Tennessee Republicans vote to allow clerks to refuse marriage licenses to LGBTQ+ couples and interracial couples

[Wildhundreds]

The big problem for him is his entire argument falls apart when the confederacy openly admits in their articles of confederation that they're fighting to keep slavery. If the Union wasn't fighting them over slavery, apparently the confederates didn't get that message. How can anyone make an argument that the war wasn't over slavery when it's literally written in their constitution that they're fighting to keep

They say this because long after the civil war you had impoverished white people working in plantations alongside black people across the south. Capitalism is really ugly and doesn't discriminate if you look at all of it.

Civil war was over slavery. But at the end of the day, if a poor white person wanted to eat/survive, if they weren't elite or had connections, they had to pick cotton and tabbaco for shytty wages as well.

 

[Samori Toure]

it's not like voting rights and affirmative action is currently under attack, right?

And how many rainbow flag waving White guys and immigrants do you see leading the change to keep those rights?

Mind you now White women are the biggest recipients of affirmative action.

 

[hashmander]

thats not what the thread title says

what do you think this means

vote to allow clerks to refuse marriage licenses​

if that clerk religiously objects, then you need to find another clerk.

 

[Crayola Coyote]

That giant fukking flag off I-4 is so disgusting. I'd pay good money for someone to burn that fukker down

Yeah that’s it. shyt should be burned down

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

They say this because long after the civil war you had impoverished white people working in plantations alongside black people across the south. Capitalism is really ugly and doesn't discriminate if you look at all of it.

Civil war was over slavery. But at the end of the day, if a poor white person wanted to eat/survive, if they weren't elite or had connections, they had to pick cotton and tabbaco for shytty wages as well.

Yep, capitalism is just slavery in a different form. Moreso in the United States than other first world countries.

 

[NinoBrown]

Shout outs to the people who kept denying these issues were tied together: take the L. When the goal is to dismantle civil rights protections the end result is banning interracial marriage, and the next step will be allowing business owners to refuse to serve black people.

Nope.. Blame the lgbt folks since they hijacked BLM and made it about intersectional rights (women/trannies/faygots/etc)....

They pushed the agenda and we suffer as a result...Pretty sad...

When Blacks were dying in the Civil Rights movement, these clowns were figuratively and literally in the closet...

 

[NinoBrown]

Bruh they been coming for blacks since 1619 in this country. No one has been there for us. No one. I didn't see no rainbow flags in Selma when they unleashed dogs on us. George Floyd and Tyre Nichols weren't murdered in the middle of the street because they were gay. No black man has ever walked into a gay establishment and committed mass murder. This doesn't concern me or any other black man that has to get his mind prepared just to step out the door in America. You doing all this campaigning for a fractional group of sex deviant people who have more rights then even you do, assuming you are black.

Amen breh.../thread.

Stop caping for people that call us bullet bags and are very anti-Black family...

 

[Samori Toure]

Even if @Samori Toure is half right, after 1862, ending slavery was one of the primary goals of the Union and the Republican Party (ie Thaddeus Stevens) because they wanted to destroy ‘Slave Power’ (the nexus of constitutional advantages in Congress, agro-export of cotton, tobacco, indigo, sugar, and the expansion of slavery into the western territories - the political power of the Southern White Planter Class…George Washington’s people) forever.

LOL. The seeds for American Civil War had been planted during the Mexican American War. When America strong armed the Western USA from Mexico. The Northern States made it clear to the Southern States that slavery would not be allowed to exist in the new territories. The North had already conceded allowing slaves into the territories that had been acquired in the Louisiana Purchase, but the North made the newly acquired Western States off limits to slavery which was a continuation of Mexican law. The South was already grumbling about that as Federal overreach and about the border dispute between Kansas and Missouri when talk of succession started flying. The North was not fighting to end slavery, because they were willingto allowthe South to keepthe slaves that they already had in the South. The North was fighting to keep the Union together.

 

[Nkrumah Was Right]

LOL. The seeds for American Civil War had been planted during the Mexican American War. When America strong armed the Western USA from Mexico. The Northern States made it clear to the Southern States that slavery would not be allowed to exist in the new territories. The North had already conceded allowing slaves into the territories that had been acquired in the Louisiana Purchase, but the North made the newly acquired Western States off limits to slavery which was a continuation of Mexican law. The South was already grumbling about that as Federal overreach and about the border dispute between Kansas and Missouri when talk of succession started flying. The North was not fighting to end slavery, because they were willingto allowthe South to keepthe slaves that they already had in the South. The North was fighting to keep the Union together.

You typed of all that to not negate anything I said. There was no way that after 1862, when the Union was ‘freeing’ thousands of ‘contraband’ Africans that the institution could be preserved. This is why, in part, the Radical Republicans pushed for the Emancipation Proclamation. The other significant piece is that the Radical Republicans knew that nearly half the population of the South was enslaved and those enslaved Africans kept the South’s economy, under US Navy blockade, ticking.

 

[Nkrumah Was Right]

The big problem for him is his entire argument falls apart when the confederacy openly admits in their articles of confederation that they're fighting to keep slavery. If the Union wasn't fighting them over slavery, apparently the confederates didn't get that message. How can anyone make an argument that the war wasn't over slavery when it's literally written in their constitution that they're fighting to keep

Lincoln only said that to Horace to keep slave states like Maryland and Kentucky pacified in the early part of the war. Radical Republicans who increasingly controlled Congress after southern secession were setting the future agenda…

Lincoln opposed slavery and wanted to ship Africans away until Frederick Douglass convinced him that Africans in America deserve dignity. 180,000 US Colored Troops fighting and dying were crucial in 1864/1865 and so Lincoln’s white supremacy became softer.

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

It’s wild (although not surprising) to see Coli brehs running with it too.

It’s the article making that leap…which is why we should always question the source sharing “news”

It's not a leap. The law says a clerk can refuse to solemnize a marriage if they object to it on personal or religious moral grounds. What's to stop them from refusing an interracial marriage?

 

[get these nets]

well "with all due respect" House Bill 878 states that county clerks and their staff “shall not be required to solemnize a marriage if the person has an objection to solemnizing the marriage based on the person’s conscience or religious beliefs.

Quick glance, and current amendment stops requiring county clerks and staff to preside over wedding ceremonies. Doesn't prevent others on the list from doing it. Nor does it allow official to block a wedding license for a wedding that was solemnized by others legally authorized to do so.

Full text of the Tennessee Law which was just amended

2021 Tennessee Code
Title 36 - Domestic Relations
Chapter 3 - Marriage
Part 3 - Ceremony
§ 36-3-301. Persons Who May Solemnize Marriages​

Universal Citation: TN Code § 36-3-301 (2021)

1. 1. All regular ministers, preachers, pastors, priests, rabbis and other spiritual leaders of every religious belief, more than eighteen (18) years of age, having the care of souls, and all members of the county legislative bodies, county mayors, judges, chancellors, former chancellors and former judges of this state, former county executives or county mayors of this state, former members of quarterly county courts or county commissions, the governor, the speaker of the senate and former speakers of the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives and former speakers of the house of representatives, members of the general assembly who have filed notice pursuant to subsection (l ), law enforcement chaplains duly appointed by the heads of authorized state and local law enforcement agencies, members of the legislative body of any municipality in this state, the county clerk of each county, former county clerks of this state who occupied the office of county clerk on or after July 1, 2014, and the mayor of any municipality in the state may solemnize the rite of matrimony. For the purposes of this section, the several judges of the United States courts, including United States magistrates, United States bankruptcy judges, and federal administrative law judges, who are citizens of Tennessee are deemed to be judges of this state. The amendments to this section by Acts 1987, ch. 336, which applied provisions of this section to certain former judges, do not apply to any judge who has been convicted of a felony or who has been removed from office.
   2. In order to solemnize the rite of matrimony, any such minister, preacher, pastor, priest, rabbi or other spiritual leader must be ordained or otherwise designated in conformity with the customs of a church, temple or other religious group or organization; and such customs must provide for such ordination or designation by a considered, deliberate, and responsible act. Persons receiving online ordinations may not solemnize the rite of matrimony.
   3. If a marriage has been entered into by license issued pursuant to this chapter at which any minister officiated before July 1, 2019, the marriage must not be invalid because the requirements of the preceding subdivision (a)(2) have not been met.
2. The traditional marriage rite of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), whereby the parties simply pledge their vows one to another in the presence of the congregation, constitutes an equally effective solemnization.
3. Any gratuity received by a county mayor, county clerk, members of the county legislative body, or municipal mayor for the solemnization of a marriage, whether performed during or after such person's regular working hours, shall be retained by such person as personal remuneration for such services, in addition to any other sources of compensation such person might receive, and such gratuity shall not be paid into the county general fund or the treasury of such municipality.
4. If any marriage has been entered into by license regularly issued at which a county mayor officiated prior to April 24, 1981, such marriage shall be valid and is hereby declared to be in full compliance with the laws of this state.
5. For the purposes of this section, “retired judges of this state” is construed to include persons who served as judges of any municipal or county court in any county that has adopted a metropolitan form of government and persons who served as county judges (judges of the quarterly county court) prior to the 1978 constitutional amendments.
6. If any marriage has been entered into by license regularly issued at which a retired judge of this state officiated prior to April 13, 1984, such marriage shall be valid and is hereby declared to be in full compliance with the laws of this state.
7. If any marriage has been entered into by license issued pursuant to this chapter at which a judicial commissioner officiated prior to March 28, 1991, such marriage is valid and is declared to be in full compliance with the laws of this state.
8. The judge of the general sessions court of any county, and any former judge of any general sessions court, may solemnize the rite of matrimony in any county of this state. Any marriage performed by any judge of the general sessions court in any county of this state before March 16, 1994, shall be valid and declared to be in full compliance with the laws of this state.
9. All elected officials and former officials, who are authorized to solemnize the rite of matrimony pursuant to subsection (a), may solemnize the rite of matrimony in any county of this state.
10. If any marriage has been entered into by license issued pursuant to this chapter at which a county mayor officiated outside such mayor's county prior to May 29, 1997, such marriage is valid and is declared to be in full compliance with the laws of this state.
11. The judge of the municipal court of any municipality, whether elected or appointed, shall have the authority to solemnize the rite of matrimony in any county of the state.
12. In order to solemnize the rite of matrimony pursuant to subdivision (a)(1), a member of the general assembly must first opt in by filing notice of the member's intention to solemnize the rite of matrimony with the office of vital records

I get it about rolling back laws incrementally, etc, but this is along the lines of what I meant by lets talk about what is happening right now.

 

[the cac mamba]

what do you think this means

vote to allow clerks to refuse marriage licenses​

if that clerk religiously objects, then you need to find another clerk.

yea; christians who dont want to give marriage licenses to two men

what the hell does that have to do with interracial marriages? im not seeing the connection. nobody is fighting interracial marriage in 2023

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

It's not a leap. The law says a clerk can refuse to solemnize a marriage if they object to it on personal or religious moral grounds. What's to stop them from refusing an interracial marriage?

What to stop them from refusing to marry prostitutes? What’s to stop them from refusing to marry those who don’t honor their parents?

 

[Nkrumah Was Right]

What to stop them from refusing to marry prostitutes? What’s to stop them from refusing to marry those who don’t honor their parents?

Sounds like Iran or Afghanistan.