Gay Marriage in TN
Looks like the TN AG is fighting against it. Odd that you can read that whole story and they don’t name the AG.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 16th, 2014 at 5:22 pm
Just as with any licensed activity or institution, marriage has a specific definition which is the legal, civil and often religious union between one adult man and one adult woman. What gay persons desire to do does NOT fit the definition of that long established institution. So they need to legally establish something else and call it by another name rather than imposing upon and hi-jacking the
Institution of marriage to fit their DIFFERENT agenda.
December 16th, 2014 at 7:42 pm
Why do I get the feeling the AG just opened his campaign to run for Governor?
Ron, it’s not the name, it’s the automatic benefits that go with marriage that are denied to same-sex couples.
December 16th, 2014 at 9:40 pm
Idiotic social conservatives. Get the fuck with it. Gays aren’t the devil and if you actually care about small government and leaving people the fuck alone it soundly be an issue.
Ron, congrats on making the same discrimination analog that if applied to a gun owner you would be freaking out over.
December 16th, 2014 at 9:45 pm
* wouldn’t be an issue
December 17th, 2014 at 12:06 am
If we remove marriage from the cognizance of government, then you make sense Other Steve. Otherwise, it’s gays who are not leaving other people alone. They are free to do what they want, but if we have a legal institution of same sex union, you need to legally call it something else, not piggy back on another.
So how does this apply to the RKBA? Unless you mean what already goes on with the ruling elite class and their agents EXEMPTING themselves from their “common sense” gun laws.
Hey let’s create a touch football league and call it the NFL. Nope, the laws won’t let you. It’s gotta be a DIFFERENT league. But hey, we MAY all play in the NFL , if we CAN.
I practice my own healthcare with nutrition and exercise and advise others, so let me legally licensed as a doctor. Nope the law won’t allow it unless I fit the legal DEFINITION of treating conditions with drugs and surgery. So I need to create a new legal institution and call it something else.
December 17th, 2014 at 12:10 am
rickn8or,
An alternate legal institution could confer the “automatic benefits”.
December 17th, 2014 at 1:16 am
Personally, I’m of the opinion that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage whatsoever.
On one hand, it’s unwarranted interference in a contractual arrangement between consenting, informed parties.
On another hand, I find that the concept of marriage historically has been an institution of religion. Not just religions of the Abrahamic tradition, but also Hindu, Buddhist, etc. Accepting any one religious definition of marriage constitutes governmental adoption of a religious sacrament, which falls right afoul of the First Amendment prohibition on the establishment of religion.
We are far better off, and on firmer Constitutional grounds, if government take NO NOTICE WHATSOEVER of the institution of marriage while recognizing the social good that is the providing for the rearing of children. Furthermore, it is a social good for more than one capable adult to be involved in the rearing of children, as a bulwark against the loss of a provider, so that can be recognized without hazard.
Meanwhile, my view of the religious sacrament of marriage is that the arrangement should be between the involved parties AND the church they want to marry within the traditions of. That does mean that the church can impose conditions on the marriage if the married people want to be considered married within that faith. That may mean that homosexuals can’t be married in that tradition, but look, there’s another religious tradition over there, and they DO take homosexuals, so shop around. Naturally, if the couple doesn’t want to live under those rules anymore, they should be able to exit the marriage contract and default to a completely non-religious contract, and possibly re-marry each other under a different religious tradition, subject to the rules of that tradition. At the same time, I think the church they picked should have the option of saying that the couple is not living up to their end of the bargain under the rules of their tradition, and they should have the option of exiting the arrangement, leaving the formerly married parties unmarried, but still partnered and free to go shopping around for a new tradition, or to see the errors of their ways and remarry in their old tradition.
In no part of any of the previous do I assert the gender or gender identity of the participants, the number of participants in one marriage, or anything of the sort, except where a religious tradition might assert what it means to be married in their tradition. Yes, that means that I will have to accept polygamy/polyandry marriage, homosexual marriage, childless marriage, Furry marriage, etc if you find a church that does that kind of thing. That’s the price I will have to pay to be able to say that I am married in the Catholic tradition, and I know what that means and no one other than the Church gets to change the rules on me. It means no fooling around and no divorce and I knew that when I walked into the cathedral.
December 17th, 2014 at 10:42 am
Tornio, Good points. Removing marriage from the cognizance of government is a libertarian solution. Liberty is a way to diffuse controversies. Otherwise judges should not arbitrarily dismiss or re-define words and terms to appease and accommodate some who do not want to meet the criteria of legally established institutions. Among “the several States” such should be a matter for the people and their elected representatives within State Constitutional constraints.
December 17th, 2014 at 12:18 pm
So, the TN AG is doing his job? Defending state laws against suits is one of the positions primary roles. he doesn’t have to agree, but he has to respond to suits against the state of TN, outlining the state’s position. That’s all this article was saying.
Don’t like the law? petition your legislators to change it. But don’t attack the state AG for performing to the letter of his job description.
Regards,
Pol
December 17th, 2014 at 12:18 pm
Wow, this is a journalistic first! The current TN AG is a Republican! Usually, when papers don’t print party affiliation, the official is a Democrat.
December 18th, 2014 at 11:10 am
So, “separate but equal”, huh?
Except that, everywhere it’s been done, it doesn’t. And other states don’t necessarily recognize it, whereas they do automatically with “traditional” marriage.
December 19th, 2014 at 11:04 pm
As to the benefits, “the state” or “society”, however you want to describe it, has a vested interest in monogamous heterosexual relationships. It’s not surprising that benefits are allocated. Monogamy, because it discourages the spread of disease, and heterosexuality because that, at least potentially, gives us the next generation of workers/taxpayers/soldiers. Homos don’t reproduce.
As far as I’m concerned, they can do what they want, but when they demand the same benefits, it’s a bit out of line.