Cont: Texas bans abortion. Part 2

100% Stacy, and that might go some way toward explaining the behaviour of certain sections of Religious Conservatism, i.e , those who are OK with the idea of child brides - such as some Tennessee Republicans!

I don't think Tennessee Republicans are OK with 'child brides'; they just were not very good at thinking things through when they write up the bill. After all, what the bill was really about was getting around the legalization of same-sex marriage. They've since amended the bill to correct the lack of an age minimum.
 
I don't think Tennessee Republicans are OK with 'child brides'; they just were not very good at thinking things through when they write up the bill. After all, what the bill was really about was getting around the legalization of same-sex marriage. They've since amended the bill to correct the lack of an age minimum.

Ehh... I'm on the side of "By Democrats making a fuss about it, the Republicans had to close that loophole, regardless of whether they wanted to or not in this case." Thus, that they closed the loophole should mean nothing when it comes to determining whether it was accident or intentional. Similarly, that they're Republicans is not a firm indicator - the Republican Party harbors the main defenders of child marriage, but that's not even remotely unanimous. Of more use would be to check whether the writers are part of one of the subcultures in the US that have much more permissive histories regarding child brides, as well as their more personal trails.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Tennessee Republicans are OK with 'child brides'; they just were not very good at thinking things through when they write up the bill. After all, what the bill was really about was getting around the legalization of same-sex marriage. They've since amended the bill to correct the lack of an age minimum.

Well, the facts are that one of the sponsors of the bill argued against the amendment to close the loophole because he thought it was "not necessary". Considering we are talking about deep conservative redneck country here, you'll forgive me if I find his stance very, very suspicious.
 
This will inevitably lead back to the tired "they need to take RESPONSIBILITY for getting pregnant!" while ignoring that the people who ignore them at any other time suddenly have a passionate desire to regulate their uterus, without responsibility.

He flips from "you misrepresent me as I don't support abortion restrictions as strict those of Texas even though there are good things about them" to, in the hypothetical of even more strict restrictions, "I don't support them but, tough ****, if it's the law it's the law!".
 
While "liberal" has many meanings, as do many things, I must remark that at least in the "right vs. left" area not all left leaners are ignorant of that idea.

Remember, for example, Tipper Gore's campaign against explicit song lyrics, which I seem to recall resulted in a move by retail chains to self-regulate in order to avoid legal issues. It may not have lasted, and of course it depends on how much money you stand to lose, but sometimes it's easier to comply than to fight, even if you win.

Many years ago, I also heard a "Fresh Air" interview with Andrea Dworkin, who, as some might remember, was of the opinion that "pornograpy equals rape" and as such, a great advocate of the transitive property of evil: that if pornography equals rape, then being an agent of its production equals it, and if that, then being an agent of its distribution equals it, and if so, being involved in its sale equals it....and thus, quite openly, she suggested that the way to end the evil of pornography was to file arrest charges against the proprietors of convenience stores and the drivers of delivery trucks for their complicity in rape. e.t.a. This being her response to the fact that cases against the producers of what she considered equal to rape had won their cases when prosecuted. This of course would be obviously a nuisance charge, winnable at any level by the defendants, but she rightly supposed that if done, it would prove so expensive (likely including the deportation of immigrant convenience-store clerks) that it would force self-regulation of the industry, even though the industry itself had fought the fight and won. She openly stated that her crusade warranted the sacrifice of democracy.

This differs only in kind and perhaps choice of victim from the practice of police charging people and throwing them in jail for charges they know will be dismissed, knowing as they do that the victory will damage the lives and livelihoods of their victims anyway, while they continue to enjoy immmunity.

So yes, I think the Republicans have refined this idea and proliferated it and brought it into the mainstream, but they did not invent it.

People are fond of pointing to these Pyrrhic victories as proof that "the system works," but even though lifeboats work, the ship still sinks. The best democracy happens before the trial, not after.

Good post! 👍
 
Well, the facts are that one of the sponsors of the bill argued against the amendment to close the loophole because he thought it was "not necessary". Considering we are talking about deep conservative redneck country here, you'll forgive me if I find his stance very, very suspicious.

He made that argument because TN already had a law prohibiting marriage before the age of 18 without parental consent and then only no younger than 17.

"This bill changes nothing in current law regarding marriage and does not allow minors to get married," Leatherwood said in a statement to Newsweek

The bill was criticized for the fact that the new "marriage contracts" did not require those applying to both be over 18 years old. A spokesperson for Leatherwood told Newsweek that the bill never would have allowed minors to be married because it would create marriage contracts, and minors can't legally sign contracts in Tennessee, but the bill was amended anyway to address the concerns.

Current Tennessee law sets a minimum age for marriage at 17 with parental consent, but 17-year-olds are not legally allowed to marry someone at least four years older than them. The amended version of the bill is still being debated in the state legislature.
.
https://www.newsweek.com/tennessee-marriage-bill-age-minimum-added-1696474


There is more than an ample supply of things to justifiably criticize Republicans for. We don't need to make things up.
 
He made that argument because TN already had a law prohibiting marriage before the age of 18 without parental consent and then only no younger than 17.

.
https://www.newsweek.com/tennessee-marriage-bill-age-minimum-added-1696474


There is more than an ample supply of things to justifiably criticize Republicans for. We don't need to make things up.

No Stacy. Have a look at what they were actually trying to do here.

They were not amending an existing marriage law, they were trying to introduce a totally separate and independent law that would operate in parallel to the existing marriage law.

Law A, the existing marriage law allows for gay marriage, thanks to a 2014 Federal Court ruling, reinforcing SCOTUS landmark 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor (570 U.S. 744). This law also has age restrictions.

Law B, if the bill passes, will create a totally separate Law, one that only applies to heterosexual couples, gays would be excluded, and there would have been no age restrictions.

The idea was to work around the part of Law A that denies marriage celebrants the right to refuse to marry a gay couple. The marriage celebrant could then argue that they only conduct marriages under Law B, which would the give them the right to refuse to marry gays. The loophole in Law B could then be be exploited because a clever lawyer could make the argument that the conditions of Law A do not apply to marriages conducted under Law B.

Fortunately the Dems caught this and insisted closing the loophole.
 
Last edited:
No Stacy. Have a look at what they were actually trying to do here.

They were not amending an existing marriage law, they were trying to introduce a totally separate and independent law that would operate in parallel to the existing marriage law. Law A, the existing marriage law allows for gay marriage, thanks to a 2014 Federal Court ruling, reinforcing SCOTUS landmark 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor (570 U.S. 744). This law also has age restrictions. Law B, if the bill passes, will create a totally separate Law, one that only applies to heterosexual couples, gays would be excluded, and there would have been no age restrictions.
The idea was to work around the part of Law A that denies marriage celebrants the right to refuse to marry a gay couple. The marriage celebrant could then argue that they only conduct marriages under Law B, which would the give them the right to refuse to marry gays. The loophole in Law B could then be be exploited because a clever lawyer could make the argument that the conditions of Law A do not apply to marriages conducted under Law B.

Fortunately the Dems caught this and insisted closing the loophole.

What is your source for this? What is the source for the claim that the state's marriage age law would not cover both?

As previously stated: this is deemed a common-law contract and minors under 18 cannot legally enter into a contract. No license would be issued.

However:

Though the bill garnered condemnation over child marriage concerns, the legislation was initially filed as an anti-gay marriage measure. Supporters of the legislation, including former state Sen. David Fowler, say they can't conscientiously sign Tennessee marriage licenses because LGBTQ couples are now afforded the right to marry.

"This bill was to say have your license, but do not deny our understanding of marriage or force ministers to choose between signing a document they disagree with or performing a marriage that has no legal effect," Fowler, director of the conservative Family Action Council of Tennessee, said this week.

The group has for years lobbied around legislation in opposition to same-sex marriage, including against a 2018 an effort to outlaw child marriage in Tennessee. Fowler at the time argued under an obscure legal theory that passing the bill could interfere with a lawsuit he was mounting to counter the the Obergefell v. Hodges U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

I went to the Family Action Council of Tennessee website and can find nothing regarding being pro-child marriage. It's all about how God ordained it as a union between a man and a woman...all the usual religious arguments. I had to leave as it made me want to throw up.
 
Last edited:
What is your source for this? What is the source for the claim that the state's marriage age law would not cover both?

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...ner-anti-lgbtq-marriage-bill-sparks-criticism

"Supporters argue the measure is needed to give religious officials, couples and others opposed to gay marriage an option that wouldn't conflict with their beliefs."

“All this bill does is give an alternative form of marriage for those pastors and other individuals who have a conscientious objection to the current pathway to marriage in our law,”

So under this bill, gay marriage would still be allowed by existing law, but celebrants could opt to use the new law and refuse to marry gays. They would be Common Law marriages...

If enacted, the legislation would allow opposite-sex couples to fill out marriage “contracts” based on common law marriage principles. Typically, common law marriage refers to the legal protections of marriage given to couples who live together as a married couple, but who haven’t gotten a state marriage license.


Of course, the churches of those Pastors will recognise those marriages even if the state doesn't. In reality, the kinds of people who would go for this deal wouldn't if care if only the church recognises their marriage anyway.
 
Last edited:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...ner-anti-lgbtq-marriage-bill-sparks-criticism

"Supporters argue the measure is needed to give religious officials, couples and others opposed to gay marriage an option that wouldn't conflict with their beliefs."

“All this bill does is give an alternative form of marriage for those pastors and other individuals who have a conscientious objection to the current pathway to marriage in our law,”

So under this bill, gay marriage would still be allowed by existing law, but celebrants could opt to use the new law and refuse to marry gays. They would be Common Law marriages...

If enacted, the legislation would allow opposite-sex couples to fill out marriage “contracts” based on common law marriage principles. Typically, common law marriage refers to the legal protections of marriage given to couples who live together as a married couple, but who haven’t gotten a state marriage license.


Of course, the churches of those Pastors will recognise those marriages even if the state doesn't. In reality, the kinds of people who would go for this deal wouldn't if care if only the church recognises their marriage anyway.

Sorry, but I still see nothing that says the common-law contract marriage would be exempt from the state law regarding age minimum.

"Can a person under the age of 18 enter into an informal or “common-law” marriage?

No. A person under the age of 18 may not be a party to an informal marriage or execute a declaration of informal marriage.

See Texas Family Code chapters 2.003, 2.101, and 6.205.
https://texaslawhelp.org/article/minors-and-marriage
 
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...ner-anti-lgbtq-marriage-bill-sparks-criticism

"Supporters argue the measure is needed to give religious officials, couples and others opposed to gay marriage an option that wouldn't conflict with their beliefs."

“All this bill does is give an alternative form of marriage for those pastors and other individuals who have a conscientious objection to the current pathway to marriage in our law,”

So under this bill, gay marriage would still be allowed by existing law, but celebrants could opt to use the new law and refuse to marry gays. They would be Common Law marriages...

If enacted, the legislation would allow opposite-sex couples to fill out marriage “contracts” based on common law marriage principles. Typically, common law marriage refers to the legal protections of marriage given to couples who live together as a married couple, but who haven’t gotten a state marriage license.


Of course, the churches of those Pastors will recognise those marriages even if the state doesn't. In reality, the kinds of people who would go for this deal wouldn't if care if only the church recognises their marriage anyway.

Isn't the premise for the alleged need for this law that pastors are being forced to perform same sex marriages? Isn't this premise false?

I mean, I suppose it "protects" county clerks from having to do this but not religious celebrants performing a religious ceremony.
 
Isn't the premise for the alleged need for this law that pastors are being forced to perform same sex marriages? Isn't this premise false?

I mean, I suppose it "protects" county clerks from having to do this but not religious celebrants performing a religious ceremony.

Correct. As county employees, clerks cannot refuse to issue a marriage license to anyone legally able to receive one. Religious officials are not required to perform the ceremony. This entire thing is more nonsense from the "Christianity is being attacked by the Godless Left" contingent. They have such a victim mentality.
 
Isn't the premise for the alleged need for this law that pastors are being forced to perform same sex marriages? Isn't this premise false?

I mean, I suppose it "protects" county clerks from having to do this but not religious celebrants performing a religious ceremony.
Yes it is false. And if I read this all correctly it does nothing to protect clerks, who will still have to perform same sex marriages, since the whole point of the law is to provide a kind of marriage same sex couples cannot use, while complying with the Federal law that says they may marry civilly. And as many people, Catholics in particular, have known for eons, it is possible to have a church wedding now, which complies with whatever extra rules and exclusions the church applies, and if certain basic rules are met, civil sanction is thrown in. A church wedding and its non-civil component can still exclude persons to whom purely civil marriage is available.

The new law seems not to accomplish anything more than what would be called virtue signalling if it were done by liberals, as well as establishing a sidestep around federally mandated equality which, if it succeeds, could, I think, as easily be stretched to avoid other federally mandated equality. If you can make a new kind of state-sanctioned marriage that excludes one protected class, why not exclude others? I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who lament the Supreme Court's intrusive Loving decision.
 
Yes it is false. And if I read this all correctly it does nothing to protect clerks, who will still have to perform same sex marriages, since the whole point of the law is to provide a kind of marriage same sex couples cannot use, while complying with the Federal law that says they may marry civilly. And as many people, Catholics in particular, have known for eons, it is possible to have a church wedding now, which complies with whatever extra rules and exclusions the church applies, and if certain basic rules are met, civil sanction is thrown in. A church wedding and its non-civil component can still exclude persons to whom purely civil marriage is available.

The new law seems not to accomplish anything more than what would be called virtue signalling if it were done by liberals, as well as establishing a sidestep around federally mandated equality which, if it succeeds, could, I think, as easily be stretched to avoid other federally mandated equality. If you can make a new kind of state-sanctioned marriage that excludes one protected class, why not exclude others? I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who lament the Supreme Court's intrusive Loving decision.

Last I heard, the very poorly hidden "intent" was to end up entirely replacing marriage rules with this "alternative," albeit not in one step. First, they need to get the "alternative" into law, after all, which would be much more difficult if they were directly trying to sell it with the final intent.
 
Yes it is false. And if I read this all correctly it does nothing to protect clerks, who will still have to perform issue licenses for same sex marriages, since the whole point of the law is to provide a kind of marriage same sex couples cannot use, while complying with the Federal law that says they may marry civilly. And as many people, Catholics in particular, have known for eons, it is possible to have a church wedding now, which complies with whatever extra rules and exclusions the church applies, and if certain basic rules are met, civil sanction is thrown in. A church wedding and its non-civil component can still exclude persons to whom purely civil marriage is available.

The new law seems not to accomplish anything more than what would be called virtue signalling if it were done by liberals, as well as establishing a sidestep around federally mandated equality which, if it succeeds, could, I think, as easily be stretched to avoid other federally mandated equality. If you can make a new kind of state-sanctioned marriage that excludes one protected class, why not exclude others? I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who lament the Supreme Court's intrusive Loving decision.

FTFY
 
Red states are working to make abortion illegal everywhere.
Today’s anti-abortion movement has even proposed new laws that prevent people from crossing state lines to terminate a pregnancy. Republicans in Missouri are considering such legislation right now. Under the statute, Missouri’s citizens could sue doctors who perform an abortion on a Missouri resident in a different state—like neighboring Illinois, whose clinics serve countless Missourians. Missouri’s citizens could also sue anyone who facilitated the abortion, including the friend or family member who transported the patient across state lines. Similarly, in 2019, Georgia Republicans passed a sweeping law that appeared to impose criminal penalties on patients who traveled out of state for an abortion.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/abortion-bans-out-of-state-missouri-texas-oklahoma.html
 
This would not be possible in Australia. Under section 117 of the constitution, a resident in one state can not be subject to a disability in another state that wouldn't equally apply to a resident of that other state. IOW you can't treat people differently in a state depending on which state they reside.
 
Last edited:
It's becoming increasingly apparent that the "United States" is a misnomer. It's nearer to "dis-United Fiefdoms."
 

Back
Top Bottom