TN bill that allows government employees to refuse solemnizing marriages passes House

[GMDino]

And when it gets fought all the way to the Supreme Court how do you think they will rule?  

That "gay marriage" isn't a protected right because it wasn't on strong legal grounds?  

We knew the states would continue to go after the rights of people they don't like...and it continues.

https://www.wbir.com/article/news/state/tennessee-bill-to-allow-clerks-not-to-solemnize-some-marriages/51-bd8d46ff-8e23-4001-b8b9-d5f1f0be1f65

Quote:The bill was introduced by Representative Monty Fritts (R - Kingston).

• [/url]
  
  
  
  
  NEXT UP IN 5
  Former #1 Ranked North Carolina Most Likely OUT of NCAA Tournament; ACC Tournament Semifinal Preview
  
• 
  Burning questions the SF Giants must answer in 2023
  
  

Author: WBIR Staff
Published: 10:03 PM EST March 8, 2023
Updated: 6:27 PM EST March 10, 2023
[url=https://www.facebook.com/dialog/share?app_id=110845768975038&display=popup&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wbir.com%2Farticle%2Fnews%2Fstate%2Ftennessee-bill-to-allow-clerks-not-to-solemnize-some-marriages%2F51-bd8d46ff-8e23-4001-b8b9-d5f1f0be1f65&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wbir.com%2Farticle%2Fnews%2Fstate%2Ftennessee-bill-to-allow-clerks-not-to-solemnize-some-marriages%2F51-bd8d46ff-8e23-4001-b8b9-d5f1f0be1f65] 
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — A bill that would allow county clerks and officiants to refuse solemnizing marriages based on personal belief passed the Tennessee House of Representatives on Monday.

HB 0878 was introduced by Representative Monty Fritts (R - Kingston) and he said on the House floor that he was not aware of anyone who was forced to solemnize a marriage against their beliefs.

"There's a lot of legislation with hypotheticals and unlikelies and none-case examples that are taking the time of this General Assembly," said Representative Justin Pearson (D - Memphis). "This type of legislation is harmful, not only in its practice but in the messages it is sending about who has rights in our cities, in our state and in our country. In doing this, it is helping fuel people who do not care for inclusion, people who do not care for love." 

He said that he was worried that the bill was designed to allow people to refuse to solemnize same-sex marriages based on their personal beliefs without explicitly writing that into state law. The law adds a short section into the state code, Section 36-3-301, that only says people would not be required to solemnize a marriage.

County clerks and their staff would be included in that subsection. 

On the House floor, Fritts denied that the bill would explicitly allow people to refuse to solemnize same-sex marriages. He said he believed that there was an attack on "civil liberties and rights" and said the bill was meant to document that people could not be "forced to solemnize a marriage."

He said he was not aware of anyone that has been forced to solemnize a marriage in Tennessee, but also said he thought it was irrelevant whether someone had already been made to solemnize a marriage.

In late December, President Joe Biden signed gay marriage legislation into law at the federal level. That law was designed to safeguard gay marriages should the U.S. Supreme Court reverse the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex unions. It also protects interracial marriages.

The law did not require states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but says states will need to recognize marriages from elsewhere in the country.

The Human Rights Campaign said the bill targeted the LGBTQ community. The Tennessee Equality Project executive director, Chris Sanders, also released a statement about the bill and many other anti-LGBTQ bills filed in the legislature. It is below.

“The Tennessee House of Representatives continues to be one of the most dangerous legislative chambers in the country for LGBTQ+ people. They have ignored constituents in their offices, phone calls, and compelling committee testimony. It is time they became the People's House again.”

The bill will be discussed in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 13.

[GMDino]

This one likely won't pass.  For one it will take too long and secondly putting it up to a statewide vote usually gets it shot down.

But it shows what these "conservatives" want to do and why.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3879471-eight-iowa-state-gop-lawmakers-propose-constitutional-amendment-to-ban-same-sex-marriage/

Quote:Eight Iowa state GOP lawmakers propose constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage
BY [/url]BROOKE MIGDON - 03/01/23 1:13 PM ET


Eight Republicans in the Iowa state House have proposed an amendment to their state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage, arguing that the state should only recognize marriages between one man and one woman.

“In accordance with the laws of nature and nature’s God, the state of Iowa recognizes the definition of marriage to be the solemnized union between one human biological male and one human biological female,” [url=https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=HJR8&ga=90]reads the joint resolution introduced Tuesday.

Same-sex couples in Iowa are not in immediate jeopardy of losing their right to marry, however, as both passing and enacting the resolution are multistep processes that will take several years to complete.

The resolution to amend the state constitution, if adopted, would not be actionable until 2025, when the next slate of state lawmakers are inaugurated. At that time, if the resolution is passed a second time, the measure will head to the electorate for ratification.

While the adoption of such an amendment is not unconstitutional — multiple states have constitutional amendments or statutes that ban same-sex marriage still on the books — the amendment would not be enforceable under the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

However, in June 2022, the fate of that landmark ruling was upended by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who in a concurring opinion to overturn federal abortion protections suggested additional decisions, including Obergefell, should be revisited.

But even if Obergefell were to fall, same-sex couples are still guaranteed certain protections under the Respect for Marriage Act, which safeguards the rights of same-sex and interracial couples to marry. President Biden signed the historic legislation into law late last year.

In the case of Iowa, if Obergefell were overturned and Tuesday’s joint resolution adopted, same-sex couples would still be able to have their marriages recognized by the state as legally valid, just as long as those unions were performed in states where neither statute nor constitutional amendment bars same-sex partners from marrying.

Iowa House Democrats on Tuesday vowed to defeat the GOP-backed proposal, which they will have to do by Thursday to prevent the measure from coming up for a vote in the state House.

“No, @IowaGOP, we will not be going back to the days when committed, loving same-sex couples don’t have the same right to marriage equality as everyone else,” state Rep. Sami Scheetz (D) wrote on Twitter. “This kind of disgusting hatred and backwards thinking has no place in Iowa. And I’ll fight it every single day.”

Democratic state Rep. Adam Zabner on Tuesday said that the state, which in 2009 became the third to legalize same-sex marriage, should be focused on moving forward, “not backwards.”

A petition against the measure organized Tuesday by Iowa House Democrats has collected more than 27,000 signatures.

In a separate move on Tuesday, eight Iowa Republicans — six of whom also proposed the joint resolution — filed another bill, HF 508, which would allow state residents to deny same-sex marriages on religious grounds. The bill would also rule certain elements of the Respect for Marriage Act “null and void” in Iowa.

“The state of Iowa also recognizes the deep historical and religious roots that uniformly defined and understood marriage to be the union between one male and female,” the bill says. “Therefore, no resident of Iowa shall be compelled, coerced, or forced to recognize any same-sex unions or ceremonies as marriage, notwithstanding any laws to the contrary that may exist in other states, and no legal action, criminal or civil, shall be taken against citizens in Iowa for refusal or failure to recognize or participate in same-sex unions or ceremonies.”

In a Twitter post on Friday, Iowa state Sen. Liz Bennett (D), one of three openly LGBTQ lawmakers in the legislature, said the introduction of both measures amounted to “an outright attack on the entire LGBT community.”

Iowa state Rep. Austin Harris, the legislature’s only LGBTQ Republican, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Iowa is one of less than a dozen states to have an openly LGBTQ Republican serving in the state legislature.

In an email to NBC News, bill sponsor Rep. Brad Sherman, a Republican who also sponsored the joint resolution to ban same-sex marriage by way of the state constitution, argued that the measure “does not seek to tell same-sex couples what to believe.”

“If they want to call their relationship a marriage, they are free to do so; that is freedom,” Sherman said. “But, by the same token, people who do not define same-sex unions as marriage must not be forced to do so.”

[BigPapaKain]

(03-11-2023, 04:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: This one likely won't pass.  For one it will take too long and secondly putting it up to a statewide vote usually gets it shot down.

But it shows what these "conservatives" want to do and why.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3879471-eight-iowa-state-gop-lawmakers-propose-constitutional-amendment-to-ban-same-sex-marriage/

Bold of you to assume that the conservative legislators actually give a single wet shit about the will of the voters.

See also: Ohio's anti-gerrymandering laws.