snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Moot Court (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65)
-   -   Tenn. judge refuses to grant straight couple a divorce because … gay marriage (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=92432)

Mr. Billion 06 September 2015 09:45 AM

Tenn. judge refuses to grant straight couple a divorce because … gay marriage
 
Last week, a Tenn. judge refused to grant a straight couple a divorce because the U.S. Supreme Court allowed gay marriage.

Many readers may be scratching their heads right now, wondering how the legalization of gay marriage could possibly disrupt straight divorce proceedings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...national_pop_b

thorny locust 06 September 2015 04:24 PM

From the article:

Quote:

In a response to a federal court ruling last year overturning Oklahoma’s gay marriage ban, the state’s House of Representatives voted in March to abolish marriage licenses, leaving them entirely up to clergy.
Had it somehow escaped their notice entirely that there are clergy who are perfectly willing to perform gay marriages?

(This would make more sense as an attempt to prevent atheists from getting married. It's interesting that I've seen nothing in at least the news sources I follow objecting to that Oklahoma move on those grounds; I don't know whether it's because they're ignoring atheists, because the atheists in Oklahoma shrugged and got married as Pastafarians or ordained some clergy of the Oklahoma Temple of the Non-Existence of God, or whether this never got further in Oklahoma than their House of Representatives and appears to have no chance of proceeding further.)

-- It occurs to me that I'll give them their entire religious freedom claim right back at them. There are people whose religious beliefs include believing that gay people ought to be able to get married. What about their right to religious freedom?

crocoduck_hunter 06 September 2015 04:25 PM

Quote:

“When I mention bestiality or pedophilia in the same sentence with homosexuality, people say ‘Carson says they’re the same.’ Of course they’re not the same,” he told the New York Times. “That point was if you change the definition of marriage for one group, you’ll have to change it for the next group and the next group.”
Only if you're so dumb you can't tell the difference between a human and a dog and can't comprehend what "consenting adults" means.

Avril 06 September 2015 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorny locust (Post 1886168)
Had it somehow escaped their notice entirely that there are clergy who are perfectly willing to perform gay marriages?

This point doesn't occur to most people in that area (I grew up in Oklahoma), but they're not completely ignorant of the concept. They just tend to think it happens in other states. It mostly does; outside Cleveland County it's pretty tough to find a more liberal congregation. Not impossible. But tough.

Quote:

(This would make more sense as an attempt to prevent atheists from getting married. It's interesting that I've seen nothing in at least the news sources I follow objecting to that Oklahoma move on those grounds; I don't know whether it's because they're ignoring atheists, because the atheists in Oklahoma shrugged and got married as Pastafarians or ordained some clergy of the Oklahoma Temple of the Non-Existence of God, or whether this never got further in Oklahoma than their House of Representatives and appears to have no chance of proceeding further.)
I'm pretty sure it won't actually become law, but then again, who knows. The governor is kind of nuts.

Quote:

-- It occurs to me that I'll give them their entire religious freedom claim right back at them. There are people whose religious beliefs include believing that gay people ought to be able to get married. What about their right to religious freedom?
They can move to New Jersey like me...I mean, seriously, that's generally what the attitude seems to be. Like how things are or get out. State's rights, etc.

thorny locust 06 September 2015 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avril (Post 1886172)
They can move to New Jersey like me...I mean, seriously, that's generally what the attitude seems to be. Like how things are or get out. State's rights, etc.

Ah. But in that case, the argument can't actually be religious freedom, can it? It has to be the state's right to establish a religion, declare what its rules are, and deny religious freedom to those who disagree.

-- yes, I know. I'm trying to apply logic to an argument based on something else entirely. But I am trying to do so within the theoretical framework they claim to be arguing from; though I realize that the actual framework they must be arguing from amounts to "it's only religion if it's my exact brand of religion!"

crocoduck_hunter 06 September 2015 05:25 PM

It's all about the state's right to do what they want it to do and not what anyone else wants.

Coughdrops 07 September 2015 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter (Post 1886179)
It's all about the state's right to do what they want it to do and not what anyone else wants.

So basically they want to go back to the Articles of Confederation?

Richard W 07 September 2015 01:58 PM

I wonder why Mrs Bumgardner could possibly have wanted a divorce?

... Or maybe it was Mr Bumgardner who wanted the divorce... gay marriage is legal in the USA now, after all...

(eta) Sorry, just to continue the childishness:

Quote:

Atherton unexpectedly ruled that he would not be granting the Bumgardners a divorce.
Well, he doesn't recognise their marriage in the first place, I guess.

Singing in the Drizzle 07 September 2015 06:00 PM

I keep saying that if religion wish to control the definition of marriage and its laws and rules then the Government should follow the first Amendment and not have anything to do with marriage. Come up with another name for a civil finical contract between two or more people (or animals).

Lainie 07 September 2015 07:41 PM

I would strongly object to the idea of people being able to enter into such contracts with animals, since an animal's consent or lack thereof cannot be determined. Of course technically speaking we can't determine an animal's consent to be a pet, either, but once you bring law and the force of the government into it, I think that becomes a more significant issue.

Lainie 07 September 2015 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard W (Post 1886279)
Well, he doesn't recognise their marriage in the first place, I guess.

That's not his reasoning* at all, actually, as the OP article makes clear.

*I may be using the word generously, but the real problem with his argument isn't lack of logic, it's ignorance re: Constitutional law.

Little Pink Pill 07 September 2015 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singing in the Drizzle (Post 1886313)
I keep saying that if religion wish to control the definition of marriage and its laws and rules then the Government should follow the first Amendment and not have anything to do with marriage.

Or maybe it's the church that shouldn't have anything to do with the legal side of it. When a pastor signs a marriage license s/he's acting as an agent of the state, and that is problematic for a number of reasons. Marriage is an entangled institution in our country, involving both church and state, and I think we're seeing the conflict of that as our culture changes. Maybe the solution is to make it a legal matter entirely, like they do in some European countries, and if couples wish to hold a religious ceremony in addition to the legal contract they signed at the courthouse, they can.

Quote:

Come up with another name for a civil finical contract between two or more people (or animals).
I'm with Lainie on this one. Consenting adults only, or you're playing right into the hands people who use the slippery slope argument about homosexuals opening the door for pedophelia and bestiality.

Richard W 07 September 2015 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lainie (Post 1886321)
That's not his reasoning* at all, actually, as the OP article makes clear.

I just wanted to say "Bumgardner" as much as possible... I know you're all managing to be very mature and discuss the actual story in a serious manner, but somebody had to point out that a story about a gay marriage controversy involved a couple called Mr and Mrs Bumgardner. I'm just sorry it had to be me.

crocoduck_hunter 07 September 2015 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Pink Pill (Post 1886322)
I'm with Lainie on this one. Consenting adults only, or you're playing right into the hands people who use the slippery slope argument about homosexuals opening the door for pedophelia and bestiality.

Or the pedantics who will point out that you can only enter contracts with animals because AI hasn't been invented yet and there are no sapient vegetables or minerals.

I know, I know. I'll get it myself. :fish:

erwins 07 September 2015 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Pink Pill (Post 1886322)
I'm with Lainie on this one. Consenting adults only, or you're playing right into the hands people who use the slippery slope argument about homosexuals opening the door for pedophelia and bestiality.

It isn't just about playing into anyone's hands though. If it's a contract, then it needs to be between people who can enter into contracts. So minors are only allowed to as provided specifically by law (with parents' consent, e.g.) and otherwise only competent (human) adults may do so. I think the trickier issue is whether the contract can be between more than two competent adults. I think there is no inherent reason not to, but that it should not be permitted until laws are written expressly permitting it, and addressing things like parentage of children, inheritance, divorce, and other issues that current 2-person marriage laws wouldn't automatically work with if there are more than 2-people.

I also think this guy doesn't have any excuse for making this ruling. He can't be that ignorant of Constitutional law. It's a fit of pique, and he's refusing to end the legal relationship of people who've had restraining orders issued. He should spend some quality time with a judicial fitness commission for that.

Singing in the Drizzle 08 September 2015 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Pink Pill (Post 1886322)
I'm with Lainie on this one. Consenting adults only, or you're playing right into the hands people who use the slippery slope argument about homosexuals opening the door for pedophelia and bestiality.

I said it was a to be a financial contract. I see no problem with a financial contract between a person and their pet, between several people or even a child. I defiantly should not be a contract to have sex and make babies. Though there should be something in there for the care of their children if there are any as part of their obligations to each other.

Lainie 08 September 2015 12:26 AM

Fortunately, the law does have a problem with the idea of a contract between an adult and a child.

Mouse 08 September 2015 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter (Post 1886179)
It's all about the state's right to do what they want it to do and not what anyone else wants.

I know people on this board keep trying to convince me that the states' rights argument isn't always the last refuge of a legal scoundrel, the defense resorted to when you have absolutely nothing else to stand on, but I continue to have my doubts.

Because at first, the attitude was that Gay Marriage should be decided at the State level. Then when certain states did decide in favor of Gay Marriage, other states opposed to it, tried to overturn that decision at the national level with the Defense of Marriage Act. Now that the DOMA is dead with a stake through its heart and the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Gay Marriage, these same states are crying, "States' Rights," even though they were perfectly happy to trample over the rights of Massachusetts and Vermont and many others who decided at the state level that society wouldn't fall if two consenting adults of the same gender got married.

I could go further with these examples and bring up the Fugitive Slave Act, but I believe I've made my point.

Coughdrops 08 September 2015 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mouse (Post 1886350)
I know people on this board keep trying to convince me that the states' rights argument isn't always the last refuge of a legal scoundrel, the defense resorted to when you have absolutely nothing else to stand on, but I continue to have my doubts.

Because at first, the attitude was that Gay Marriage should be decided at the State level. Then when certain states did decide in favor of Gay Marriage, other states opposed to it, tried to overturn that decision at the national level with the Defense of Marriage Act. Now that the DOMA is dead with a stake through its heart and the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Gay Marriage, these same states are crying, "States' Rights," even though they were perfectly happy to trample over the rights of Massachusetts and Vermont and many others who decided at the state level that society wouldn't fall if two consenting adults of the same gender got married.

I could go further with these examples and bring up the Fugitive Slave Act, but I believe I've made my point.

And when the states right argument fails I expect them to go city by city and town by town, wasting money and the court's time with endless unconstitutional local laws banning gay marriage. Of course the conservative leaders know that these won't go anywhere, but they will be able to point to them and say how horribly persecuted Christians are and rile up their voting base. Gay marriage might even replace abortion as the go-to tool to get their base to vote against their own interests.

ganzfeld 08 September 2015 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mouse (Post 1886350)
Then when certain states did decide in favor of Gay Marriage, other states opposed to it, tried to overturn that decision at the national level with the Defense of Marriage Act.

(My bold.) Not to say anything about your points but this is a bit wrong. No states had yet legalized same-sex marriage when DOMA passed in 1996. Several had already banned it, though. DOMA didn't try to overturn anything. It was preemptive.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.