Tennessee House just passed House Bill 878 which allows: SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 36-3-301, is amended by adding the following as a new subsection: (m) A person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage if the person has an objection to solemnizing the marriage based on the person's conscience or religious beliefs. Tennessee Code 36-3-301 defines who may solemnize a marriage. All regular ministers, preachers, pastors, priests, rabbis and other spiritual leaders of every religious belief, more than eighteen (1 years of age, having the care of souls, and all members of the county legislative bodies, county mayors, judges, chancellors, former chancellors and former judges of this state, former county executives or county mayors of this state, former members of quarterly county courts or county commissions, the governor, the speaker of the senate and former speakers of the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives and former speakers of the house of representatives, the county clerk of each county and the mayor of any municipality in the state may solemnize the rite of matrimony. So this new law would allow county clerks to refuse to solemnize the marriage of same sex couples (or interracial couples or interfaith couples as well)
I am of two minds about this. On the one side, as long as the office in question for either the issuing of the license or whatever they call it, or for the signing and finalizing of the legal status always have someone available to perform the deed, then I have no issue with allowing others within the office the ability to refuse to do so. IOW, Bob is allowed to refuse to sign the paper, as long as Brenda is available to do so. On the other side of the coin, when you are employed by the state, you give up your ability, while on the clock, to engage in any behavior that you otherwise have the right to do. So you can be the most abject racist out in public away from the office, but you still have to provide minorities with all they are legally entitled to when on the clock. One of the things I did note on this law, is that is allows former holders of the office to also officiate/sign. Basically, it seems what they did was to shotgun who can sign to make it so that there is a large number of people who would solemnize the legal marriage, allowing those who object to not have to. I think that is actually a good solution. Your focus should be on getting the marriage legalize, not on forcing someone who objects to do it.
Actually the part about who can solemnize was not part of this new bill...it's been TN law for a long time. The only thing this bill adds is section (m)
My point still stands. The law allows for a large number of people to sign, so there is no reason not to allow for objectors to be allowed to bow out, again as long as there is someone available who will do it.
And if there isn't? How far should someone be forced to walk/drive to find someone willing to do it? This about government officials. I would never support a clergy person being forced to perform such a wedding.
I figured that since it wasn't the portion that you highlighted. But as I noted earlier, the exception should only be as long as there is another willing available. If there is say only one person in the office at the time, then it should be them, regardless of their religious or other convictions. I did say in my first post that working for a government office means that you set those things aside, just as you do for military. I just don't see a need to allow someone to force a person when another is available. When it comes to the actual solemnizing, that is something that is usually scheduled, so there is absolutely no reason why there can't be a list in the office as to who is willing and schedule around them (which is a factor even if there was a forcing of those unwilling), as well as provide the couple with a list of nearby "formers" who would be willing to do it, which would not be scheduled by the government office. The couple in question is probably going to spend more time running around trying to find one who is available for their date as opposed to one willing to do it period. And let me make this clear. I do understand that the law does not account for there only being those opposed in a given location. I do stipulate that such needs to be addressed as part of the law. But I also see the point in putting this into law. Basically, if the couple goes in and Bob is the one who initially serves them, finds out that they want something against his beliefs, and then directs them to Monica to take care of them, this prevents the couple from trying to take legal action against Bob. Bob should be allowed to back out because Monica is available with no legal repercussions. Without this law, there could be legal repercussions even though the couple get the services they were seeking.
This seems like a ploy to get a case put in front of the Supreme Court and get the Obergefell v. Hodges decision overturned. They’ve already proven they don’t respect their previous decisions.
This sounds like the mentality of the Left. Something is 'under attack' if individual people are not forced to do it. The thought didn't occur to you that there are sure to be other individuals who would happily undertake the action of solemnizing the marriage? Same with a bakery baking a cake. If one business won't do it, another business will. What's the big problem?
The problem is, it’s a ploy to get a case in front of the Supreme Court so they can shoot do Obergefell v. Hodges.
If someone is smart then they'll get Loving vs Virginia tacked onto that on the basis that they are decided upon the same principle.
I think you missed the point. Given the position that Thomas made in the Dobbs case, and given that he is in an interracial marriage, then getting Loving added to the docket as a case decided on the same principle as Obergefell, Lawrence and Roe, as he claims, should give him the chance to prove his conviction on such a principle. Is he willing to risk his own marriage to prove his position on the ruling type?
He wouldn't be risking his own marriage. Given the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws, even if the SCOTUS decided that same sex marriages (or interracial marriages) were not protected by the Constitution they could not invalidate the marriages that took place while it was Constitutionally protected. Plus the WORST SCOTUS could do is rule that states are not required to recognize those marriages. It would be up to the individual states to decide, for themselves, what to do.
