Tennessee to Attempt to Ban Same Sex Marriage

[San Lumen]

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/p ... 805983002/

A bill has been introduced into the Tennessee Legislature that would effectively ban same sex marriage.

The bill would prohibit government officials especially county clerks issuing marriage certificates from recognizing any court ruling that affirms same-sex unions, and specifies they cannot be arrested for failing to comply with court orders that do so.

The bills sponsor Rep Jerry Sexton(R) stated that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision to legalize same-sex marriage is void in Tennessee because the state has already passed its own law and constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman. This is totally bogus argument as the decisions of the Supreme Court apply to every state.

The proposed law also requires the states Attorney General to defend the law in court. This same bill was introduced last session and failed to get any traction.

It appears this whole thing is attempt to get the issue back before the Supreme Court where the right hopes the court will rule there is no right for LGBT couples to marry or adopt. I don't see how this law would be upheld in court or by SCOTUS as the Obergefell decision which legalized same sex marriage and adoption nationwide was decided under the 14th amendment and you would have to somehow prove it doesnt apply to LGBT people.

Your thoughts NSG?

[Vassenor]

So we're doing this dance again?

What is it about letting two consenting adults be happy together that the GOP hates so damn much?

[Thermodolia]

They can’t do anything. Why? Because SCOTUS already ruled that marriage equality is legal so the bill would be automatically null and void

[San Lumen]

So we're doing this dance again?

What is it about letting two consenting adults be happy together that the GOP hates so damn much?

No idea possibly something regarding the Bible saying its not ok.

They can’t do anything. Why? Because SCOTUS already ruled that marriage equality is legal so the bill would be automatically null and void

Well they could in theory overrule that decision but I dont see how you could say the 14th amendment does apply to certain people

[Thermodolia]

Also considering that said bill didn’t get any traction last go round I don’t know why anyone would assume it would this time. Unless of course they think that everyone in the South are homophobic.

This is literally a non story

[Thermodolia]

So we're doing this dance again?

What is it about letting two consenting adults be happy together that the GOP hates so damn much?

No idea possibly something regarding the Bible saying its not ok.

They can’t do anything. Why? Because SCOTUS already ruled that marriage equality is legal so the bill would be automatically null and void

Well they could in theory overrule that decision but I dont see how you could say the 14th amendment does apply to certain people

Only if you brought up a suit that shows straight people have been harmed by the court’s decision. Otherwise no. This bill is dead anyway

[Alvecia]

They can’t do anything. Why? Because SCOTUS already ruled that marriage equality is legal so the bill would be automatically null and void

Would it not just be possible to appeal it all the way up to the new SCOTUS?

[Sicaris]

So we're doing this dance again?

What is it about letting two consenting adults be happy together that the GOP hates so damn much?

A minority in one state = the entire GOP

Alright, so by that logic


All Democrats are communists and want to violently overthrow the government

[Sicaris]

They can’t do anything. Why? Because SCOTUS already ruled that marriage equality is legal so the bill would be automatically null and void

Would it not just be possible to appeal it all the way up to the new SCOTUS?

It would still get rejected, even with a Republican SCOTUS.

Being Republican doesn’t make someone literally Hitler 2.0, just FYI.

[San Lumen]

No idea possibly something regarding the Bible saying its not ok.

Well they could in theory overrule that decision but I dont see how you could say the 14th amendment does apply to certain people

Only if you brought up a suit that shows straight people have been harmed by the court’s decision. Otherwise no. This bill is dead anyway

The legislature is more conservative now compared to the last session

[Alvecia]

Would it not just be possible to appeal it all the way up to the new SCOTUS?

It would still get rejected, even with a Republican SCOTUS.

Why? Can the SCOTUS not rule on something they’ve already ruled on?

[Sicaris]

It would still get rejected, even with a Republican SCOTUS.

Why? Can the SCOTUS not rule on something they’ve already ruled on?

No, they can, it just wouldn’t go through becaus the judges would majoritively vote against it.

[The Black Forrest]

So we're doing this dance again?

What is it about letting two consenting adults be happy together that the GOP hates so damn much?

A minority in one state = the entire GOP

Well? Now that we have the MAGA mindset yammering on about Religious "Freedom".....I could see other states attempting it or doing the usual gays can't adopt; give blood; blah blah blah....

[Thermodolia]

They can’t do anything. Why? Because SCOTUS already ruled that marriage equality is legal so the bill would be automatically null and void

Would it not just be possible to appeal it all the way up to the new SCOTUS?

No. Because you’d have to show that the decision has harmed people. Since it’s nearly impossible for two consenting individuals to harm others the case is over day one.

[Thermodolia]

Only if you brought up a suit that shows straight people have been harmed by the court’s decision. Otherwise no. This bill is dead anyway

The legislature is more conservative now compared to the last session

You need to read what you are replying to.

Also that doesn’t make one more homophobic

[Alvecia]

Why? Can the SCOTUS not rule on something they’ve already ruled on?

No, they can, it just wouldn’t go through becaus the judges would majoritively vote against it.

So it could get ruled on, you just don’t think it’s likely?

[Thermodolia]

A minority in one state = the entire GOP

Well? Now that we have the MAGA mindset yammering on about Religious "Freedom".....I could see other states attempting it or doing the usual gays can't adopt; give blood; blah blah blah....

Giving blood is federal unfortunately

[Sicaris]

A minority in one state = the entire GOP

Well? Now that we have the MAGA mindset yammering on about Religious "Freedom".....I could see other states attempting it or doing the usual gays can't adopt; give blood; blah blah blah....

We’ve been “yammering” about actual religious freedom for quite some time. The more right-wing parties tend to favor their rights, you know.

[Thermodolia]

No, they can, it just wouldn’t go through becaus the judges would majoritively vote against it.

So it could get ruled on, you just don’t think it’s likely?

No it never would even reach SCOTUS. Not ever. Appellate courts in the US only hear cases if they think the lower court messed up the procedure of the case not the specifics of the case.

[Alvecia]

Would it not just be possible to appeal it all the way up to the new SCOTUS?

No. Because you’d have to show that the decision has harmed people. Since it’s nearly impossible for two consenting individuals to harm others the case is over day one.

Is the harm factor the only way a SCOTUS ruling can get overturned?

[San Lumen]

It would still get rejected, even with a Republican SCOTUS.

Why? Can the SCOTUS not rule on something they’ve already ruled on?

They can but you have to present a case as why it should be overturned. In this case assuming the bill passed after which it would be immediately challenged in court you would have to prove the 14th amendment doesnt apply to LGBT people

[Thermodolia]

No. Because you’d have to show that the decision has harmed people. Since it’s nearly impossible for two consenting individuals to harm others the case is over day one.

Is the harm factor the only way a SCOTUS ruling can get overturned?

It’s the only way this case can

[The Black Forrest]

Well? Now that we have the MAGA mindset yammering on about Religious "Freedom".....I could see other states attempting it or doing the usual gays can't adopt; give blood; blah blah blah....

We’ve been “yammering” about actual religious freedom for quite some time. The more right-wing parties tend to favor their rights, you know.

Rights to oppress others with your Religious views aren't rights. Your Religion isn't being oppressed.

[The Black Forrest]

Well? Now that we have the MAGA mindset yammering on about Religious "Freedom".....I could see other states attempting it or doing the usual gays can't adopt; give blood; blah blah blah....

Giving blood is federal unfortunately

That was the result of efforts to prevent blood donation. Might get aids after all.....

[Sicaris]

We’ve been “yammering” about actual religious freedom for quite some time. The more right-wing parties tend to favor their rights, you know.

Rights to oppress others with your Religious views aren't rights. Your Religion isn't being oppressed.

Who said it was my religion? You’re making assumptions now.

“Oppressing others”? Like what? Are you referring to the gay couple having a baker refuse to baking them a highly special cake and being there at their wedding?

Or some other form of “right to oppress others with your religious views”?