564
Tennessee GOP quietly overturns marriage equality by giving officials the right to refuse
(www.advocate.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
564 points (97.6% liked)
politics
19159 readers
5938 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Isn't this a federal law though? Is it normal practice to allow states to supercede federal law if they arbitrarily want to?
It's skirting the federal law by allowing all officials to refuse anyone for any reason. If they just said "no gay marriage in this state" or didn't recognize the union of married gay couples that would be illegal.
It's fucked up, and the intention is clear, but I'm sure the remaining officiants that will perform ceremonies for same sex couples will make themselves known and they will be busy.
Unfortunately they will also likely be targeted by extremists.
Also, it doesn't skirt federal law, per the article:
This might not cover all officiants, eg priests, but it covers state notary publics and government officials, which is really all this law is targeting anyway (I think religious people could already refuse).
Oh but they'll still try, and it'll end up dragging through court just like the last bitch that tried to object on religious grounds (y'know, the one that was divorced multiple times)
Henry VIII?
LoL. Kim Davis
I think they can still be sued if it's shown that they refuse only gay people. If they only married white people for instance they would absolutely be reamed in court.
What this does do is shift when the lawsuit can happen. Now we have to wait for evidence they they're discriminating since the law itself is not discriminatory.
If the person doesn't refuse to solemnize any other people other than gays it will be pretty damn easy to establish what they are doing. Also "religious" figure is pretty up in the air there is an online course that allows anyone to become an officiant. I guess there is money to be made in being a no frills gay officiant of a secular nature.
Time to pack their local government with allies and refuse some hetero marriages 😎