'Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act' seeks to strip gay marriage rights
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Nearly four years after the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal throughout the U.S. in its landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee are attempting to turn back the clock with legislation aimed at barring gay marriage in the state. The " Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act ," which was first proposed in 2016, seeks to "defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." The bill, which was reintroduced on Friday, would deem the high court's Obergefell decision "unauthoritative, void, and of no effect." Introduced by Sen. Mark Pody, R-Lebanon, and Rep. Jerry Sexton, R-Bean Station, the bill also prohibits government officials from facilitating same-sex marriages, and it states that these officials cannot be arrested for disavowing court orders that recognize such unions.
Pody told NBC News the Supreme Court "overstepped its authority" with the Obergefell decision. He claimed marriage is "a state issue, not a federal issue," and therefore, he added, the 2015 ruling is "unconstitutional" and should be rectified."
But while Pody said he strongly believes "marriage should be between a man and a woman," others find the reintroduction of the state's "Natural Marriage Defense Act" to be a major step backward for Tennessee. "As a native Tennessean, it's disappointing to see lawmakers pushing more mean, pointless legislation that would do nothing except single out LGBTQ people in an effort to make us feel less than equal," said Nick Marrow, press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBTQ advocacy group. "Marriage equality is settled law, and if Tennessee wants to continue to be a welcoming destination for businesses, tourists and transplants alike, our representatives need to join us in the year 2019."
The proposed legislation failed in the state's House of Representatives last session, but Chris Sanders, executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project, which lobbies state legislatures on LGBTQ issues, said it's not clear at this point how it will fare this time around. "We'll have a better understanding of the likelihood of the bill passing after the first committee hearing, so that'll be key," Sanders told NBC News. Sanders noted that there's "still some resistance and prejudice" in the state when it comes to LGBTQ people, which is "why this bill keeps coming up." He noted that Tennessee is one of four states that's over 50 percent evangelical Christian. This religious group is among the least likely to support the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people.
One barrier that could prevent the bill's passage, however, is its projected cost. In 2017, the General Assembly estimated that the Natural Marriage Defense Act could cause approximately $9 billion in federal funding to be withheld from the state.
Another obstacle is the state's LGBTQ community and its allies, who have banded together once before to prevent the bill's passage, and plan to do so again. "Tennesseans who are in committed same-sex relationships simply want to be treated with the same dignity and respect as everyone else," Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU in Tennessee, said. "A handful of state legislators cannot nullify the law of the land and drive our state backward simply because they wish to discriminate. The ACLU of Tennessee, along with many partners, will be working hard to defeat this narrow-minded, blatantly unconstitutional legislation."
The reintroduced "natural marriage" law, however, "isn't the only anti-LGBT bill on the docket right now," noted Sanders. He said there are at least five other bills in the state legislature that may threaten the rights of LGBTQ people in Tennessee. One of these bills, which was introduced in both the state House and Senate (Pody is the sponsor of the Senate bill), seeks to allow private adoption agencies to decline to participate in any child placement services that would "violate the agency's written religious or moral convictions." This type of legislation, which can already be found in 10 states across the U.S., creates barriers for LGBTQ individuals and same-sex couples looking to adopt or foster.
Tags
Who is online
110 visitors
So this is Tennessee effectively giving the SCOTUS the middle finger. Let's see how this blatantly unconstitutional bill works out for them.
Kind of like when states try to pass laws limiting or prohibiting abortion. I predict this bill will fare about as well.
Except that statement is wrong and shows an unfamiliarity with established legal precedent.
That explains it all right there. Not surprising either.
Maybe next time he travels outside of Tennessee, his marriage should be declared null and void. Maybe then he'd understand.
Probably not.
Maybe those states could revoke his citizenship. 3-4 days in the lockup until a judge tells them they cannot do that could be the attitude adjustment that he needs.
If he is going to throw out the Constitution, they would shouldn't others be able to do the same to him? Turnabout is fair play.
Any nullifying marriages because of his conservative religious beliefs isn't a violation?
Maybe he would get the hint that payback is a beech.
It isn't punishable by jail but neither is what he is doing is constitutionally permissible. Tennesse has a problem with the religious and secular rights of others. They tried to ban a Muslim society from building a mosque in Murfreesboro until the courts stepped in and forced them to back down.
It seems that someone threw bacon on the mosque a few years ago. I hope they were tried for a religious hate crime for their actions.
Nope. He could just make an unpleasant discovery. For example, if his wife were to pass away, he could be prevented from inheriting their joint estate in totality because their marriage was invalidated. Perhaps he could be kept from her bedside, if she were in the hospital, or found ineligible to receive half of her Social Security benefits, due to their marriage being nullified.
You know, the same things same-sex couples had to contend with for years, because their marriages weren't recognized nationwide.
No trial involved.
Sounds like it would be karma. If he wants to deny gays their constitutional rights, then maybe his constitutional rights should be denied too?
Most certainly not. He would probably just complain he is being targeted or persecuted.
I could point out a few hundred Central American refugees who would disagree.
Are you hinting that he should be able to get away with his Christian Sharia beliefs and not suffer any repercussions for it, even if only for a few hours?
Do you understand that I would not have said what I did unless he tried to pass this bigoted religious idea?
Hyperbole much? It's not like such a scenario would actually happen. but it seems to be the right who wants to deny others their rights.
It's a reply.
Why? Because we want equality for all?
The courts already HAVE decided for fuck sake and THAT is why I am disgusted with evangelical politicians.
This is settled law and he knows it. He is pandering to and emboldening religious bigots and he deserves to be punished for it because maybe he will get the message and not try these stupid stunts in the future. His actions put the lives of LGBT in jeapady for being attacked when bigots think that they will be permitted to do so because of their religious beliefs.
Why? He has no intention of giving same sex married couples a trial before he nullifies their marriages.
This is not a political disagreement. Obergfell v. Hodges is settled law and they know this fact because Roy Moore tried this stunt 4 years ago and the federal judges slapped him down like an errant housefly. Kim Davis did the same thing in Kentucky and she cooled her heels for 48 hours in the county lockup for her efforts. This bigot is pandering to morons and wants to endanger the lives of LGBT citizens with this partisan charade. Let him spend the night in the Kim Davis suite at the grey bar hotel and maybe he will get the message to knock it off.
Why MUVA? Were you unaware that the legislation proposes to revoke recognition of the EXISTING marriages of same sex couples who live in TN and to refuse to recognize those marriages performed in other states?
I'm sure that the people of TN will be happy about the hundreds of thousands that he will cause the state to have to pay for legal fees. One would think that they'd learn a lesson from Kim Davis.
I didn't say a word about throwing him in jail.
Does 'LOCK HER UP' ring a bell MUVA?
I'll repeat it one more time MUVA. I haven't said a fucking thing about sending anyone to jail.
I did that. If jail is good enough for Kim Davis then it's good enough for him. If he wants to continue his homophobic charade he could claim that the state of Tennessee will not obey the Lawerence v. Texas decision and then start arresting LGBT people for sodomy.
A state cannot refuse to enforce or obey federal law because of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, but he seems to think his religious beliefs are a valid reason to try to start.
The people of Tennessee are poor, they lack healthcare access, and many have opioid addictions so maybe the state legislature should schedule a few hours to address real problems instead of trying to blame LGBT citizens and turn the clock back 50 years.
Doubtful. As a resident of Indiana, I have experience in watching the train wreak that Evangelicals have wrought here. They cost the state millions yet STILL were reelected. We were happy to be rid of Pence. He is the neo-nationalist Evangelicals wet dream.
That shouldn't preclude you from addressing what I actually said rather than conflating it with other members comments. Try harder.
This legislation is obviously unconstitutional and anyone with more than a dozen functional neurons know this. A state cannot try to overrule or refuse to enforce federal law. Doing so in this instance would throw the entire legal system into chaos and weaken the power of the SCOTUS in future decisions. A person's religious beliefs have never been a valid reason to deny others their equal secular rights.
Indiana is gerrymandered. The GOP control it all...
I know what I replied to MUVA.
You may want to really read it too since YOU didn't say a fucking thing about jail either.
Ohio is just as bad than to Kasich's gerrymandering in 2011. Look at how Ohio district-16 changed from 2008 to 2012. The 4th district Jimm Jordan) goes 1/3 of the way across the state. The 6th is even worse.
Wrong about what exactly?
Nothing. It is in reply to your comment:
Get it now?
How am I wrong MUVA? I made a direct reply to your statement. If you can't understand it's relevance, that's on you.
You can't fix stupid.
Someone should explain the Constitution's supremacy clause to these "states rights" homophobic bigots, but they probably tried to do the same thing 50+ plus years ago after the Civil Rights Act passed. These people claim that they want the Constitution obeyed but what they want is the weaker Articles of Confederation instead of the US Constitution that created a stronger federal government and weaker states.
Alabama (Roy Moore) tried this same nonsense after Obergefell and they were shot down but apparently, there are conservative legislators who need to pander to constituents so they are trying this stunt. Maybe they could repeal Roe v. Wade or Engel v. Vitale in Tennesse after this partisan idiocy doesn't survive judicial review.
It would seem that he didn't get the news about how did the same claim worked out for Kim Davis.
At least not this level of stupid. I'm beginning to think some of these conservative states try to outdo each other with legislative stupidity like this bill or abortion bills, ect., like some stupidity competition.
I can't wait until they try to repeal Roe v. Wade, Engel v. Vitale, or the 14th Amendment at the state level.
I'd like to see all candidates take the US citizenship exam, the ASVAB, and the MMPI as a precursor of their candidacy. They would be no minimum score but the voters should be aware of the intelligence and mental faculties of the people who they might elect for public office.
What does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have to do with this bigot's actions?
I like the concept of the Green New Deal, but it needs many obvious bugs worked out.
I wasn't aware that 2-strokes were still legal to produce. I thought they had been banned 10 years ago.
I don't like the current EPA Tier 4 diesel regulations. They have been pushed faster than technology can implement them reliably. Roll them back to Tier-3 or just T-3.5 and give engine makers another 3-4 years for development.
I believe that the 2 stoke DFI are still legal...My last engine was a Yahama 175 4 stroke (2016) Before that I had a Mercury 200 DFI (Optimax 2010)
I had to Wiki' it because I had never heard of E-TEC engine technology. Thanks for mentioning it. I'll waste a few hours later digging deeper into it.
I've not seen the joystick steering or the self docking mode...That would be very cool.
Good thinking, that is the best way to keep a customer happy and coming back.
BTW, are you talking inboard or outboard with the joystick and self docking mode?
Tier 4 train locomotives have caused major problems for locomotive builders and they are not selling well
Even were it to pass politically at the state level it would ultimately fail legally at the state or federal level. But hey more lawyers would get rich at the taxpayers expense so that's a silver lining right?
Maybe they think that they might have a chance at overturning SCOTUS decisions with Trump's conservative federal judges. I wish that these people were forced to pay for the legal costs personally instead of the state.
That would be awesome
That would temper some of this legislative stupidity. Repeal Citizens United so those costs couldn't be paid by PACs.
So I guess these mental midgets in Tennessee what to go back to before the Loving decision.
After reading the article, I wonder where Trump will come down on this legislation. He COULD give Tennessee a waiver and let them have Federal funding even after defying the SCOTUS.
Don't go giving them any more ideas.
Their lawyers will have to address that very point. If the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over marriage, then WHY did Tennessee acquiesce to the Loving ruling?
Pody told reporters that, "The Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries."
Well, damn them Court folk. How dare them expand rights for anyone or anything that is not a Corporate or LLC.
Do they also want to nullify Loving v. Virginia and Reynolds v. US?
I wouldn't be surprised if they did.