(09-19-2015, 02:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just pass a law in the State Legislature that overrules the US Supreme Court Decision'

BRILLIANT!!

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/17/lawmakers-file-tennessee-natural-marriage-defense-act/32570645/


On Thursday two state Republican lawmakers unveiled their answer: a bill that they believe voids the Supreme Court decision and continues to define marriage under Tennessee law as a union between a man and a woman.

"Natural marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman as recognized by the people of Tennessee remains the law in Tennessee, regardless of any court decision to the contrary," the bill states.

"Any court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including (a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision), is unauthoritative, void, and of no effect."

The eight-page bill consists mainly of reasons why Pody and Beavers believe Tennessee can and should ignore the Supreme Court.

"Whereas, not all orders claiming authority under color of law are in fact lawful," the bill reads in part.

"Whereas, unlawful orders, no matter their source — whether from a military commander, a federal judge, or the United States Supreme Court — are and remain unlawful, and should be resisted."

The bill says the attorney general must defend any state or local official from any lawsuit that could — and would — arise if the bill is enacted. It also says no state or local agency may enforce the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, or any other decision that might allow same-sex marriage. Officials abiding by the bill, if enacted, couldn't be fined or arrested for ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court, the bill states.

(09-19-2015, 02:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Can these states just secede and get it over with?

(09-19-2015, 03:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Are you positive you want that?  There will be more of them than you.

(09-19-2015, 03:10 PM)nevergonnachange Wrote: Considering the polls I've seen show more people being in favor of same sex marriage than against it, I would be too sure.

Plus, the people against it probably skew older so the smart people can just wait for the dumb ones to die off and take the land back.

(09-19-2015, 03:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's not just SSM.  There are loads of people who know that this government tramples on our rights.   It's bigger than a petty SSM debate.   This was never about SSM, it was about personal freedom.  

They will say yes,  freedom of the SSM crew.  But to give them their freedoms they trample on someone else's.   The only real solution in all of this is to get rid of government marriage all together.   Then everyone has their freedoms restored.

(09-19-2015, 03:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Are you positive you want that? There will be more of them than you.

(09-19-2015, 03:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's not just SSM. There are loads of people who know that this government tramples on our rights. It's bigger than a petty SSM debate. This was never about SSM, it was about personal freedom.

They will say yes, freedom of the SSM crew. But to give them their freedoms they trample on someone else's. The only real solution in all of this is to get rid of government marriage all together. Then everyone has their freedoms restored.

(09-19-2015, 03:29 PM)nevergonnachange Wrote: So giving gays the right to marry somehow tramples your freedom?  How does that work?

(09-19-2015, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm only pointing out that is the final, and only, option available to them for what they want. I hate the dancing around the issue, so let's just get to it.


Bollocks. Explain to me how anyone's freedoms are being trampled by legalizing SSM.

For all of those businesses that we heard about prior to this, that has nothing to do with SSM because whether the ceremony holds any legal standing matters not to the case.

Anyone is still free to view homosexual acts as sinful and view SSM as against their religion, so it is not infringing on anyone's rights to practice their faith.

Government officials take an oath to uphold the law and any activities carried out in that capacity are representative of the government and not the person. Each person is free to choose their own employment, and so if they are unable to carry out the duties of the office then they should not be in the position.

So please, tell me how legalizing SSM infringed on anyone's rights when the legal status of the marriage does not infringe on anyone's rights.

After that, you can explain to me why government should be removed from marriage when the civil aspects of marriage have been of more import than the religious for millennia. You've yet to address my comments to this regard in several threads, yet continue to parrot the talking point that government should be out of marriage. The contractual significance of a marriage is far older than any other aspect, including love.

(09-20-2015, 10:36 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's obviously an issue forcing others to issue and sign off.    If there is zero gov marriage then we can marry whomever we wish.   And it affects no one.   Get a contract for financials from an attorney.    No one has an issue, everyone gets what they want.    

No one wants to limit the ability for them to marry.   Just make it less intrusive on us all.  That includes dumping straight marriages as well.   Let it all happen by contract.   We already write up a will.   Or even in some cases a pre-nup.  

This is such an easy fix that would stop all the drama and then give no one anything to complain about

(09-20-2015, 10:36 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote:   No one wants to limit the ability for them to marry.   Just make it less intrusive on us all.  

(09-20-2015, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please explain how marriage "intrudes" upon anyone but the people who are married?

(09-20-2015, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please explain how marriage "intrudes" upon anyone but the people who are married?

(09-20-2015, 12:15 PM)nevergonnachange Wrote: Gays marrying affects people about as much as you holding your wife's hand in public does.  It bothers people if they are looking for reasons to be upset.

Another easy fix would be if people minded their own business and adopted a 'live and let live' attitude.

(09-20-2015, 12:33 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: The truth be told, most of the resistance over the years were financial.
Social Security and Insurance companies didn't want to pay out survivorship benefits.
Now SS will dwindle quicker and Ins premiums will go up.
So I guess a level of self-preservation could be the culprit for some resistance.

(09-20-2015, 12:40 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No one is forced to officiate or sign off on a marriage is there is no gov marriage.     Why there is this death grip by some on gov marriage is beyond me.

(09-20-2015, 10:38 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What specifically am I responding.

(09-20-2015, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one is forced to do that right now.  

(09-20-2015, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, for some to be sure.  It's also the biggest reason why denying same sex couples the right to marry was unconstitutionally discriminatory.
.