this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
760 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3718 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 131 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

In the name of Baphoment, ruler of Satan, prince of darkness, I pronounce you man and whore!

[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

@prole @Teon

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

If I were in a government position in TN that gave out marriage licenses, I would stop giving them to straight couples... It's not evil, it's a protest to make a point.

[–] [email protected] 9 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)

[–] [email protected] 25 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 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.