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.
This headline is so headline grabby. Sure the local fucking bigot won’t do it, but practically anyone can qualify as eligible for solemnizing a marriage.
I think it’s real shitty what they did and are trying to do, don’t get me wrong, but LGBTQ are not going away and there’s a lot more supporters than haters out there. Even in red states many supporters remain silent to avoid the loud dumb bigots.
Sure, but is issuing a marriage license “solemnizing” the marriage?
The real issue here is that public employees are allowed to bestow different services on different members of the public just based on how they feel. In a Good Old Boys jurisdiction, this could in practice outlaw gay marriage because all it takes is a consistent hiring practice to only get the “right kind” of clerk who won’t issue gay marriage licenses, and it becomes impossible to get one. That can happen in significant percentages of jurisdictions.
Sure, it violates equal protection Constitutional rights, but somehow I think this Supreme Court would find that First Amendment “right to express religious bigotry” wins if those are in conflict.
Sure, but is issuing a marriage license “solemnizing” the marriage?
No. The County Clerk’s office issues marriage licenses before the marriage is solemnized, and the officiant who solemnizes the marriage then turns the license back in, completed.
Basically you get issued the license to permit the marriage, someone accepts that paperwork and solemnizes the marriage (usually in some variety of ceremony, as befits your cultural and religious preferences), then that person (the officiant) completes the license and submits it back to the state to inform them it’s been done.
The Tennessee law in question essentially says that just because someone is allowed to officiate a marriage in Tennessee doesn’t mean they are required to if they have some issue with the pairing. AKA you can’t force a preacher from a decidedly anti-LGBT church to marry you just because they are a preacher.
Sure, it violates equal protection Constitutional rights,
Does it? It’s not a state employee performing their job function that’s given this leeway. The County Clerk is still required to issue the marriage license and is still required to accept and process completed ones, even if they disagree with those pairings.
It’s the person performing the wedding that is given leeway to decide who they are willing to marry, and the options there are broad enough that it doesn’t meaningfully restrict you (there are about 102,000 notaries public as well as an assortment of current and former elected officials and literally any clergy of any faith).
literally any clergy of any faith
That might count, though FSM is often in a grey area because it’s usually primarily a satire of religion rather than claiming to actually be one. The list of who can solemnize marriage in Tennessee is here:
https://www.nashville.gov/departments/county-clerk/marriage-license/who-can-solemnize
Clergy mostly fall under:
All regular ministers, preachers, pastors, priests, rabbis and other religious leaders of every religious belief, more than eighteen (18) years of age, having the care of souls
Military and law enforcement chaplains have their own items in the list, further down. Apparently they don’t count as “regular” clergy?
“real shitty”
does that mean it doesn’t affect you so fuck it who cares ? Because we did that in the USA for centuries and fuck that. It was real shittier.
does that mean it doesn’t affect you so fuck it who cares ?
No
I can see making an exception for “religious figures” but the idea that a public servant, like a government official or to lesser extent notary public, can deny service to someone based on their personal beliefs is problematic and certainly something that should be reported on.
They’re doing this to tee up a challenge to Obergefell.
Why are the conservatives so homophobic? Are they having sex with your husbands or something?
I had a gay man hit me in a gay bar. I said sorry I’m straight and he called me a tease. I was sorta flattered. This must be what females feel all the time.
we wound up in a gay bar on a bucks night pub crawl once and it was awesome. also one of the only times in my life I was hit on and yeah, it’s flattering!
Did you end up having sex with him? No? Hm… still not sure why they are still so homophobic.
exactly! just enjoy the compliment
Oh please let someone refuse to marry a hetero couple.
They will if they’re mixed race.
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.
Abrahamic genre for extra-spicy kick?
“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.
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.
Personally I think marriages should only be allowed if both people own a domestic vehicle.
/s? I’m guessing so, but you can never be sure out here lol.
If not /s, then why?
My grandma was driving a civic when she drunkenly drove into a tree.
You just banned anyone in NYC from getting married
Do they drive imports?
No one drives, there’s too much traffic
Just buy one to park, I hear spots are cheap there.
Parking spots have a higher income than most residents
Really?
Parking is expensive in New York City?
You learn something everyday.
It’s crazy how “No one drives” and “there’s too much traffic” can be a part of the same sentence, and still be correct.
Wouldn’t want any of them horrible poor people to have a shot at happiness
I just really hate KIAs.
It’s okay, it’s mutual, the KIAs hate you right back
Do horses count?
Can you fuck the pope bareback in the woods?
Not if it’s Arabian.
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.
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.
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
That’s what’s sort of mind boggling about all of this. Society has already decided to support LGBT rights. Republicans are just reopening a war that’s already been lost.
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.
Very well. Despite having no power to perform a wedding and certainly not in a state I have only been to one time in my life I am officially declaring that I will not marry a straight couple. It umm goes against my religion. The first church of anidiotsayswhat.
Your love Tennessee, your move
Moonies do have a religious argument against solemnizing same race marriages. They won’t, and they’re a cult, but they are the only religion to my knowledge to prioritize interracial marriage
Hey I remember you, any luck on that feeding Taylor Swift Taco Bell to turn your wife bisexual thing?
Not yet, not for lack of trying.
Saying that, she’s flying out for a “girls weekend” and her friend is hot and slutty, and there will be wine.
I can hope
Keep reaching for TayTay’s vajayjay, my friend.
Interracial marriage is safe until Justice Thomas hits a rough spot in his marriage.
If you live in this shit states the most important thing you can do in your whole life is leave.
Or fucking vote.
Leaving is rarely an option for the people most in danger or most oppressed anyway.
Its really unfortunate because one of the best national labs in the country is in Tennessee.
Ornl complains about brain drain all the time!
Tennesseeans are dumb as shit.
As someone who did, I understand the sentiment but it isn’t that easy. I have so many friends and family members who are stuck there because they can’t save enough resources to leave.
People are like marching through the American Southwest desert into a country actively trying to stop them which speaks a totally different language and with children and they can’t move within their native country?
I did it. I grew up in deep Appalachia. Packed a backpack and went on a bus. That is no where near the difficulty level an illegal faces.
Funny how many people renting apartments with an hourly job will say that though
Yeah… almost like they’re stuck in a cycle of poverty and can’t save enough money for a down payment for a house either.
So ‘funny’.
Almost as if moving across the country is expensive, and they can’t save up enough to front the cost. Hell, moving in general is expensive, but doubly so when you’re uprooting your entire life.
Wdym?
The idea being you can get an hourly job and an apartment just about anywhere. The only real expense is moving your shit. Most everything else is time.
Time and effort to restablish a local social network, but people don’t want to admit that they’re mostly just scared of being alone in a new area.
Okay, I live in a shit hole state, and want out. The certification process for my career (teaching) costs money - I will likely have to pay money for a background check as well as the certification paperwork. I can’t work as a teacher because I am transgender in Oklahoma (it was safe five years ago, it is no longer). So I am doing gig work.
Is the solution really buy to drive in a random direction and hope for the best? I already have severe PTSD from needing to do sex work to survive in college, the idea of being in even more dire financial straits is the kind of thing that makes me shake. Do I need to find a weekly hotel while I try to find a job that’ll help me secure an apartment? I’m struggling with doing that here so the idea of trying to just make it work somewhere else doesn’t seem likely.
“Just move” is not helpful advice on these threads. I’m trying. The things that make me need to move are also the things that make it difficult for me to move.
I’m sorry to hear that. What’s your plan? I’m in Tennessee myself and planning on Colorado or Ireland.
I’m going to see how 2024 goes to decide whether I need a new state or a new republic.
Congress should just pass a law to allow online marriage services so someone in a progressive can marry anyone who needs to get married in a shithole state.
I can re-register my car, re-issue my license, change or verify my voter info online, even all the gods hope file my taxes online cheaply(cough free) these days. I dont see why two consenting adults who both file the info shouldn’t be able to… but then minds would explode. I mean we recently found out that alabama thinks that eggs are actual humans, which opens so many food based questions I’ll stop going.
Make all federal recognition of marriage based on a federal license.
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.
In before “you need to be licensed to officiate in AL” and “our licensing board can refuse to license on moral grounds”.
I REFUSE to sign off on Republican Marriages!
You should actually try to get the job and do just that
Anyone can sign up to be a minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and legally perform marriages. I did and have. I don’t know why you’d do it if your goal is to just not marry people, though.
In this case to make them repeal this idiocy by making it backfire on them. Malicious compliance
Specifically though to give the asshats that did this a taste of their own medicine
Most of the time a LEGAL marriage has nothing to do with a church/minister/religion at all. It’s 100% a ‘state’ thing for filing of taxes, courtroom protections, power of attorney etc. Getting married in a church doesn’t grant any of those things. Having a piece of paper from your ‘state’ is what makes it legal in the government’s eyes. If the government won’t sign off, you’re not LEGALLY married, just socially.
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.
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:
the Constitution prohibits public officials from discriminating against members of the public based on their personal beliefs
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)
Time to pack their local government with allies and refuse some hetero marriages 😎
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.
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.
“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.County clerks are an elected position in TN. If someone were to refuse to sanctify Christian unions then they would be out of a job the next election cycle or more likely removed from office.
Kim Davis flashbacks.
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.
Yes
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.
“Not if we gerrymander and marginalize them, until our great Leader returns and removes them all.” - (voters who wish to remain anonymous)
Satanic Temple, if you’re reading this…
Ordained Ministers of Satan can perform weddings…but they’re more about proving a point by allowing everyone to do something, rather than by restricting people. So they’d be good ones to go to to officiate marriages if refused elsewere.
Unfortunately, one of the conservatives’ strategies at play here is they only give “right of conscience” to people with political power over other people.
They aren’t giving normal citizens the right to object to anything, they’re giving unelected officers the right to torment those beneath them.
And unless you’re willing to be as evil to innocent people as they are, you can’t fight that war.
In the end what they’re destroying here is the rule of law itself.
In the name of Baphoment, ruler of Satan, prince of darkness, I pronounce you man and whore!
Yes.
Honestly I don’t see the problem. If someone wants a religious ceremony then they should agree to the rules of that religion. If they religion doesn’t want to do it that should be religious freedom.
If they don’t want a religious ceremony then they can get a civil partnership or whatever which is legally the same without the religious marriage. Or go to another religion.
Religion is stupid in my opinion and the more ridiculous it is allowed to be (excluding forcing children or people outside of the religion to do things) then I think fucking go for it, it will allow people to see the ridiculousness and turn people off.
Only if good people can get into the public offices in the first place.
No cookie for guessing what will the secret interview question to become a marriage officer will be in those States.
Wait… aren’t you people the same one’s telling everyone they can’t tell you what to do with your body, but here you want to demand someone give up their choice? If one person refuses, move on to the next. A lot of you don’t understand the word freedom, or hypocrite.
Let’s say it’s my religion that I think you should not be allowed to drive because I don’t like you. Now let’s say I work at the DMV and you walk up, should I be allowed to deny you a license because it’s my religion?
An officiant isn’t a government entity.
I’ll go to the next clerk.
And if it’s a one-horse town and there’s no alternative clerk?
Did you read the article? it’s not the clerk that this relates to it’s the officiant. so first of all your example it total bullshit stickman argument. Second, anyone with an internet connection can become ‘ordained’ and eligible to be an officiant in a wedding. I know this because I have done it myself, and my coworker sitting next to me does this OFTEN. Third there is no “gotcha” here. You’re simply mad because people are being given freedom to choose.
Is it “freedom to choose” when a restaurant tells black customers “we don’t serve your kind”?
Nobody should have the right to infringe upon others’ rights. Look up the paradox of tolerance.
it’s not infringing though. they aren’t saying you can’t, they are saying they won’t.
So, if an Amish person decided to work at the DMV, they should be able to refuse driver’s licenses to everyone? It’s against their beliefs, after all. (I don’t know if it technically is, but play along, for the sake of argument.) Or… Should they maybe just not have that job, since it’s a matter of what is legally required to do something? Whether it’s 1% or 100% of the population, it’s their beliefs that are more important, right?
For a business to discriminate in many parts of the US, there may be only 1 bakery, or bank, or car rental place, etc. Some places are small, you can’t just “go to someone else” when you only have One option. Almost all business are considered “places of public accommodation”.
For government to discriminate we have the same issue. Many offices have very few employees in MOST of the US. Only large metropolitan cities have, almost adequate, staff. There are not 100 court clerks in Podunk Alabama, or Nowhere Nevada. These places probably have 1 clerk doing multiple jobs.
If you own a business, or work in a government job, you serve the public. That means every nice person, and every freak you hate. This ain’t no hamburger at Burger King, you don’t get to “have it your way”.
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.
What’s done in secret brings public shame. Those legislators are a disgrace.
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.
Fucking SCOTUS bait. This is to overturn Hodges
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).
And Loving v. Virginia is next.
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.”
I’ve been predicting it for years that that’s what will happen
My understanding is that Thomas wants to end Loving and allow bans on interracial marriage because he wants to expose how racist America is and to radicalize black Americans into separatism.
Like the goal is to show black Americans that racist whites run the country and that they will prevent you from marrying other races because they hate you and consider you to be The Other. And it is impossible to change their minds on this. Which is why the Constitution and caselaw cannot protect us. Instead, we need to self-segregate away from whites and form our own communities away from them. Similar to the Amish or the hasidic Jewish neighborhoods in NYC.
Thomas in some ways has more in common with Marcus Garvey than Ronald Reagan. It’s just an incredibly cruel and largely contradictory version of Garvey’s racial separatism
Very creative and all but… You do know about his wife, right?
The white lady who helped plan the insurrection?
Yeah, she isn’t an issue with any of this. His point is that if it wasn’t for SCOTUS then interracial marriage would still be banned. And he wants to make that true so that others are radicalized by it.
Him being deprived of his own marriage would just be seen by him as effective additional propaganda - would show that no matter how high black people climb in society, whites will still destroy their lives. Which would help show that integration is an impossibility, which is his goal
Thomas is going to be all in on overturning Loving v. Virginia.
