For the 1st time in 14 months, marriage equality loses

A tennessee judge upheld the state's ban on recognizing marriages performed in other states (it did not formally address the ban itself). This is the first time a same-sex marriage ban has been upheld in a court since 2013.

"While Tennessee’s ban applies to both same-sex marriage in the first instance and state recognition of already-existing marriages, the judge’s decision formally dealt only with the latter, upholding the non-recognition clause in the Tennessee constitution and in state laws.

The constitutionality of the non-recognition part of the Tennessee ban is being reviewed now by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That was included among cases heard last week by a three-judge panel."

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/08/string-of-same-sex-marriage-rulings-broken/

For the full decision:
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Tennessee-marriage-ruling-8-5-141.pdf

The judge essentially says that marriage is about procreation, same-sex couples cannot procreate, therefore there is a rational basis to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.

It seems this judge decided his own religious beliefs about marriage trump the Constitution.

I can't say I'm entirely surprised by this--it is a southern state after all.

 

So basically infertile people, or people who can't procreate because of an injury of some sort, can't marry for love.

Tragic .

But this goes back to earlier about what I said that homosexual marriage will not be accepted in all states. contrary to popular liberal belief, not everybody will accept homosexuality.

Which means of course that the asshats will target them and harass them to no end until they get what they want.

 

The courts reasoning is inconsistent here. Same-sex couples cannot marry because they cannot procreate with each other, but infertile couples who cannot procreate with each other either can still marry.

This is a minor roadblock, one by a state judge about to retire. There is still the appeal to the state supreme court, the decision yet to be made by the 6th circuit court, and the eventually ruling by SCOTUS.

 

I hope this affects infertile couples and the elderly. I hope it does because then the doors will be blown down by the outcry coming from both religious and infertile heterosexual couples.

 

OK , let's add to the list:

Couples who get married with NO WISH to breed. Who get married with NO intention, no plan, to have kids.
Healthy, fertile, horny couples who do not want children.

THEY exist, too, and have every right to get married.

 

By harass do you mean "Recognize as bigoted and disapprove of"? Because that's not harassment, and is actually what ought to happen if we want society to progress.

 

Which is a entirely hypocritical and intolerant. it's not okay to harass people in this fashion, even if they are truly bigoted.

People have a right to their opinions and beliefs, and you have no right to impose yours on to them.

And why is it okay for you to force things on to other people in the name of your utterly pos morality but not okay for others? Why is you morality so superior to other people?

You full of crap and the real racists and bigots here. You're just using these things as a smokescreen because you are the ones who want power and control, and you hate anybody who disagree with you and label them while whining about how people label you. And yet yousee no contradiction and hypocrisy there.

Absolutely pathetic.

 

Having an opinion and expressing it is now automatically "hypocritical and intolerant" if it recognizes bigotry for what it is, and expresses disapproval of it?

And what fashion would that be, exactly? Your are short on details, and long on provocation. The poster said nothing about supporting the harassment of people. Rather, the thrust is to question whether you mean actual harassment, or are cynically using a tactic that seeks to preempt discussion by making it sound like anyone who dares to challenge anti-gay opinions must be viewed as a "hypocrite" and a "harasser". Your reply is just more avoidance, deflecting the issues raised by instead attacking the poster.

People do have a right to their opinions and beliefs. What they don't have is some magical right to be shielded from others' expression of conflicting opinions and beliefs.

I don't think you're really in a position to judge and characterize the other poster's morality in this manner. You are also arguing ad hominem, asserting things about the person that seem to have no basis in what that person actually wrote.

Really? You gathered all of that from one statement by one person in one post in this thread? Sorry, not going to buy your claim to omniscience, here.

More of the same. This is trolling and flamebaiting.

Describes your post perfectly, IMO

 

Yeah they do. I hope it affects them though because it will tear the doors down on the courthouses and this judge will realize his error.

 

Here's the thing. You can hold whatever opinion you want. That is your freedom.

What you fail to grasp is...you don't get to alter the freedoms of others based on your opinions. That's where you fall through and your argument as well.

Just because something offends you doesn't mean you get to prevent others from doing it, as long as it does not adversely effect your own freedom. So you can complain and nay say all you like and spread your opinion all you like, that will however not affect the legalization of gay marriage.

 

Just another way of telling someone they can't express their opinion and they have to shut up.

Some people are just more equal than others.

What you are doing is confusing that being critical and expressing an opinion is not the same thing as imposing someone's morality on to another person, which is what you're doing by telling me i can't express a dissenting opinion than yours, or that I can't express a bigoted opinion that does not jive with yours.Or any body else for that matter.

That's the thing about you liberals is that you alway hold people to these kinds of standards but you never under any circumstances hold your own to the same standards you expect everybody else to live by.

Such as when you people make blanket statements about millions of people in America who consider themselves conservatives, you call them all rednecks and racists.

Just like when you keep on hounding Sarah palin. Or when you call Condoleeza Rice, Collin powell, Clarence Thomas, and Bill Cosby racists and traitors to their race just for being conservative. I know you always say it's because of the things they say, but, you never provide quotes and actually try to explain what they say, and insulting and berating them and other people is just another way of trying to get them to shut up.

If have a set of rules, or a set of ethics, then you must hold yourselves to the same standards and never make these kinds of pathetic hypocritical statements and instead try to provide thoughtful and reasoned responses backed bt facts and logic.

But you liberals never do, all you liberals do is get mad, insult and berate people, try to shame them, and get them to shut up.

So when you guys make statements like this, it holds no substance or credibility to me, because I know that the real reason you're using these kinds of statements is just because you want the other guys and gals to shut up because you are intolerant of anything else that does not share your rabid ideology.

Sorry, but you have failed to impress me and convince me of any form of sincerity in your statements because I know you don't hold them to be true.

 

fixed that for ya...

and now it looks like a perfect argument for federal court jurisdiction, doesn't it?

 

I'd rather keep government out of it.

 

I am sure that a lot of racist pigs wanted to keep the government out of the interracial marriage issue as well.

Slavery too, for that matter.

 

The difference i that the government's purpose is to uphold the Constitutional and the people's rights. Slavery was a violation of the Constitution.

Marriage is not a right.

I don't want the government telling me who I can and can not marry.

Why do you want to give the government more power over your life? Don't you want to be able to make your own decisions for yourself or are you incapable of making those kinds of decisions and need somebody to tell you what to do and how to think?

 

if the government as it stands right now, tells gay people they cannot marry the person they love, it already has that power, wouldn't you agree?

and you would have been perfectly cool with the concept of slavery until it was made illegal by the 13th Amendment... have I got that right?

 

i do agree with number one and i don't support discrimination.

As far as slavery goes, we are all a slave to something, where it be to a job, to society, or to an ideology and personal belief, we are all a slave to something in this life.

most people just don't see it.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a right. So it must be treated as such. You may disagree with the law, but that is what it is.

 

Do you have any sources to confirm that?

And it's not the supreme court's job to determine what is a right, only id it is constitutional or not.

Talk to me further when it becomes an Amendment.

And I have strong distrust on the Supreme Court after they approve that horrible pos Obamacare.

 

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right.

Educate yourself please.

 

poor dodge. would you have agreed with the legality of people owning other people as property absent the 13th? yes or no.

 

You are wrong on so many counts. Slavery was constitutional. It was until 1868 [13th amendment].

Marriage is a right.

Marriage is a right like the right to defend oneself is a right. Those rights were held by the people for mellinnia. Not all rights were enumerated in the Constitution. [9th amendment].

And the most egregious misunderstanding of this entire thread is that a Tennessee county circuit judge has any say in a federal appeals ruling.

He has none.

 

Not a dodge. There are many forms of slavery, they just have different names to hid the fact that it is slavery.

As far as owning people, well, I'm not sure about that. I see many different groups who want to put down and control and own another group of people, so I'm not so sure that that specific form of slavery is still not thrown out of American mentality yet.

It's sad, really.

 

Can you read? Its perfectly fine for you to express a dissenting opinion, even one that is crass, crude, and completely aimed at being offensive. Go right ahead.

However, there is a difference between free speech, voicing an opinion and forcing that opinion onto others by removing their rights.

If you cant grasp that I don't know how else to explain it to you. You can hold whatever opinion you like. Having an opinion is different from removing other peoples rights. You can hold whatever opinion you like. You can not, however, treat another group of people as lesser. That is no within YOUR rights.

 

You don't want the government tell you who you can and cannot marry...you just think that you should be able to tell gays they can't marry.

You can't see the forest for the trees can you?