Tenn. Won't Recognize Same-Sex Couple...

Tenn. Won't Recognize Same-Sex Couple Name Change

There are 67 comments on the EDGE story from Sep 26, 2013, titled Tenn. Won't Recognize Same-Sex Couple Name Change. In it, EDGE reports that:

It may come to no surprise to some but the state of Tennessee will not legally recognize the name change of a same-sex couple, East Tennessee's NBC-affiliate station WBIR reports.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#48 Sep 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
Now this one is DEFINITELY a FF&C case!
I don't know why this never occurred to me.
"The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check
whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't."

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#50 Sep 28, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check
whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't."
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm
Ever heard of equal protection and due process? Guess not.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#51 Sep 28, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check
whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't."
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm
I don't buy this at all.

Firstly, One of the main reasons for writing the FFC was to PREVENT the chaos that will result if was is suddenly "unmarried" when moving from state to state.

Secondly, the so-called "public policy doctrine" is not written in the law, nor the U.S. Constitution, and is obviously arbitrary and capricious. The southern states prior to SCOTUS' Loving v. Virginia decision claimed the same thing with regards to inter-racial marriage. And SCOTUS found that argument specious.

Thirdly, although the author specifically claims, in a very general manner, that states have refused to legally recognize the marriages of first cousins, performed in states or countries where it is legal, he cites no specific case, and I do not believe any state has refused to do legally recognize the marriages of cousins.

Fourthly, as we all know, there is no "state interest" in NOT recognize the legally valid marriages of same-sex couples married in other states where it is legal.

Lastly,(I think), this article is OVER 9-1/2 years old, and the public perception of marriage equality has changed a LOT since then. Citing this article is akin to citing an article from 1951 arguing against interracial marriage.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#52 Sep 28, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't buy this at all.
Firstly, One of the main reasons for writing the FFC was to PREVENT the chaos that will result if was is suddenly "unmarried" when moving from state to state.
Secondly, the so-called "public policy doctrine" is not written in the law, nor the U.S. Constitution, and is obviously arbitrary and capricious. The southern states prior to SCOTUS' Loving v. Virginia decision claimed the same thing with regards to inter-racial marriage. And SCOTUS found that argument specious.
Thirdly, although the author specifically claims, in a very general manner, that states have refused to legally recognize the marriages of first cousins, performed in states or countries where it is legal, he cites no specific case, and I do not believe any state has refused to do legally recognize the marriages of cousins.
Fourthly, as we all know, there is no "state interest" in NOT recognize the legally valid marriages of same-sex couples married in other states where it is legal.
Lastly,(I think), this article is OVER 9-1/2 years old, and the public perception of marriage equality has changed a LOT since then. Citing this article is akin to citing an article from 1951 arguing against interracial marriage.
Bingo. You sure hit the nail on the head.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#53 Sep 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo. You sure hit the nail on the head.
And not only that, it was, AS USUAL, Fair. AND Balanced !:)

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#55 Sep 28, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
And not only that, it was, AS USUAL, Fair. AND Balanced !:)
Stop crowing. You remind me of a rooster at dawn, screaming from the roof tops all the time. Take a compliment and shut the hell up about it.

Wasn't Martin Luther HUMBLE? You sure should take a clue.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#56 Sep 28, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Stop crowing. You remind me of a rooster at dawn, screaming from the roof tops all the time. Take a compliment and shut the hell up about it.
Wasn't Martin Luther HUMBLE? You sure should take a clue.
Not sure that Martin Luther was humble. He did preach on humility, however.

“True humility does not know that it is humble. If it did, it would be proud from the contemplation of so fine a virtue.”

&#8213; Martin Luther

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#57 Sep 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure that Martin Luther was humble. He did preach on humility, however.
“True humility does not know that it is humble. If it did, it would be proud from the contemplation of so fine a virtue.”
&#8213; Martin Luther
But his MOST FAMOUS words were the words he spoke after EACH & EVERY sermon: "MORE BIER ! KATIE, MY WIFE ! MORE BIER !:)"

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#58 Sep 28, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
But his MOST FAMOUS words were the words he spoke after EACH & EVERY sermon: "MORE BIER ! KATIE, MY WIFE ! MORE BIER !:)"
No doubt. lol

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#59 Sep 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
No doubt. lol
Martin Luther's church DID have a brewery, and his wife "Katie" (formerly Katharina von Bora) WAS in charge of the brewery, and was the brewmeister.

She died not too long after she was in a traffic accident. And oddly enough, she was buried a long distance from her deceased husband's grave. To the best of my knowledge, her grave has not been moved.

She bore six children, four who survived to adulthood, and there are descendants of Martin & Katharina Luther still living. I believe they number about 200 people.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#61 Sep 29, 2013
Which would mean you might have to marry your spouse every time you move to another state, rewrite all contracts you might be involved in, etc. The full faith and credit clause exists to prevent endless confusion and eliminate discrimination.

I don't like or accept religion; do I have to accept its constant influx into society?
trekgraham78 wrote:
Personally I think the federal government should allow the states to choose what to allow, not allow. If one state accepts gay marriage then they have incentives to live there. Same with marijuana and other hot topics. Like no state income taxes gives incentives to make people move there. No one should be forced to accept anything they don't like or believe.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#62 Sep 29, 2013
It'd be interesting to know how many of them are lutherans.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Martin Luther's church DID have a brewery, and his wife "Katie" (formerly Katharina von Bora) WAS in charge of the brewery, and was the brewmeister.
She died not too long after she was in a traffic accident. And oddly enough, she was buried a long distance from her deceased husband's grave. To the best of my knowledge, her grave has not been moved.
She bore six children, four who survived to adulthood, and there are descendants of Martin & Katharina Luther still living. I believe they number about 200 people.

“enjoying life”

Since: Oct 10

Clinton, tn

#63 Sep 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
<quoted text>Which would mean you might have to marry your spouse every time you move to another state, rewrite all contracts you might be involved in, etc. The full faith and credit clause exists to prevent endless confusion and eliminate discrimination.

I don't like or accept religion; do I have to accept its constant influx into society?
Well marriage was created by religion, if you don't like the definition of marriage then go with the civil term of a civil union.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#64 Sep 29, 2013
trekgraham78 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well marriage was created by religion, if you don't like the definition of marriage then go with the civil term of a civil union.
Um.... sorry... that is incorrect. Marriage was NOT created by religion.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#65 Sep 29, 2013
Legal marriage was NOT created by religion. Marriage started as a legal/social means of defining bloodlines and protecting property. Most poor people had no form of formal marriage at all; the man decided he wanted a woman and her father sold her.

More importantly, america's legal marriage has nothing to do with religion; atheists are just as married as the most devout. In fact, a religious marriage means squat without the legal document.
trekgraham78 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well marriage was created by religion, if you don't like the definition of marriage then go with the civil term of a civil union.
Straight Sh00ter

Lawrence, KS

#66 Sep 29, 2013
Speakin just for me, and some people from Tennessee, we've got a thing or two to tell yall.

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#67 Sep 29, 2013
trekgraham78 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well marriage was created by religion, if you don't like the definition of marriage then go with the civil term of a civil union.
Sorry, but you'd be wrong......it is the State that issues the Marriage License and the State that grants the Divorce decree.......so, please tell me what does religion truly have to do with marriage seeing as Atheists and Agnostics do get married as well!!!

Civil Unions and DP's are nothing more than a bone to give when all else fails......they ARE NOT equal to Marriage in ANY way!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#68 Sep 29, 2013
Straight Sh00ter wrote:
Speakin just for me, and some people from Tennessee, we've got a thing or two to tell yall.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
God created Adam, Eve, Steve and Lilith.......and EVERY other human being.......so, yes God did create Gays and Lesbians as well:-)

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#69 Sep 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you'd be wrong......it is the State that issues the Marriage License and the State that grants the Divorce decree.......so, please tell me what does religion truly have to do with marriage seeing as Atheists and Agnostics do get married as well!!!
Civil Unions and DP's are nothing more than a bone to give when all else fails......they ARE NOT equal to Marriage in ANY way!!!
Tell that to Christie. The New Jersey Supreme court said exactly the same thing many years ago, but Christie doesn't believe them.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#70 Sep 29, 2013
trekgraham78 wrote:
Well marriage was created by religion, if you don't like the definition of marriage then go with the civil term of a civil union.
Marriage was, of course, NOT created by religion. This would suggest that non-religious people could not use it, or that they would be forced, by their government, to embrace a religious rite.

The bonding of human beings to their intended loved ones, and the state-recognized regulation of their shared estate and property, pre-dates religion. It transcends the authority of religion.

Many religions have incorporated marriage into their scriptures and rituals, but this doesn't mean that they "created" it. Nor do they OWN it, or have the right to dictate its use to others.

They couldn't agree on a consistent usage, anyway. Many religious people SUPPORT same-sex marriages, and many churches WANT to perform them. Does the concept of "religion" get to tell them they can't?

Besides, civil unions are not available consistently across the nation. A couple joined by a civil union would find their bond falling in and out of validity as they traveled cross-country. Many religious people oppose ANY recogniztion of same-sex relationships, INCLUDING civil unions. Does their religion get to deny us even that?

"Religion gets to make the rules" is never a good argument in a society where people are free to worship as they please. It opens the door to too many problems, too many conflicts. Marriage is a legal contract regulated by the federal government, and this is they way it should be, to keep it fairly available to ALL citizens regardless of their religious beliefs.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Social Security Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 3 hr pooky 10,494
News Remaking Rutland with Refugees Wed mjazz 2
News U.S. Life Expectancy Rises to Record Level - AM... (Jan '07) Jul 21 USA 6
News Fraudulent Disability Benefits Claims the Bigge... Jul 19 415 Fourth Avenue 1
News On Social Security, Trump and Pence couldn't be... Jul 17 Synque 20
News For local undocumented immigrants, high court d... Jul 16 Smokey 2
Ok maybe someone knows Jul 14 Tristonsnonna 1
More from around the web