It'd be absolutely freaking hilarious if Republicans started pitching "Fine, anybody can get married, but only straight people can have Civil Unions"
Tennessee Republicans trying to pass bill that would allow child marriage.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A big reason why a lot of states let adults marry kids is because The Troops, as in "it would be a shame if an 18 year old got deployed and couldn't marry his 16 year old sweetheart before getting shot up"
In related news, my middle school had a saying that all the high school boys dated middle school girls because the high school girls were dating Air Force guys.
Romeo and Juliet exceptions were a mistake. Not least of which is because that ended in a double suicide
In related news, my middle school had a saying that all the high school boys dated middle school girls because the high school girls were dating Air Force guys.
Romeo and Juliet exceptions were a mistake. Not least of which is because that ended in a double suicide
The claim was disputed by the author who said it was like a contract, and contracts don't apply to people below the age of majority. This is also false, but it's what he said.Do you really all enjoy the Democratic propaganda this much? What the hell does this mean?
The bill deleted the requirement of the marriage license entirely, which is where some of the protections were caught up. What sorts of regulations were "copied". Seriously, the bill is like 3 pages, what are even talking about? And the oversight was fixed immediately, leading to articles that look like this:
Which you seem to be aware of the updates, since you knew the claim was disputed but decided to post a different with less information.
[CORRECTED] Tennessee bill would legalize child marriage, forced marriages
[Editor’s note (4/5): A previous version of this article said that Tennessee House Bill 0233 contained language that would legalize child and nonconsensual marriages. After review, we learned we were using outdated information that was already corrected by press time. The bill was already...heartlandsignal.com
Do you not all see how much like Pizzagate ya'll are?
As for that update, yours is the only one that says it's been updated to clear that up, nobody else is saying that. And looking at the bill...
Requirements are bound up in § 36-3-104(a)(1), which is...
Which has all the requirements... except that the age requirement starts in (b), which isn't included in the current bill. It looks like to me that age still isn't addressed by the bill and the author is using some faulty logic to say it is there.
I mean, best case scenario is that Tennessee republicans proposed a blatantly unconstitutional law that would've accidentally legalized child marriage at any age had Dems not stepped up and said "hey wait a fucking second"
Like, what's the argument for why this isn't sex discrimination?
Like, what's the argument for why this isn't sex discrimination?
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
I think we will 100% see republicans start hitting on gay issues. Trans issues have been shown to be a good rallying cry so I would bet money that we will soon see them go after 'the gays' harder and harder. Although they also just hard core started the abortion thing again so we shall see how big of a vote getter that is for them.
A reasonable person can look at the headline here and recognize it isn't what's actually going on.
The only reference to § 36-3-104(a)(1) in that bill is " To defend any action against a local official or any political subdivision of the state for adherence to the duties, responsibilities, or limitations imposed on such official or political subdivision pursuant to the issuance or failure to issue a marriage license pursuant to § 36-3-104(a)(1) ", which is being added to the list of responsibilities of the State AG. Which is to say, it is tasking the AG to defend public officials if there are lawsuits against them for either issuing or failing to issue a marriage license previously. This is included to backwards protect people who are currently in trouble for not complying with the current marriage licensing statute, part (a). Not mentioning (b) there means that the AG is not being tasked to defend someone if the area of contention is the age restrictions. You have read that part backwards. They excluded (b) there to implicitly throw people violating (b) to the wolves.The claim was disputed by the author who said it was like a contract, and contracts don't apply to people below the age of majority. This is also false, but it's what he said.
As for that update, yours is the only one that says it's been updated to clear that up, nobody else is saying that. And looking at the bill...
Requirements are bound up in § 36-3-104(a)(1), which is...
Which has all the requirements... except that the age requirement starts in (b), which isn't included in the current bill. It looks like to me that age still isn't addressed by the bill and the author is using some faulty logic to say it is there.
The part that potentially causes the problems is at the top: "SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 1, is amended by deleting §§ 36-3-103 – 36-3-112." Which is indiscriminately deleting all the existing marriage license rules except for the ones prohibiting incest and polygomy.
2020 Tennessee Code :: Title 36 - Domestic Relations :: Chapter 3 - Marriage :: Part 1 - License
Justia Free Databases of U.S. Laws, Codes & Statutes
Like, you're acting like they purposefully skipped over the minimum age part, but it's not like they maintained witness laws or the prevention of licenses issued to visably drunk people, and just singled out minimum age laws to go. No, they started at the first section to mention marriage licenses and deleted up to the last section explicitly referencing those licenses. Which is piss-poor, slap dash work, sure, but you are very much emphasizing the idea that they went out of their way to just get rid of minimum age requirements, and that's really, very untrue.
Yes, let's have the person who wants to destroy evidence-based arguments tell us what reasonable people do.
Except that the author of the bill was told that there is no longer a minimum age to be married, he admitted it was true, and is trying to defend the position by saying something blatantly untrue. And actually the full text of the bill in the senate does still ban drunks and such.A reasonable person can look at the headline here and recognize it isn't what's actually going on.
The only reference to § 36-3-104(a)(1) in that bill is " To defend any action against a local official or any political subdivision of the state for adherence to the duties, responsibilities, or limitations imposed on such official or political subdivision pursuant to the issuance or failure to issue a marriage license pursuant to § 36-3-104(a)(1) ", which is being added to the list of responsibilities of the State AG. Which is to say, it is tasking the AG to defend public officials if there are lawsuits against them for either issuing or failing to issue a marriage license previously. This is included to backwards protect people who are currently in trouble for not complying with the current marriage licensing statute, part (a). Not mentioning (b) there means that the AG is not being tasked to defend someone if the area of contention is the age restrictions. You have read that part backwards. They excluded (b) there to implicitly throw people violating (b) to the wolves.
The part that potentially causes the problems is at the top: "SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 1, is amended by deleting §§ 36-3-103 – 36-3-112." Which is indiscriminately deleting all the existing marriage license rules except for the ones prohibiting incest and polygomy.
2020 Tennessee Code :: Title 36 - Domestic Relations :: Chapter 3 - Marriage :: Part 1 - License
Justia Free Databases of U.S. Laws, Codes & Statuteslaw.justia.com
Like, you're acting like they purposefully skipped over the minimum age part, but it's not like they maintained witness laws or the prevention of licenses issued to visably drunk people, and just singled out minimum age laws to go. No, they started at the first section to mention marriage licenses and deleted up to the last section explicitly referencing those licenses. Which is piss-poor, slap dash work, sure, but you are very much emphasizing the idea that they went out of their way to just get rid of minimum age requirements, and that's really, very untrue.
So no, the act of removing the age restriction is a deliberate omission.
What you're referring to as "the full text" is an amendment to the bill that deletes out basically everything but the header and supersedes it. That amendment takes out the part that deletes the existing marriage laws, so the lack of a minimum age statute is more of an ambiguity than a failing. Another amendment was made to the bill removing that ambiguity before you even made this thread.
Tennessee SB0562 | 2021-2022 | 112th General Assembly
Draft Listing (2022-04-28) AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8; Title 10; Title 16; Title 36; Title 39; Title 67 and Title 68, relative to marriage. [Sponsor(s) Added.]
I like how this defense is "they weren't trying to make child marriage legal, obviously, they were just so staggeringly incompetent they almost did it on accident" like that's somehow betterWhat you're referring to as "the full text" is an amendment to the bill that deletes out basically everything but the header and supersedes it. That amendment takes out the part that deletes the existing marriage laws, so the lack of a minimum age statute is more of an ambiguity than a failing. Another amendment was made to the bill removing that ambiguity before you even made this thread.
Tennessee SB0562 | 2021-2022 | 112th General Assembly
Draft Listing (2022-04-28) AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8; Title 10; Title 16; Title 36; Title 39; Title 67 and Title 68, relative to marriage. [Sponsor(s) Added.]legiscan.com
They had to be chased into actually pulling back from doing it, the bill's writer argued to keep the kiddie marriage in. There's no way they look good doing this. They even voted to pass it before that was even addressed. They're either incompetent, or pedophiles, and considering where the R party is now, I see no reason to not lean towards pedophiles.What you're referring to as "the full text" is an amendment to the bill that deletes out basically everything but the header and supersedes it. That amendment takes out the part that deletes the existing marriage laws, so the lack of a minimum age statute is more of an ambiguity than a failing. Another amendment was made to the bill removing that ambiguity before you even made this thread.
Tennessee SB0562 | 2021-2022 | 112th General Assembly
Draft Listing (2022-04-28) AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8; Title 10; Title 16; Title 36; Title 39; Title 67 and Title 68, relative to marriage. [Sponsor(s) Added.]
Im pretty sure at the time of writing, you could definitely come up with that headline
Mind you, I dont really care if they accidentally made underage marriage legal or did it intentionally. It's wrong.
The accidental thing only comes into play after the potential for change. If they made a mistake, fair enough. Understand that you needed to be called out because you did that big of a fuck up. And I hope everyone is going to be checking your work
The fact that reporters and politicians had to ask basic questions for them to realise their mistake, just makes them look incompetent. Don't release a bill until you've done some proof reading
Anyway, I think this is one of journalist most important tasks, picking up screw up
I'll just add that SO FAR the Tennessee representatives aren't trying to turn this around and blaming The Libs for their mistake. It's quite refreshing after the last few... decades.
Seeing DeSantis yelling and screaming about his bill not being a 'Don't Say Gay' bill and then, in the same speech, saying all the teachers are evil for saying gay in school, grooming them for their clear sex predatory ways... after spending a month saying the bill was MEANT to prevent gay being said in schools just gives you whiplash. And a far too common occurrence in American politics
With the proviso that I might have to update the SO FAR bit
Seeing DeSantis yelling and screaming about his bill not being a 'Don't Say Gay' bill and then, in the same speech, saying all the teachers are evil for saying gay in school, grooming them for their clear sex predatory ways... after spending a month saying the bill was MEANT to prevent gay being said in schools just gives you whiplash. And a far too common occurrence in American politics
With the proviso that I might have to update the SO FAR bit
I just want you to understand, if you were a Republican, you would be the one fully convinced that Democrats couldn't just like a pizza place.
That's the purpose of debate and deliberation. They are currently debating, deliberating, and amending the bill. If you think a bill ought to be perfect before being presented, you're imagining a world where the legislative process is completely useless.
The bill doesn't say "don't say gay". Democrats are responsible for their own marketing failure there. They mischaracterized a bill, and really look like jerks to anyone who doesn't follow them like a lemming.
The difference of course is that republicans really did pass it while it allowed child marriage. The senate passed it on March 22 and now have to redo the vote since it was further amended yesterday to yes, have the stipulation against child marriage. I guess someone finally got the writer to admit that he wrote a child grooming bill.
I would expect some lawyers and policy makers to look at it before it goes to deliberation. I see that far too much of an ask
No. Desantis has SPECIFICALLY stated that this bill about homosexuality and gender identity. Many, many, many, many, many times
If you don't want to be about gay people DON'T MAKE SPEECHES ON IT ALMOST EVERY WEEK stating this it is about banning teaching homosexuality to children
How this bill got passed through to the senate in its previous form is utterly baffling. Did no one doing any reading or critical thinking?