Tenn. judge refuses to grant straight couple a divorce because … gay marriage

business insider

huffington post

"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces," Atherton wrote in his decision last week.

Is this circus ever going to end ? Has there ever been such back lash on an official level to a supreme court ruling?

I can almost understand, even if grossly misguided, a lower level official like a county clerk showing disregard for court rulings and law, but now a sitting state judge.

Where does he think he is going go with this ? What about other supreme court rulings ? States can rule to outlaw guns? How about sates that rule that corporations are not people ? In this theory, does he think state can just ignore the parts of the constitution they do not agree with or interpret as they wish regardless of the supreme court?

a reply to: Dreamwatcher
This is almost funny. I just posted a thread about a judge who won't do any marriages, and now we have a judge who won't do divorces, and is being a real smarta$$ about it. Lol.

"With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court last to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage," he added.

Amazing how so much power has been delivered to the SCOTUS over the past 6-7 years. Obama delivering on hs promise of "fundamentally changing this country and the world"( for the greater good of the party)...Sound familiar ?
He has learned well from the 12 Rules of Alinsky.

a reply to: Gothmog

Amazing how so much power has been delivered to the SCOTUS over the past 6-7 years.

The SCOTUS has always had the power to interpret the Constitution and how it applies to law.
That's their job.

a reply to: Dreamwatcher

it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court last to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage

Depends on what the definition of "is" is.

But, I'll have a stab at the marriage thing - Marriage is betting someone half your #### that you will love them forever, so "no longer a marriage" is when you loose that bet.

a reply to: Dreamwatcher

HAHAHAHA




It isn't that often we get to see a state judge go full retard. Just sit back and enjoy the show it will all be sorted out sooner or later.

a reply to: Phage

So shouldn't a SCOTUS or any court for that matter vote up or down on a matter pertaining to law passed by the peoples representitives then remand back to the legislative body to rewrite the law?

Way it's done now there is NO representation by voted in members.

That's why I call it tyranny.

a reply to: Phoenix

So shouldn't a SCOTUS or any court for that matter vote up or down on a matter pertaining to law passed by the peoples representitives then remand back to the legislative body to rewrite the law?

That's pretty much what happens.

States are free to rewrite any law that the SCOTUS shoots down. But it had better be better constructed or conform to the Constitution better than the first one or the result will be the same.

In the meantime, a bad law is not allowed to stand.

Why is everybody so interested in marriage these days? That tired old patriarchal institution doesn't seem too progressive to me!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

Amazing how so much power has been delivered to the SCOTUS over the past 6-7 years.

The SCOTUS has always had the power to interpret the Constitution and how it applies to law.
That's their job.

And where ,pray tell , does marriage come in to the Constitution ? And bet ya didnt know it is left up to each state to define marriage and the rights thereof . FAIL (you are slipping here lately Phage)

a reply to: Phage

So basically the SCOTUS nullified Kentucky marriage law and therefore they have no legislative law at this time.

Making this judge correct.

originally posted by: IridiumFlareMadness
Why is everybody so interested in marriage these days? That tired old patriarchal institution doesn't seem too progressive to me!

Its not about marriage.

Its about equal rights.

a reply to: Phoenix

So basically the SCOTUS nullified Kentucky marriage law and therefore they have no legislative law at this time.

I don't know. That's one way of looking at it I suppose.
No one claimed the SCOTUS decision would not open a legal can of worms.
("legislative law" is redundant, btw)

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: IridiumFlareMadness
Why is everybody so interested in marriage these days? That tired old patriarchal institution doesn't seem too progressive to me!

Its not about marriage.

Its about equal rights.

What the hell does getting a divorce have to do with equal right?

Also why in the hell do people need the government to approve a marriage? Love is love! Asking the government for permission is one of the reasons I find marriage and it's licensing process as total BS!

Follow the money?

a reply to: seeker1963

You think legal contracts are stupid?
Who do you think enforces them if not the government?

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

Amazing how so much power has been delivered to the SCOTUS over the past 6-7 years.

The SCOTUS has always had the power to interpret the Constitution and how it applies to law.
That's their job.

And where ,pray tell , does marriage come in to the Constitution ? And bet ya didnt know it is left up to each state to define marriage and the rights thereof . FAIL (you are slipping here lately Phage)

Buuuut...now, the SCOTUS *has* defined marriage, so it's no longer left up to the states to discriminate against gays.

Fact.

a reply to: Gothmog

And where ,pray tell , does marriage come in to the Constitution

14th amendment. Ya know? Equal rights and all that?

a reply to: Liquesence

Buuuut...now, the SCOTUS *has* defined marriage

Not really.
They just said that laws which prevent same sex marriage are unconstitutional.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

Amazing how so much power has been delivered to the SCOTUS over the past 6-7 years.

The SCOTUS has always had the power to interpret the Constitution and how it applies to law.
That's their job.

And where ,pray tell , does marriage come in to the Constitution ? And bet ya didnt know it is left up to each state to define marriage and the rights thereof . FAIL (you are slipping here lately Phage)

Marriage is a legal binding contract. So like all other contracts they are bound to follow the laws of the land.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

Amazing how so much power has been delivered to the SCOTUS over the past 6-7 years.

The SCOTUS has always had the power to interpret the Constitution and how it applies to law.
That's their job.

And where ,pray tell , does marriage come in to the Constitution ? And bet ya didnt know it is left up to each state to define marriage and the rights thereof . FAIL (you are slipping here lately Phage)

No he's not.

Marriage doesn't per se. But equal rights does. You can't offer some people the right to marry, and not others.