Public officials in Tennessee can now refuse to grant a marriage license to anyone at their own discretion, for any reason.
Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed into law House Bill 878 on Wednesday, which took effect immediately. The bill — just a few sentences in length — only states that “a person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage.” Only state notary publics, government officials, and religious figures can “solemnize” a marriage in Tennessee, according to state code.
None of the sponsors behind the bill have been made public statements on its introduction or passage, nor have they given comment to media organizations. The only known remarks regarding the law from state Rep. Monty Fritts (take a guess), who sponsored it in the House, are from February of last year, when he spoke to the state Subcommittee on Children and Family Affairs.
This headline is so headline grabby. Sure the local fucking bigot won’t do it, but practically anyone can qualify as eligible for solemnizing a marriage.
I think it’s real shitty what they did and are trying to do, don’t get me wrong, but LGBTQ are not going away and there’s a lot more supporters than haters out there. Even in red states many supporters remain silent to avoid the loud dumb bigots.
I can see making an exception for “religious figures” but the idea that a public servant, like a government official or to lesser extent notary public, can deny service to someone based on their personal beliefs is problematic and certainly something that should be reported on.
“real shitty”
does that mean it doesn’t affect you so fuck it who cares ? Because we did that in the USA for centuries and fuck that. It was real shittier.
Sure, but is issuing a marriage license “solemnizing” the marriage?
The real issue here is that public employees are allowed to bestow different services on different members of the public just based on how they feel. In a Good Old Boys jurisdiction, this could in practice outlaw gay marriage because all it takes is a consistent hiring practice to only get the “right kind” of clerk who won’t issue gay marriage licenses, and it becomes impossible to get one. That can happen in significant percentages of jurisdictions.
Sure, it violates equal protection Constitutional rights, but somehow I think this Supreme Court would find that First Amendment “right to express religious bigotry” wins if those are in conflict.
Edit: I don’t have time to review the statute but Shadrach makes good points. If that’s accurate to the statute, that wouldn’t allow clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses.
Sure, but is issuing a marriage license “solemnizing” the marriage?
No. The County Clerk’s office issues marriage licenses before the marriage is solemnized, and the officiant who solemnizes the marriage then turns the license back in, completed.
Basically you get issued the license to permit the marriage, someone accepts that paperwork and solemnizes the marriage (usually in some variety of ceremony, as befits your cultural and religious preferences), then that person (the officiant) completes the license and submits it back to the state to inform them it’s been done.
The Tennessee law in question essentially says that just because someone is allowed to officiate a marriage in Tennessee doesn’t mean they are required to if they have some issue with the pairing. AKA you can’t force a preacher from a decidedly anti-LGBT church to marry you just because they are a preacher. Likewise for not being able to force the local Grand Wizard to solemnize your interracial marriage. Or any other reason someone might not want to officiate literally every marriage presented to them.
Sure, it violates equal protection Constitutional rights,
Does it? It’s not a state employee performing their job function that’s given this leeway. The County Clerk is still required to issue the marriage license and is still required to accept and process completed ones, even if they disagree with those pairings.
It’s the person performing the wedding that is given leeway to decide who they are willing to marry, and the options there are broad enough that it doesn’t meaningfully restrict you (there are about 102,000 notaries public as well as an assortment of current and former elected officials and literally any clergy of any faith).
literally any clergy of any faith
Wait… aren’t you people the same one’s telling everyone they can’t tell you what to do with your body, but here you want to demand someone give up their choice? If one person refuses, move on to the next. A lot of you don’t understand the word freedom, or hypocrite.
Nobody should have the right to infringe upon others’ rights. Look up the paradox of tolerance.
it’s not infringing though. they aren’t saying you can’t, they are saying they won’t.
So, if an Amish person decided to work at the DMV, they should be able to refuse driver’s licenses to everyone? It’s against their beliefs, after all. (I don’t know if it technically is, but play along, for the sake of argument.) Or… Should they maybe just not have that job, since it’s a matter of what is legally required to do something? Whether it’s 1% or 100% of the population, it’s their beliefs that are more important, right?
Edit: I know this is a shitty argument. That’s the point.
Let’s say it’s my religion that I think you should not be allowed to drive because I don’t like you. Now let’s say I work at the DMV and you walk up, should I be allowed to deny you a license because it’s my religion?
For a business to discriminate in many parts of the US, there may be only 1 bakery, or bank, or car rental place, etc. Some places are small, you can’t just “go to someone else” when you only have One option. Almost all business are considered “places of public accommodation”.
For government to discriminate we have the same issue. Many offices have very few employees in MOST of the US. Only large metropolitan cities have, almost adequate, staff. There are not 100 court clerks in Podunk Alabama, or Nowhere Nevada. These places probably have 1 clerk doing multiple jobs.
If you own a business, or work in a government job, you serve the public. That means every nice person, and every freak you hate. This ain’t no hamburger at Burger King, you don’t get to “have it your way”.
Thankfully, not everyone around here is a bigot. My officiator was an employee at the DMV who was very happy to be a part of my gay wedding in the DMV parking lot. Three years this August.
If you live in this shit states the most important thing you can do in your whole life is leave.
Its really unfortunate because one of the best national labs in the country is in Tennessee.
As someone who did, I understand the sentiment but it isn’t that easy. I have so many friends and family members who are stuck there because they can’t save enough resources to leave.
People are like marching through the American Southwest desert into a country actively trying to stop them which speaks a totally different language and with children and they can’t move within their native country?
I did it. I grew up in deep Appalachia. Packed a backpack and went on a bus. That is no where near the difficulty level an illegal faces.
Funny how many people renting apartments with an hourly job will say that though
I think we should get rid of marriages entirely. It’s bad, complicated law, and the people getting into it often don’t understand it. Plus religion sucks ass. There has to be a better way to share assets and custody and taxes.
Not a huge concern but I do fear polygamist taking advantage. That’s not to say polygamy is inherently bad. Just from what I know of polygamy it’s usually patriarchal and used to prey on vulnerable women.
I’m friends with multiple women and non-binary folks who are in poly relationships, are very much not being preyed upon, and actively hate anything “patriarchal”.
Irl the only people I know in poly are men in their 30s dating multiple teenagers 🤷♂️
I threw this out to an atheist I know who performs secular weddings. If it was legal and you knew that everyone was consenting adults and also knew no one was being pressured would you perform a poly wedding?
He said he would hesitate and really verify everyone was on the same page but would.
Does he do that with monogamous couples too? Bc vulnerable people are preyed upon all the time in those relationships as well.
