Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If a thing is arrived at "as legal" outside legal due process, then that thing isn't legal. That's the whole of the point of these lawsuits.Ok. So in simple terms then....
What types of marriage ARE legal and which ARE NOT??? I'm 100% fine with gay marriage btw but I find the legislation aspect interesting.
We know:
Man and woman marriage is legal
Same sex marriage is legal
What else is or isnt....and where is the document or law stating it?
Which certain constitutional guarantees prohibit states from limiting marriage to just one man and one woman?
Where in the Constitution does it say "some deviant sex behaviors are a constitutionally protected class; while others (like polygamy) are not"?
Ok. So in simple terms then....
What types of marriage ARE legal and which ARE NOT??? I'm 100% fine with gay marriage btw but I find the legislation aspect interesting.
We know:
Man and woman marriage is legal
Same sex marriage is legal
What else is or isnt....and where is the document or law stating it?
Two consenting adults regardless of gender that are not too closely related to one another can marry. That last part varies from state to state.
But....SCOTUS said the state cannot define marriage. So...how can it vary state by state if the states cannot define it??
How can they limit it to 2...if they can't define it?
How can they limit relative status....if they can't define it?
Again...I'm fine with homo marriage.
But the legal ruling is interesting.
They're saying "the state cannot define marriage" and then we are told ....the definition must fit between two consenting adults of any gender who aren't blood relatives. That's the very limiting definition of marriage that they said states don't have the right to do.
It can either be defined or it cant. If the states cannot define it...who can??
The Windsor ruling makes clear that states still have the power to define marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional guarantees.
Such as?
The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision
More:
the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..
The lawsuits...
Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said
Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...
Personally I don't give a crap about homo marriage one way or another. Doesn't affect me. If Mitchell and Cam from Modern Family wanna be married go for it.
But as a legal issue I do find it interesting. SCOTUS basically legalized one form of marriage but didn't specify where the line stops. By saying the state cannot define marriage they indeed legalized the type in question (same sex) but didn't that open the door to ANY marriage so long as the parties involved call it marriage?
Why would the supreme court address issues that weren't before it? The question they were asked is if states have to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
The answer was yes.
And the USSC never said that states 'can't define marriage'. Quite the opposite. They said that subject to certain constitutional guarantees, ONLY the states can define marriage. I can quote the relevant passage from the Windsor ruling if you're interested.
For example...is polygamy now legal? If so....what's stopping a government employee from offering 10 different girls at a strip club a "marriage" so they can get on his government health insurance plan.....and then reap the fun from it as they then have good benefits and he can legally pay them for anything he wants since they're his "wives".
Is there any mention of polygamy in the Obergefell ruling?
Nope.
As the Supreme Court ever found that states are required to issue polygamous marriage licenses as part of the constitutional guarantees protecting marriage?
Nope.
Then refer to Windsor and the State's unique authority to define marriage. No state recognizes polygamy as legal. Thus, no. Its not legal.
Sounds absurd. But under the ruling...isn't it legal now???? And if it is...honestly...I'm fine with it. I for one think we need to stop trying health insurance to employment.
Nope. The ruling doesn't even mention polygamy, let alone legalize it.
The Family Action Council is fooling themselves if they think this lawsuit will succeed. This is the legal equivalent of a 'Hail Marry' pass.
I wonder why they didn't cite Ferber or children being an implicit party to a marriage contract? lol
Hating the SIN of homosexuality isn't being a bigot.And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.
Hating the SIN of homosexuality isn't being a bigot.And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.
Ok. So in simple terms then....
What types of marriage ARE legal and which ARE NOT??? I'm 100% fine with gay marriage btw but I find the legislation aspect interesting.
We know:
Man and woman marriage is legal
Same sex marriage is legal
What else is or isnt....and where is the document or law stating it?
Two consenting adults regardless of gender that are not too closely related to one another can marry. That last part varies from state to state.
But....SCOTUS said the state cannot define marriage. So...how can it vary state by state if the states cannot define it??
How can they limit it to 2...if they can't define it?
How can they limit relative status....if they can't define it?
Again...I'm fine with homo marriage.
But the legal ruling is interesting.
They're saying "the state cannot define marriage" and then we are told ....the definition must fit between two consenting adults of any gender who aren't blood relatives. That's the very limiting definition of marriage that they said states don't have the right to do.
It can either be defined or it cant. If the states cannot define it...who can??
The Windsor ruling makes clear that states still have the power to define marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional guarantees.
Such as?
Read the Obergefell ruling. They're remarkably specific as to which constitutional guarantees must be honored by the States.
Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
And just so we're clear, you understand that the Supreme Court never said that the State's can't define marriage, right? You've made that claim over and over. And its simply not true.
The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision
More:
the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..
The lawsuits...
Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said
Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...
Personally I don't give a crap about homo marriage one way or another. Doesn't affect me. If Mitchell and Cam from Modern Family wanna be married go for it.
But as a legal issue I do find it interesting. SCOTUS basically legalized one form of marriage but didn't specify where the line stops. By saying the state cannot define marriage they indeed legalized the type in question (same sex) but didn't that open the door to ANY marriage so long as the parties involved call it marriage?
Why would the supreme court address issues that weren't before it? The question they were asked is if states have to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
The answer was yes.
And the USSC never said that states 'can't define marriage'. Quite the opposite. They said that subject to certain constitutional guarantees, ONLY the states can define marriage. I can quote the relevant passage from the Windsor ruling if you're interested.
For example...is polygamy now legal? If so....what's stopping a government employee from offering 10 different girls at a strip club a "marriage" so they can get on his government health insurance plan.....and then reap the fun from it as they then have good benefits and he can legally pay them for anything he wants since they're his "wives".
Is there any mention of polygamy in the Obergefell ruling?
Nope.
As the Supreme Court ever found that states are required to issue polygamous marriage licenses as part of the constitutional guarantees protecting marriage?
Nope.
Then refer to Windsor and the State's unique authority to define marriage. No state recognizes polygamy as legal. Thus, no. Its not legal.
Sounds absurd. But under the ruling...isn't it legal now???? And if it is...honestly...I'm fine with it. I for one think we need to stop trying health insurance to employment.
Nope. The ruling doesn't even mention polygamy, let alone legalize it.
If it's stating a state can define it....so long as it doesn't discriminate anyone's Constitutional rights....then that includes sexual orientation AND religion correct?
And there are some ideas about marriage polygamist and some variations of Islam that our society may find horribly wrong.
But....wouldn't denying them THEIR definition of marriage bases on their religion...be discrimination?
Two consenting adults regardless of gender that are not too closely related to one another can marry. That last part varies from state to state.
But....SCOTUS said the state cannot define marriage. So...how can it vary state by state if the states cannot define it??
How can they limit it to 2...if they can't define it?
How can they limit relative status....if they can't define it?
Again...I'm fine with homo marriage.
But the legal ruling is interesting.
They're saying "the state cannot define marriage" and then we are told ....the definition must fit between two consenting adults of any gender who aren't blood relatives. That's the very limiting definition of marriage that they said states don't have the right to do.
It can either be defined or it cant. If the states cannot define it...who can??
The Windsor ruling makes clear that states still have the power to define marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional guarantees.
Such as?
Read the Obergefell ruling. They're remarkably specific as to which constitutional guarantees must be honored by the States.
Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
And just so we're clear, you understand that the Supreme Court never said that the State's can't define marriage, right? You've made that claim over and over. And its simply not true.
I'll admit not being fully read up on this one....since I really don't care much about gay marriage. The noise on TV was saying "states cannot define marriage".
no. stupid question.The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision
More:
the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..
The lawsuits...
Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said
Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...
Personally I don't give a crap about homo marriage one way or another. Doesn't affect me. If Mitchell and Cam from Modern Family wanna be married go for it.
But as a legal issue I do find it interesting. SCOTUS basically legalized one form of marriage but didn't specify where the line stops. By saying the state cannot define marriage they indeed legalized the type in question (same sex) but didn't that open the door to ANY marriage so long as the parties involved call it marriage?
For example...is polygamy now legal?
are you fucking kidding me?If so....what's stopping a government employee from offering 10 different girls at a strip club a "marriage" so they can get on his government health insurance plan
absolutely not. again, stupid question.....and then reap the fun from it as they then have good benefits and he can legally pay them for anything he wants since they're his "wives".
Sounds absurd. But under the ruling...isn't it legal now????
it isn'tAnd if it is
okay......honestly...I'm fine with it. I for one think we need to stop trying health insurance to employment.
But....SCOTUS said the state cannot define marriage. So...how can it vary state by state if the states cannot define it??
How can they limit it to 2...if they can't define it?
How can they limit relative status....if they can't define it?
Again...I'm fine with homo marriage.
But the legal ruling is interesting.
They're saying "the state cannot define marriage" and then we are told ....the definition must fit between two consenting adults of any gender who aren't blood relatives. That's the very limiting definition of marriage that they said states don't have the right to do.
It can either be defined or it cant. If the states cannot define it...who can??
The Windsor ruling makes clear that states still have the power to define marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional guarantees.
Such as?
Read the Obergefell ruling. They're remarkably specific as to which constitutional guarantees must be honored by the States.
Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
And just so we're clear, you understand that the Supreme Court never said that the State's can't define marriage, right? You've made that claim over and over. And its simply not true.
I'll admit not being fully read up on this one....since I really don't care much about gay marriage. The noise on TV was saying "states cannot define marriage".
The Supreme Court doesn't. And you've claimed that its a 'hard fact' and 'settled law' that the states cannot define marriage.
That's factually and legally incorrect. The States can define marriage.....subject to certain constitutional guarantees. In hard fact and settled law, the USSC found that subject to certain constitutional guarantees, ONLY the States can define marriage.
Would you like the quote from the Windsor ruling?
Business as usual for the cave-dwellers...The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision
More:
the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..
The lawsuits...
Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said
Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...
no. stupid question.The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision
More:
the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..
The lawsuits...
Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said
Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...
Personally I don't give a crap about homo marriage one way or another. Doesn't affect me. If Mitchell and Cam from Modern Family wanna be married go for it.
But as a legal issue I do find it interesting. SCOTUS basically legalized one form of marriage but didn't specify where the line stops. By saying the state cannot define marriage they indeed legalized the type in question (same sex) but didn't that open the door to ANY marriage so long as the parties involved call it marriage?
For example...is polygamy now legal?are you fucking kidding me?If so....what's stopping a government employee from offering 10 different girls at a strip club a "marriage" so they can get on his government health insurance planabsolutely not. again, stupid question.....and then reap the fun from it as they then have good benefits and he can legally pay them for anything he wants since they're his "wives".
Sounds absurd. But under the ruling...isn't it legal now????it isn'tAnd if it isokay......honestly...I'm fine with it. I for one think we need to stop trying health insurance to employment.
polygamy is illegal for all people. the sex of the parties involved does not matter, hence nobody is discriminated against.
And they don't, they rule on it.And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.
SCOTUS can't make law.
And they don't, they rule on it.And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.
SCOTUS can't make law.
no. stupid question.The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision
More:
the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..
The lawsuits...
Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said
Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...
Personally I don't give a crap about homo marriage one way or another. Doesn't affect me. If Mitchell and Cam from Modern Family wanna be married go for it.
But as a legal issue I do find it interesting. SCOTUS basically legalized one form of marriage but didn't specify where the line stops. By saying the state cannot define marriage they indeed legalized the type in question (same sex) but didn't that open the door to ANY marriage so long as the parties involved call it marriage?
For example...is polygamy now legal?are you fucking kidding me?If so....what's stopping a government employee from offering 10 different girls at a strip club a "marriage" so they can get on his government health insurance planabsolutely not. again, stupid question.....and then reap the fun from it as they then have good benefits and he can legally pay them for anything he wants since they're his "wives".
Sounds absurd. But under the ruling...isn't it legal now????it isn'tAnd if it isokay......honestly...I'm fine with it. I for one think we need to stop trying health insurance to employment.
polygamy is illegal for all people. the sex of the parties involved does not matter, hence nobody is discriminated against.
Ok but what if polygamy is their religion? Then it's discriminating. Right?
And they don't, they rule on it.And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.
SCOTUS can't make law.
They made law when they legalized gay marriage in all 50 States.
Nope. They ruled that state laws against it violated the Constitution.And they don't, they rule on it.And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.
SCOTUS can't make law.
They made law when they legalized gay marriage in all 50 States.
nope. what if ritual human sacrifice is their religion?no. stupid question.The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision
More:
the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..
The lawsuits...
Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said
Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...
Personally I don't give a crap about homo marriage one way or another. Doesn't affect me. If Mitchell and Cam from Modern Family wanna be married go for it.
But as a legal issue I do find it interesting. SCOTUS basically legalized one form of marriage but didn't specify where the line stops. By saying the state cannot define marriage they indeed legalized the type in question (same sex) but didn't that open the door to ANY marriage so long as the parties involved call it marriage?
For example...is polygamy now legal?are you fucking kidding me?If so....what's stopping a government employee from offering 10 different girls at a strip club a "marriage" so they can get on his government health insurance planabsolutely not. again, stupid question.....and then reap the fun from it as they then have good benefits and he can legally pay them for anything he wants since they're his "wives".
Sounds absurd. But under the ruling...isn't it legal now????it isn'tAnd if it isokay......honestly...I'm fine with it. I for one think we need to stop trying health insurance to employment.
polygamy is illegal for all people. the sex of the parties involved does not matter, hence nobody is discriminated against.
Ok but what if polygamy is their religion? Then it's discriminating. Right?
so ignorant....And they don't, they rule on it.And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.
SCOTUS can't make law.
They made law when they legalized gay marriage in all 50 States.
