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:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Public officials in Tennessee can now refuse to grant a marriage license to anyone at their own discretion, for any reason.

Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed into law House Bill 878 on Wednesday, which took effect immediately. The bill — just a few sentences in length — only states that "a person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage." Only state notary publics, government officials, and religious figures can "solemnize" a marriage in Tennessee, according to state code.

None of the sponsors behind the bill have been made public statements on its introduction or passage, nor have they given comment to media organizations. The only known remarks regarding the law from state Rep. Monty Fritts (take a guess), who sponsored it in the House, are from February of last year, when he spoke to the state Subcommittee on Children and Family Affairs.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Teon@kbin.social 95 points 8 months ago (8 children)

“As societal views change about what constitutes a marriage, officiants must be able to refuse to solemnize marriages that are contrary to their beliefs. The government has a responsibility to protect the exercise of religious beliefs," he said, via CNN. "Those with the authority to perform civil ceremonies would also be permitted to refuse to solemnize marriage for reasons of conscience.”

So if someone's religion did not believe "christianity" was a valid religion, they could refuse to give a license to a christian couple.
Be careful what power you give the people, they can use it against you.

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 35 points 8 months ago

This is the only way anything like this changes. Hopefully some folks at city hall will do just this and turn it around on the doofuses.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 23 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

TIL She had a meeting with the Pope).

After receiving a surprise phone call from a church official, the Kentucky county clerk says she traveled to Washington, D.C., where she and her husband Joe met the pope Sept. 24 at the Vatican Embassy.

“I put my hand out and he reached and he grabbed it, and I hugged him and he hugged me,” Davis said. “And he said, ‘thank you for your courage.’”

Religious freedom only exists to enforce religion and deny other freedoms.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 10 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Satanic Temple, if you're reading this...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] oDDmON@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

“Not if we gerrymander and marginalize them, until our great Leader returns and removes them all.” - (voters who wish to remain anonymous)

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] oDDmON@lemmy.world 65 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What’s done in secret brings public shame. Those legislators are a disgrace.

[–] ZeroCool@slrpnk.net 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Agreed. Unfortunately, the Tennessee House of Reps have been making an ass of themselves for quite some time and it may not change any time soon. Though one can hope voters start doing the right thing and ousting these conniving bigots.

[–] IzzyScissor@kbin.social 47 points 8 months ago (18 children)

The most terrifying aspect is that it isn't just gay marriage at stake here - Interracial marriages, atheist marriages, inter-abled marriages.. ALL marriages are at risk if a person you've never met won't sign a piece of paper.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Find one who refuses to marry Republicans, or whites, or straight couples and watch the bitching fly.

Be funnier if alot went along with it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I'm trans, that's been the case for me.... my entire gender identity at one point hinged on me making empty legal threats I had no way to back up to gaslight people at the DMV to sign off on something that I already had enough legal documentation to get signed off on.

There was a time when I was federally Female and in my state Male.

Thank God the bitch behind the register who kept using "It" and "They" to refer to me didn't call my bluff about "Coming back with my Lawyer"... soon as I said that, she clammed up, used the correct pronouns and gave me an F on the gender marker.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Fucking hells they called you "it"?! I am really sorry you had to experience that. Where I am she would be lucky to keep her job.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This was back in 2012/2011 the world's changed a lot since then, today, the paperwork would likely be enough unless I was in an insanely red county

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

Interracial marriage is safe until Justice Thomas hits a rough spot in his marriage.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 44 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Looks like they remembered that three new conservative Supreme Court justices had been added, and figured it was time to start chipping away at gay marriage.

And...This is what happens when the Supreme Court decides stare decisis is optional. If the Court doesn't respect prior decisions, be prepared for every single issue to be re-litigated after members are added to or leave the Court.

[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 37 points 8 months ago (24 children)

GOP continue to be pieces of trash. I really wish the party would just die off, but Trumpism gave them a bolder fascist to believe in.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] Yrt@feddit.de 36 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Oh please let someone refuse to marry a hetero couple.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 40 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They will if they're mixed race.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 17 points 8 months ago

I had an Ortho Jewish professor for several college classes relay casually in class one day t that neither he nor his RC wife converted to marry and her church declined to bury her with head to marker because of her heresy. It's not that big of a stretch back to that. We're regressing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Fucking SCOTUS bait. This is to overturn Hodges

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago (2 children)

And Loving v. Virginia is next.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 16 points 8 months ago (4 children)

The act of Clarence Thomas voting to overturn Loving will be America's pinnacle act of irony. Nothing will top it.

I can imagine him literally writing in his concurrence: "It is time to pull the ladder up behind us."

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

In case anyone else was wondering, you might know this case better as Obergefell (since SCOTUS cases are typically informally called by the plaintiff's name).

[–] blackfire@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago

They yearn to be the first christofacist state. They have some competition with Alabama raising their game with embryos

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago (7 children)

I think we non-Americans never hear names of these states in postive context.

[–] Blum0108@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

We Americans don't either.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

In general, the cities in red states are very progressive. New Orleans and Miami are two of the least small-c conservative cities you’ll find in the U.S., more akin to San Francisco than a place like Boston. (Boston has amazing universities and is progressive in policy but it was founded by puritans and isn’t exactly known for it’s late night parties and festivals.)

By contrast, more Californians voted for Trump than Texans. It’s mostly an urban/rural divide at this point and whether your state government is a horror show or not depends on whether your cities are large enough to create a majority after districts are drawn.

Also, there’s a lot of outrageous bills introduced by one state rep that will never get a vote. But they know they’ll result in clickbait articles and help them gain notoriety.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] janNatan@lemmy.ml 23 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Thankfully, not everyone around here is a bigot. My officiator was an employee at the DMV who was very happy to be a part of my gay wedding in the DMV parking lot. Three years this August.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nifty@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Congress should just pass a law to allow online marriage services so someone in a progressive state can marry anyone who needs to get married in a shithole state.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] STOMPYI@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago (14 children)

If you live in this shit states the most important thing you can do in your whole life is leave.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Isn't this a federal law though? Is it normal practice to allow states to supercede federal law if they arbitrarily want to?

[–] I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago (5 children)

I REFUSE to sign off on Republican Marriages!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 10 points 8 months ago

"We don't want to get rid of gay marriage" yea fuckers, we knew you were full of shit deplorables. This is beyond the fucking pale.

load more comments
view more: next ›