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

politics

19159 readers
4307 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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!

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

Did you end up having sex with him? No? Hm.... still not sure why they are still so homophobic.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

exactly! just enjoy the compliment

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Isn't this a federal law though? Is it normal practice to allow states to supercede federal law if they arbitrarily want to?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

like the last bitch that tried to object on religious grounds (y’know, the one that was divorced multiple times)

Henry VIII?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Time to pack their local government with allies and refuse some hetero marriages 😎

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›