ADVERTISEMENT

Tenn. lawmakers unveil bill that would overturn Supreme Court decision on gay marriage

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,118
58,294
113
On Thursday, two state representatives introduced a bill called the "Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act." If passed, the bill would not recognize gay marriage. It says that laws, policy and judicial interpretations that don't define marriage as a contract between one man and one woman "is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee."

The bill sources the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court decision of Obergefell v. Hodges. This was the decision that allowed gay marriage.

It said the justices issued a "lawless opinion" that wasn't based in American law or history. It says this decision was a far reach by the justices to create rights "that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention."

http://www.local8now.com/home/headl...=social&utm_source=facebook_WVLT_Volunteer_TV
 
Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act? Nice! I had no idea our very own Natural was so famous.

Reasons like this are why even though I'm going to vote Republican next election I'm not proud of it.
 
Another law that will go to the Supreme Court and lose.

Past time to get government out of the marriage business and not require a marriage license any longer.

....then who keeps formal records of 'marriage contracts', etc., so that maternal/paternal rights are maintained (e.g. for adopted children)? Who determines 'next of kin' for medical issues, deaths, etc. when there is no government-based record-keeping to ascertain who is related to whom?

People are able to track their lineages back through history BECAUSE governments kept records, maintained records and tracked marriages.

Are we going to have different records set up by Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Amish and Atheists?

Or are we 'ok' with just letting civil marriage contracts be civil marriage contracts, and letting churches perform their own religious cermonies for their memberships? It's not like we're going to force any church to accept anyone (gay or straight) in their church as a member, because that's also a violation of the Establishment Clause....
 
....then who keeps formal records of 'marriage contracts', etc., so that maternal/paternal rights are maintained (e.g. for adopted children)? Who determines 'next of kin' for medical issues, deaths, etc. when there is no government-based record-keeping to ascertain who is related to whom?

People are able to track their lineages back through history BECAUSE governments kept records, maintained records and tracked marriages.

Are we going to have different records set up by Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Amish and Atheists?

Or are we 'ok' with just letting civil marriage contracts be civil marriage contracts, and letting churches perform their own religious cermonies for their memberships? It's not like we're going to force any church to accept anyone (gay or straight) in their church as a member, because that's also a violation of the Establishment Clause....
All good questions but not enough to keep government in the marriage licence business.

How do governments/courts decide the answers to your questions for people who live together, have or adopt or kids, determine next of kin, but never get married? If we can figure it out for them we should be able to figure it out for people who get married.

The Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Amish, and Mormons already keep records. As for the Atheists they can opt into a government program to track them.
 
All good questions but not enough to keep government in the marriage licence business.

How do governments/courts decide the answers to your questions for people who live together, have or adopt or kids, determine next of kin, but never get married? If we can figure it out for them we should be able to figure it out for people who get married.

The Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Amish, and Mormons already keep records. As for the Atheists they can opt into a government program to track them.

Except when the Catholics decide a Methodist-Catholic marriage is 'not valid', but the Methodists do.....

There is no practical way to allow 'religious entities' to determine 'marriage' without violating fundamental aspects of 'separation of church and state'. You know it, you just won't admit it.
 
Except when the Catholics decide a Methodist-Catholic marriage is 'not valid', but the Methodists do.....

There is no practical way to allow 'religious entities' to determine 'marriage' without violating fundamental aspects of 'separation of church and state'. You know it, you just won't admit it.
My point just went right over your head. I am not advocating the religious entities determine marriage. I am advocating that neither religions or governments decide what or who makes up a marriage. I am advocating that the people involved decide if they are married. I am sure the courts will be able to sort out the answers if and when a couple separates.

Don't really under your example. Who are the Catholics? Is the illumanati deciding that a Catholic and Methodist marriage is not valid? Only the the Catholic and the Methodist in the marriage can tell you if it is a marriage.

Noticed you totally skip over the part of my answer for people who live together and have kids and then split up. Why can the issues involved in the separation be handled for them but only a government issued marriage licence can decide it for people who are required to get one?
 
Another shining moment for the great state of Tennessee. Really dedicating a lot of time and effort to get their stance and point across on this topic.
 
Noticed you totally skip over the part of my answer for people who live together and have kids and then split up. Why can the issues involved in the separation be handled for them but only a government issued marriage licence can decide it for people who are required to get one?

We call that a 'common law marriage' in this country.
Not aware that the Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists or any other formal religion have a name for it, though...
 
This can't really be your position, think this through.
Yes it is.

Pretty simple a couple goes to the government and tells them they are married instead of going and begging for government blessing.

I will ask you the same thing and maybe you will answer what Joes Place is ignoring. How do couples who live together and have kids and then split up manage to work their way thru a split?
 
Yes it is.

Pretty simple a couple goes to the government and tells them they are married instead of going and begging for government blessing.

I will ask you the same thing and maybe you will answer what Joes Place is ignoring. How do couples who live together and have kids and then split up manage to work their way thru a split?

Complete red herring/Gish Gallop here.

The issue of 'gay marriage' has to do with rights. Couples in 'living together' situations may NOT have the same rights as a 'married' couple if they are not common law married - this is true for inheritance, medical, insurance and many other issues.

Limiting your argument to 'how do married/non-married couples split up' is completely avoiding the actual problems.

You are also confounding 'marriage rights' with 'child support requirements', which are a reality and requirement whether you are married or not.

Regarding the comment that 'couples can just show up and say they are married'....that's pretty much the way it works, only clerks of court are required to verify your identity and the identities of witnesses to your marriage contract need to sign off as well. That is all the government's role is; that is not a function we should be delegating to any particular 'religion'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Complete red herring/Gish Gallop here.

The issue of 'gay marriage' has to do with rights. Couples in 'living together' situations may NOT have the same rights as a 'married' couple if they are not common law married - this is true for inheritance, medical, insurance and many other issues.

Limiting your argument to 'how do married/non-married couples split up' is completely avoiding the actual problems.

You are also confounding 'marriage rights' with 'child support requirements', which are a reality and requirement whether you are married or not.

Regarding the comment that 'couples can just show up and say they are married'....that's pretty much the way it works, only clerks of court are required to verify your identity and the identities of witnesses to your marriage contract need to sign off as well. That is all the government's role is; that is not a function we should be delegating to any particular 'religion'.
The only one going with red herrings is you.

You keep throwing in religion and I keep telling you religion won't have anymore stake besides being the place the ceremony is held.

Don't know where your gay marriage thought came from but without a government requirement to have a licence the question is pretty mute.

We are making progress on the married and non-married question. The child question has already been answered as it has been for a long time when it comes to the responsibility of the parents. So if the courts and/or legislatures figured out how to handle this big issue I am confident they can also figure out how to divide the assets.
 
Yes it is.

Pretty simple a couple goes to the government and tells them they are married instead of going and begging for government blessing.

I will ask you the same thing and maybe you will answer what Joes Place is ignoring. How do couples who live together and have kids and then split up manage to work their way thru a split?
I'm hardly an expert on how that split works, but I suspect its a lot harder without a contract. But you seem to be clarifying in a more reasonable way with this reply. If couples are going to tell the government they are married, that is basically what we have now. Outside of a few cases there isn't a lot of judgment involved now. Your position as you put it here isn't getting the government out of marriage at all. Its the status quo with possibly more liberal access to the marriage certificate.

Frankly I don't see why people can't just download a marriage certificate and deal with this all online. There is no reason to even pay a Kim Davis to have that job. But when two (or more?) people are joining into one legal entity that should be governed by enforceable written contracts that are publically accessible IMO.

I knew you weren't that crazy.
 
I'm hardly an expert on how that split works, but I suspect its a lot harder without a contract. But you seem to be clarifying in a more reasonable way with this reply. If couples are going to tell the government they are married, that is basically what we have now. Outside of a few cases there isn't a lot of judgment involved now. Your position as you put it here isn't getting the government out of marriage at all. Its the status quo with possibly more liberal access to the marriage certificate.

Frankly I don't see why people can't just download a marriage certificate and deal with this all online. There is no reason to even pay a Kim Davis to have that job. But when two (or more?) people are joining into one legal entity that should be governed by enforceable written contracts that are publically accessible IMO.

I knew you weren't that crazy.
I have put forth the downloading of a marriage certificate before on this board and think it is an excellent way to get government out of the system.

Pretty simple, you tell the government you are married you don't ask the government if they will give you a licence.
 
I have put forth the downloading of a marriage certificate before on this board and think it is an excellent way to get government out of the system.

Pretty simple, you tell the government you are married you don't ask the government if they will give you a licence.
Except that's nearly how it works now. Only people who want multiple spouses or to marry their sister or a child are bared now. You are not removing the government from the equation with your proposal I think that's a good thing. The government doesn't bless unions or pass judgment, unless you're like Kim Davis.
 
I have put forth the downloading of a marriage certificate before on this board and think it is an excellent way to get government out of the system.

Pretty simple, you tell the government you are married you don't ask the government if they will give you a licence.

Quit getting stuck on the word 'license'. The county clerks and recorders are simply tracking who is entering into a contract called 'marriage', with whom. And in order to do so, it requires verification of age, name, address, etc.

You seem to want to eliminate all that and just have 'a church' do it. Or just have people 'take their word for it'.

It's a legal contract, which has certain legal requirements, such as date enacted, names of parties involved, witnesses, etc.

SOMEONE has to track that information. If the government is not doing that tracking, then who is?
 
Haven't read all the posts yet, just want to say that Tenn just made my day, and I really hope they pass this. Going to need to build a bigger jail.
 
Quit getting stuck on the word 'license'. The county clerks and recorders are simply tracking who is entering into a contract called 'marriage', with whom. And in order to do so, it requires verification of age, name, address, etc.

You seem to want to eliminate all that and just have 'a church' do it. Or just have people 'take their word for it'.

It's a legal contract, which has certain legal requirements, such as date enacted, names of parties involved, witnesses, etc.

SOMEONE has to track that information. If the government is not doing that tracking, then who is?
Now we are talking about a contract. What are the terms of this contract you apply for when you go and apply for your marriage contract?

I don't know if you actually read my responses to you or just skip that and go straight to your response because if you did you might of read one of the many times where I wrote I am not looking for a Church solution so I won't try and address that point again.

We are just going to have to disagree that the government must track who is married and who is simply living together. I know that is hard for you to believe that someone might feel that way but you are just going to have live with the thought.
 
Now we are talking about a contract. What are the terms of this contract you apply for when you go and apply for your marriage contract?

I don't know if you actually read my responses to you or just skip that and go straight to your response because if you did you might of read one of the many times where I wrote I am not looking for a Church solution so I won't try and address that point again.

We are just going to have to disagree that the government must track who is married and who is simply living together. I know that is hard for you to believe that someone might feel that way but you are just going to have live with the thought.

You're intentionally avoiding my responses: what stops someone from showing up at your door with the police and claiming 'we were/are married, so I need to take half this stuff away'?

We live in a society and country that works from Rule of Law; in order to have functional and orderly laws, you need to have structure and legal contracts that define property rights, personal rights (including health privacy, etc). When you enter into a formal marriage contract/agreement, you are formally sharing those rights with someone. Without that formal contract, no one can randomly claim your stuff, or go to a hospital to pull up personal health/medical records about you.

So, if you are going to allow Churches to 'define marriage', how, then are you going to handle the large legal framework we have around 'informal relationships'? Do you understand how easy it would be to fraudulently take advantage of that kind of informal system? Especially if you have 90 different 'churches' all keeping different records?

Also, the minute you allow ONE church the right to 'define marriage', you open up the door to Sharia Law or any other religion to do the same. You really ought to think through the unintended consequences of your 'idea' here.
 
You're intentionally avoiding my responses: what stops someone from showing up at your door with the police and claiming 'we were/are married, so I need to take half this stuff away'?

We live in a society and country that works from Rule of Law; in order to have functional and orderly laws, you need to have structure and legal contracts that define property rights, personal rights (including health privacy, etc). When you enter into a formal marriage contract/agreement, you are formally sharing those rights with someone. Without that formal contract, no one can randomly claim your stuff, or go to a hospital to pull up personal health/medical records about you.

So, if you are going to allow Churches to 'define marriage', how, then are you going to handle the large legal framework we have around 'informal relationships'? Do you understand how easy it would be to fraudulently take advantage of that kind of informal system? Especially if you have 90 different 'churches' all keeping different records?

Also, the minute you allow ONE church the right to 'define marriage', you open up the door to Sharia Law or any other religion to do the same. You really ought to think through the unintended consequences of your 'idea' here.
You really need to read my answers to your continued insistence that there must be any or only a religious option. You have not shown an ability to comprehend it but try again.

OK you are right the only way for society to exist in the Untied States is for the government to issue licenses for people who want to marry and any change in that would trigger a zombie apocalypse and end life as we know it so thank you for saving us all from a fate worst the death.
 
You really need to read my answers to your continued insistence that there must be any or only a religious option. You have not shown an ability to comprehend it but try again.

OK you are right the only way for society to exist in the Untied States is for the government to issue licenses for people who want to marry and any change in that would trigger a zombie apocalypse and end life as we know it so thank you for saving us all from a fate worst the death.

You really need to read up on the Rule of Law, because your insistence that people can just have 'informal' marriages with no legal framework is utter nonsense.
 
You really need to read up on the Rule of Law, because your insistence that people can just have 'informal' marriages with no legal framework is utter nonsense.
Plus there is no chance that there could be a changes in the laws or things could be done differently as we obviously have the very best system ever thought of by modern man and we should not tamper with anything so entrenched with the government because there is no possible way it could be done differently or our whole system of government could fail and the rights of people to marriage could become an issue for our society.

Your latest post is progress as you did not accuse me of a religious bias in my position so there is that.
 
TexMich:

Ignoring everything else in this entire thread:

Why would removing "marriage" from government be good in relation to this thread? Should we encourage states that disagree with SCOTUS rulings on the Federal Constitution to simply ignore (and write unconstitutional laws) what has been decided is a Constitutional right?

Is this to appease them? We have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to marriage, what good is removing that right....OTHER than to appease those who don't want it to be one?
 
TexMich:

Ignoring everything else in this entire thread:

Why would removing "marriage" from government be good in relation to this thread? Should we encourage states that disagree with SCOTUS rulings on the Federal Constitution to simply ignore (and write unconstitutional laws) what has been decided is a Constitutional right?

Is this to appease them? We have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to marriage, what good is removing that right....OTHER than to appease those who don't want it to be one?
It is not about removing "marriage" from government it is about removing the ability of government to regulate who can get married.

Two people should have the ability to be married without having to be sanctioned by the government.

Two people outside of marriage can live the same life without any requirements yet we feel the only way to make a "marriage" legal is to have the government grant you their permission.

States have been ignoring Federal laws on many fronts for a long time. People agree with the constitution and SCOTUS if they agree with the constitution or decision and if they don't they work to change it or ignore it.

Don't know if that answers your question or not.
 
It is not about removing "marriage" from government it is about removing the ability of government to regulate who can get married.

Two people should have the ability to be married without having to be sanctioned by the government.

In other words, polygamy, brothers/sisters marrying, cousins marrying, child marriages should all be 'ok', as 'the government' shouldn't be 'controlling us'.

Newsflash: 'the government' isn't controlling anything about marriage - no one is being 'turned down' (unless they are in Kentucky). It is YOU who have an issue w/ same-sex couples who want to 'control' it.

And, per your own definition, ANY couple can run around and 'claim' they are married w/o the government having any involvement at all. Try it!!! It's free speech!
 
In other words, polygamy, brothers/sisters marrying, cousins marrying, child marriages should all be 'ok', as 'the government' shouldn't be 'controlling us'.

Newsflash: 'the government' isn't controlling anything about marriage - no one is being 'turned down' (unless they are in Kentucky). It is YOU who have an issue w/ same-sex couples who want to 'control' it.

And, per your own definition, ANY couple can run around and 'claim' they are married w/o the government having any involvement at all. Try it!!! It's free speech!
Comprehension is a real weak point for you.
 
It is not about removing "marriage" from government it is about removing the ability of government to regulate who can get married.

Two people should have the ability to be married without having to be sanctioned by the government.

Two people outside of marriage can live the same life without any requirements yet we feel the only way to make a "marriage" legal is to have the government grant you their permission.

States have been ignoring Federal laws on many fronts for a long time. People agree with the constitution and SCOTUS if they agree with the constitution or decision and if they don't they work to change it or ignore it.

Don't know if that answers your question or not.

Two people can live in/outside of marriage the "same life" regardless, you are right. It isn't their "life" that the governmental sanctioning is there for. It is the repercussions of it, such as supporting children, intestacy, etc.

We got rid of government's ability to "control" our sexual/romantic/life-partner choices awhile ago.

"States have been ignoring Federal laws on many fronts for a long time. " This is entirely irrelevant. I will presume you are comparing this to, say, Colorado "ignoring" federal drug laws, or sanctuary cities "ignoring" federal immigration laws. These simply are not comparable. We aren't talking about "federal laws", we are talking about Constitutional rights. A State can not violate a federal (nor State, obviously) Constitutional right....which Kentucky was, by way of Kim Davis, their clerk. But, I am happy to read about all of these States violating our Constitutional rights, please post them.

The question can really be boiled down to: What are you, TexMichFan, trying to "gain" from "getting government out of marriage"? Are you wanting plural marriages to be legal? Father/son (adult) contractual relationships to be legitimized?

Or are you just trying to appease those who refuse to acknowledge the decision, like these KY lawmakers?
 
In other words, polygamy, brothers/sisters marrying, cousins marrying, child marriages should all be 'ok', as 'the government' shouldn't be 'controlling us'.

Newsflash: 'the government' isn't controlling anything about marriage - no one is being 'turned down' (unless they are in Kentucky). It is YOU who have an issue w/ same-sex couples who want to 'control' it.

And, per your own definition, ANY couple can run around and 'claim' they are married w/o the government having any involvement at all. Try it!!! It's free speech!

I'm not sure where you think you went with this. Of course people are being "turned down". Those who are married already, and those you label in your very first sentence.
 
I'm not sure where you think you went with this. Of course people are being "turned down". Those who are married already, and those you label in your very first sentence.

Those aren't the people TexMichFan is referring to.

And, as I've stated many times in this thread, if government is not going to provide that 'legal framework' for marriage contracts, who will?

No one, not even the government, is stopping the Church of TexMichFan from recognizing anyone as 'married'; Church of TexMichFan can condone 'marriages' to dogs, horses and lizards if it wants. But outside of Church of TexMichFan, no one else is going to care, and the government won't have anything to do with it, either, provided no government laws are being violated.
 
Those aren't the people TexMichFan is referring to.

And, as I've stated many times in this thread, if government is not going to provide that 'legal framework' for marriage contracts, who will?

No one, not even the government, is stopping the Church of TexMichFan from recognizing anyone as 'married'; Church of TexMichFan can condone 'marriages' to dogs, horses and lizards if it wants. But outside of Church of TexMichFan, no one else is going to care, and the government won't have anything to do with it, either, provided no government laws are being violated.

I wasn't disagreeing with any part but your obviously wrong, "the government isn't denying anyone" part. Because that is a big part of what it appears TexMichFan is discussing. He, appears, to not want "marriage" limited to anybody, specifically. I think.
 
I wasn't disagreeing with any part but your obviously wrong, "the government isn't denying anyone" part. Because that is a big part of what it appears TexMichFan is discussing. He, appears, to not want "marriage" limited to anybody, specifically. I think.

Sure....we have government limitations, consistent with other laws: can't marry siblings or cousins; can only be married to one person at a time; cannot marry a minor, etc.; can't marry anyone who cannot legally 'consent' (this means anyone/anything that cannot enter into ANY OTHER type of legal contract, either). Those laws apply to everyone equally, not a particular gender or gender identity.

What TexMichFan is advocating is eliminating that government oversight completely, and he doesn't seem to comprehend the baggage that comes along with it if you start letting any 'religion' make its own definitions of marriage and enforce them on other people (which is what this thread is really about). He seems to 'want government out of marriage' completely, when all 'marriage' is (to the government), is a 'legal contract'.
 
ADVERTISEMENT