherwise, never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species.
Like the guy who invented the latex glove wouldn’t think that he’d be compelled by law to explain that it’s not a synthetic cow udder.

 

[Crepitus]

'Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act' seeks to strip gay marriage rights


I really have to wonder what the fuck is wrong with these people! My only question is, are they so stupid and blindly driven by their bigotry that they don't know that any federal judge will immediately slap on injunction on this- because they would have to given the Obergefell precedent- OR is a a strategy to get the case back to SCOTUS?

My guess is that they are anticipating and provoking a court fight, but even if it gets to SCOTUS there is no certainty that Obergefell will be overturned. Never in our history a right-once established- been revoked. A Roberts, who seems to have become the new swing vote, is aware of the outrage that would insue and the stain on his legacy that it would inflict.

Nearly four years after the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal throughout the U.S. in its landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee are attempting to turn back the clock with legislation aimed at barring gay marriage in the state.


The "Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act," which was first proposed in 2016, seeks to "defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." The bill, which was reintroduced on Friday, would deem the high court's Obergefell decision "unauthoritative, void, and of no effect."

And that is not all

The reintroduced "natural marriage" law, however, "isn't the only anti-LGBT bill on the docket right now," noted Sanders. He said there are at least five other bills in the state legislature that may threaten the rights of LGBTQ people in Tennessee. One of these bills, which was introduced in both the state House and Senate (Pody is the sponsor of the Senate bill), seeks to allow private adoption agencies to decline to participate in any child placement services that would "violate the agency's written religious or moral convictions." This type of legislation, which can already be found in 10 states across the U.S., creates barriers for LGBTQ individuals and same-sex couples looking to adopt or foster.

These people have to be, and will be stopped.

Yet you can still marry your first cousin there.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

They have the same right as either you or I

And yes, the courts have declared it a right

 

[rightwinger]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

Yes, you are correct that there is not "right" to be married. However, if the gov't offers benefits to citizens, they must be offered equally.

The 14th Amendment is the law of the land. The equal protection clause applies here.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I still do not understand why same sex marriage is an issue. It is consenting adults entering into the state of matrimony. It has no effect on anyone else except those who marry someone of the same gender.

They are offered equally to those who meet the criteria of potential parenting. Procreation. Hetero relationships. Homos can’t procreate as homos.
This is the same worn out, lost argument that close minded homofascists won’t give up on.

If procreation were a criteria of marriage, you might have a point. It isn't. You don't.
I have been married twice. No where in any license was there mention of children. Hetero couples who are sterile are allowed to marry. How many women who have had their uterus removed have gotten married? Homosexual couples have children via other means, just like many, many heterosexual couples.

The "marriage is for procreation" is what is the same worn out, lost argument. It doesn't hold water. The proof is in the fact that those who cannot possibly have children are still allowed to marry.

As I said, same sex marriage has no effect on you. Why do you care?

We’ve been through this too many times; the people who invented marriage, legal or otherwise, never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species.
Like the guy who invented the latex glove wouldn’t think that he’d be compelled by law to explain that it’s not a synthetic cow udder.

Then why are 70 year olds allowed to marry

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

They have the same right as either you or I

And yes, the courts have declared it a right

The courts declared blacks sub-human, too.