Jump to content
~*Please Support the GoFundMe Campaign for HardAct*~ Read more... ×
SaysWho?

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

Recommended Posts

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/tennessee-natural-marriage-defense-act-seeks-strip-gay-marriage-rights-n970596

 

Quote

The Republican bill looks to “defend” marriage as “between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary.”

 

Quote

Another obstacle is the state’s LGBTQ community and its allies, who banded together once before to prevent the bill’s passage, and plan to do so again.
 

“Tennesseans who are in committed same-sex relationships simply want to be treated with the same dignity and respect as everyone else,” Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU in Tennessee, said. “A handful of state legislators cannot nullify the law of the land and drive our state backward simply because they wish to discriminate. The ACLU of Tennessee, along with many partners, will be working hard to defeat this narrow-minded, blatantly unconstitutional legislation.”
 

Sanders said there are at least five other bills in the state legislature that may threaten the rights of LGBTQ people in Tennessee. One of them, introduced in 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, creates barriers for LGBTQ individuals and same-sex couples looking to adopt or foster children.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there's a push for these things again now that there's a new governor who is more into forcing a SCOTUS challenge. The previous governor wasn't into it so he didn't support legislation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cutting off Tennessee and letting it drift into the sea necessitates giving up some other states, but I think we can all agree it is acceptable collateral damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chris- said:

Cutting off Tennessee and letting it drift into the sea necessitates giving up some other states, but I think we can all agree it is acceptable collateral damage.

pretty much any southern states that may go with it would be acceptable 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chris- said:

Cutting off Tennessee and letting it drift into the sea necessitates giving up some other states, but I think we can all agree it is acceptable collateral damage.

 

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina...that's not acceptable collateral damage, that's a bonus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina...that's not acceptable collateral damage, that's a bonus!

 

If it drifts due east (the path of least resistance), then only North Carolina is screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina...that's not acceptable collateral damage, that's a bonus!

Drag Manhattan with the lot and scuttle them all at sea so the last “only in New York” we ever hear uttered is the city’s death rattle. 

 

EDIT - I need to rethink this strategy. A sunken Manhattan would become Atlantis and the notion of New York becoming an actual mythic city is just too much to contemplate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

This fight is over. Give it up. You lost.

 

 

It's very possible they have the votes to kill Obergefell if they get a case back to SCOTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

It's very possible they have the votes to kill Obergefell if they get a case back to SCOTUS.

 

This is why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

Fuck everything only heterosexual partners for the purpose of procreation if they overturn this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So assuming they do in fact overturn Obergefell, what does that mean?  We go back to having it be a state-by-state issue?

 

I'm pretty sure half of the states already ruled it legal before the ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

So assuming they do in fact overturn Obergefell, what does that mean?  We go back to having it be a state-by-state issue?

 

I'm pretty sure half of the states already ruled it legal before the ruling.

 

Were they state court rulings or were they federal court rulings? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Were they state court rulings or were they federal court rulings? 

State legislatures or courts in some 20 states IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

Drag Manhattan with the lot and scuttle them all at sea so the last “only in New York” we ever hear uttered is the city’s death rattle. 

 

EDIT - I need to rethink this strategy. A sunken Manhattan would become Atlantis and the notion of New York becoming an actual mythic city is just too much to contemplate. 

 Haters gonna hate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the event that Obergefell is struck down by SCOTUS, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the most left-leaning states simply decide to not recognize ANY marriages from states that revert to the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

In other words, the notion of "reciprocity" at least for marriage would be null and void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

In the event that Obergefell is struck down by SCOTUS, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the most left-leaning states simply decide to not recognize ANY marriages from states that revert to the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

In other words, the notion of "reciprocity" at least for marriage would be null and void.

 

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, marioandsonic said:

Fuck everything if they overturn this.

 

 

I think more focus is on Roe because that is the precedent the public(or at least a very loud and admittedly sizable minority of the public) is openly agitating for. While many on the Right outside of the Evangelicals would be glad to give up gay bashing for the most part as a loser that's only going to get even worse for them.

 

Like many, I felt this would steer SCOTUS clear of the issue. Leave well enough alone. If not for precedent sake, then for political expediency. But a while back Andrew on the Opening Arguments podcast pointed something simple out I haven't seen anyone else mention; John Roberts didn't just sign off on the descent in Obergefell, he wrote it. And it was blistering.

 

 

Quote

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?

 

 

Quote

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

 

 

And a lot more in between.

 

And Roberts is almost certainly the deciding vote.  

 

To answer your other question, judging by the rest of his descent, Roberts thinks this should be left up to the states(a lot) so I am guessing that's where it would go if Roberts pulls the trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sexy_shapiro said:

I wish the national conversation around gay rights would move past gay marriage, tbh.

Where would you like the conversation to go instead? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nokra said:

Where would you like the conversation to go instead? 

 

Explicitly defining sexual orientation as a protected class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of life must a reject that gets upset about gays marrying lead?? It's such a stupid fucking thing to get mad about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, legend said:

What kind of life must a reject that gets upset about gays marrying lead?? It's such a stupid fucking thing to get mad about.

 

It's one of those issues where once it becomes legal in an area, 90% of the population forgets it even happened because nothing changes. But for those 10%, it feels like someone is spitting in their face. Those are the people who angrily lobby the GOP to change these laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nokra said:

Where would you like the conversation to go instead? 

Marrying your pets! That's where it's going!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×