-
-
I'm no expert in US Law.
But I think he has a point.
If the Supreme Court overturned the part of the Constitution that defines marriage, what is the impact on the part of the same constitution when it defines the grounds for divorce.
Interesting.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
-
Ceding marriage powers to the Federals may be the best way to go.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true. Comment
-
No. There is no "part of the constitution that defines marriage." There are, however, parts of the constitution that have been interpreted, or amended to define discrimination, and have established a concept of "protected classes." Anyway, it is now considered discrimination to say that a man can marry a woman, but a woman can't, or that a woman can marry a man, but a man can't. At least that's how I understand the argument. I could be wrong. But it's irrelevant to my next point.Originally posted by GUT View Post
The constitution very clearly says that powers not specifically that of the Federal government belong to the state. The Federal government has not actually defined (or redefined) marriage, but simply clarified the rules of non-discrimination. And even if the Federal gov't had defined marriage, as long as it had not said "And we'll be back soon with the definition of divorce," that still belongs to the states.
It isn't as though, because the Federal gov't says "We say citizenship begins at birth," that states do not have the power to define many rights of citizenship. The age at which one can run for state government belongs to each state, and can vary. So can the age at which one can run for mayor; the age of consent varies by state, and so does the age at which one can begin driving (it is usually "16," but what that means exactly varies by state: some grant learners permits to 15-year-olds, and some do not; some limit night driving, or the age of passengers with newly licensed drivers, and it varies, and some have no restrictions). There are basic Federal guidelines regarding child labor, but states and even municipalities make other laws. Some places make people 12-16 (those under 12 can't work at all*, and 12-14 is highly restricted) get a permit from their schools to be able to work. Some don't.
No one has any problem with it. It's pretty easy. You go to where the Federal law stops, and pick up there, and can make any regulations you want that don't conflict with it. Right now Federal law stops with saying "gay (or straight, I suppose) people can enter same sex marriages." There is nothing beyond that, so local rules stand, as long as they don't conflict. Require women to have rubella vaccines? Still required, whether they are marrying a woman or a man. Or, you can change the law so only women marrying men need proof of vaccine (I wouldn't try it, though). Have a marital presumption for "paternity"? You should still have it for the second parent married to a pregnant woman, even if that person is also a woman. Have no-fault divorce? Then you still have no-fault divorce, and anyone who is married, same sex or not, should be able to have a no-fault divorce.
*Entertainment industry, and other places when a child is deemed necessary, like modeling, have exemptions, but lots of restrictions.Comment
-
Sorry when I said constitution I was referring to the Tenn Constitution as referenced by the Judge, in the article.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true. Comment
-
Oh. I don't know anything about it. It may possibly have an amendment forbidding gay marriage, hastily added, and poorly written, and probably ripe for striking down.Comment
-
No, it merely defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, it does not specifically exclude other combinations, thought in the Tennessee Code Annotated it does forbid polygamy.Originally posted by RivkahChaya View Post
With the SCOTUS ruling, the definition of marriage is declared null. But our definition of divorce specifically references the article defining marriage. So technically divorce could be considered void as well.
It's a point of order. Not a point of merit. And had he been making it the point as an exercise or in an effort to clean up the language, I might find thins funny were the divorce in question not so potentially violent. But this is just being a dick in the name of his god. He could have used a different divorce. He chose not to. He could have granted the divorce and announce that he would not be able to grant another one until the text was clarified. He did not. He could have appealed to our Supreme Court to take care of it, or talked to the governor, who is a friend of his. Nope.
Just being a dick. He just wants to seen disapproving of something no one is asking him to approve of. Spoiled privileged little child. One of his five million toys gets taken away and the world has to stop until he gets it back, where I have to constantly explain to people that yes Jews are a real thing, did you think they were in the Bible because they were like Seraphim or something? No you didn't kill us all off in those early days, have you read your book? That question is going to fester, I tell you. Yes I CAN have a ham sandwich give it back. No I can speak Hebrew, not "Jewish". No we didn't kill Christ have you read your book? I can come in you Church, I was invited. Yes. JUST like vampires. No I'm not trying to "pass", my hair is really red. Yeah I'll be offended if you throw your family some kind of tourist Passover you won't get right, just like you would be offended if I threw Easter and talked about "the myth of Jesus" or something.
Can you tell how OVER Christian privilege I am?The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.Comment
-
Just remember that Tennessee was the same state that in the 1920s came up with the anti-evolution teaching law that led to the trial of John Scopes with Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan clashing. That law was eventually overturned, though not in the Scopes trial.Originally posted by RivkahChaya View Post
JeffComment
Tweet
Comment