Tn about to get a major dose of liberalism crammed down their throats

[Guest TankerHC]

I had to look up numbers but it appears Tn was nearly 90% in favor of DOmA. Voted 32-0 in favor of SJR. TMPA amendment of 2006. Seems to me the great majority of tn voter's want marriage between one man and one woman.

Just heard on the news that 4 out of state married gay couples filed suit against TN in Federal court yesterday.

Will the TN Constitution stand and the will of the people matter. Or are the wants of 8 people going to override that?

The demographers reports that I read 4 or 5 months ago had TN going back to being a blue state permanently within the next several years. Pointing out that Tn was only never tagged with a blue or red label because it didn't come into popular use until the 2000 elections, but the fact that tn only voted Republican when it came time for Bush vs Gore but kept the Gores in office for years and that color designation or not TN was a blue state as late as 1996 shows the state is on the cusp.

I believe this lawsuit will be won. And it will have nothing to do with the people of Tennessee. They have made their position known. Im still waiting after a decade and a half to meet a liberal progressive here (Note: I know people all over the state. But only one in Memphis and he and his wife are ultra conservative). Even the Democrats I know are really centrists. Which doesn't surprise me one bit considering you can take that overall position back to the 1840s in Tennessee and 1860's when Tennessee sent more units to the union than any other state AND more units to the confederacy than any other state.

They will win though. They have the full legal force of the federal government behind them and a split federal bench with Robertson.

I don't see this as a pro or anti gay anything. I see it as what it is. A small minority attempting to force acceptance of their deviant lifestyle over the will of the people. You want to do those things. More power to you. Close your bedroom door and keep it to yourself.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[TGO David]

It wasn't that long ago that it was unheard of for blacks to vote... or women.  We need less government, not more of it.  Let the churches decide who they will or won't marry.

[TMF]

Well, I don't think that gay marriage will make anyone gay, so I'm not convinced that if it was recognized in TN it would force anything on anyone.  However, I do disagree with the notion of outsiders attempting to change our laws.

 

I dunno, whenever this comes up I get so pissy because I think the arguments on both sides are rediculous.  The notion that the worth of a person's marriage is whether or not the government properly defines their version of marriage still makes no sense.  The goverment could declare my marriage invalid tomorrow.  That won't change what I have with my wife.  The government could recognize a legal union between a man and his goat as equal to the one I have with my wife and it still won't change my marriage.  Gay marriage is nothing more than a tennis ball you distract your dog with while the neighbor's cat passes through your yard.

[Caster]

It wasn't that long ago that it was unheard of for blacks to vote... or women.  We need less government, not more of it.  Let the churches decide who they will or won't marry.

Yes! I don't like mo's but I don't have the right (no one else does either) to tell them what they can and can't do as long as they ain't hurting anyone.

If churches oppose it, then oppose it within walls of their synagogue. People have to remember, the very thing that protects their choice of lifestyle, also protects YOURS. Provided no one is being hurt, abused or exploited, people HAVE to be free to live as they choose. I despise whores and lifestyles that support that kind of thing, but the very thing that protects evangelists bible thumping is what protects Larry Flint.

True freedom is a very difficult balancing act. Sadly, the scales have been unbalanced in this country for a many, MANY years. It's unclear to me if they ever really were.

[Guest TankerHC]

It wasn't that long ago that it was unheard of for blacks to vote... or women. We need less government, not more of it. Let the churches decide who they will or won't marry.

Goes along with Gay Civil Rights and Gays equating their so called "struggle" with the Civil Rights movement. Not even close. And they chose to go the court route. Churches no longer get to decide. It's far beyond that. Centralized government is being forced on Churches. Do what we say or you will be punished. The intelligent people I know that happen to be black, are insulted by the above comparison, as well they should be. Since early last year they have been teaching Gay History in California schools. Will the same feelings be expressed when TN children are taught "gay history" and things like Abraham Lincoln was gay? Even if he were and they don't know, where is the relevance? On the other hand it's a well known fact that Walt Whitman had a thing for young Union troops and spent a lot of time in Federal hospitals "helping" them. Just sayin...

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[Caster]

You know there's a simple way to shut BOTH sides up on the matter.

Remove all tax credits for marriage. Say to the masses 'We don't care who you marry, it won't save you any money.'
Both sides will be pissed but they will stop the bulk of their bickering amongst themselves. Everything boils down to money. America has proven the principle takes a back seat to cash every time. If NO one got a tax beak for being married, fewer would do so all around. The pot would boil for a little while longer then it would fizzle out and people would move on.

[greenego]

New Jersey just reconize same sex marriage due to a court case. Gov. Christie dropped his challage to the NJ Supreme Court. I believe it will go this way in most states that still oppose same sex marriage until all states reconize it. More of a legel matter than religious. If a church don't want to perform same sex marriages or reconize them, it's the church's right to do so.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"A small minority attempting to force acceptance of their deviant lifestyle over the will of the people. You want to do those things. More power to you. Close your bedroom door and keep it to yourself."

 

I agree with that. That is the problem. If you wish to live and let live, fine, but this is the meat of the matter and should be kept out

of the courts. I don't care what anyone else does as long as it doesn't include me. There are radical ideologues among the gay

movement and are useful idiots for other, bigger goals. As long as churches can decide which style of couple to marry, that is

fine with me, but this is fodder to undermine that.

[Guest TankerHC]

Yes! I don't like mo's but I don't have the right (no one else does either) to tell them what they can and can't do as long as they ain't hurting anyone.

If churches oppose it, then oppose it within walls of their synagogue. People have to remember, the very thing that protects their choice of lifestyle, also protects YOURS. Provided no one is being hurt, abused or exploited, people HAVE to be free to live as they choose. I despise whores and lifestyles that support that kind of thing, but the very thing that protects evangelists bible thumping is what protects Larry Flint.

True freedom is a very difficult balancing act. Sadly, the scales have been unbalanced in this country for a many, MANY years. It's unclear to me if they ever really were.

Interesting, considering the Tennessee Constitution and at least 81% of the voting population is about to be exploited. I wonder if this lawsuit has anything to do with the list of 25 most anti gay politician's in the US I saw last week and a good quarter of them were TN politician's?

Tn is about to come under attack from 5 different directions.

The door is opening. The demographers are right.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[TMF]

You know there's a simple way to shut BOTH sides up on the matter.

Remove all tax credits for marriage. Say to the masses 'We don't care who you marry, it won't save you any money.'
Both sides will be pissed but they will stop the bulk of their bickering amongst themselves. Everything boils down to money. America has proven the principle takes a back seat to cash every time. If NO one got a tax beak for being married, fewer would do so all around. The pot would boil for a little while longer then it would fizzle out and people would move on.

Yep, it's all about money when you get down to it. I have no problem with the gov getting out of my marriage, I just have a problem with taxes. Of course, it doesn't make it any more fair to single folks who get hit with higher taxes. Maybe, I dunno, if we lowered taxes across the board, came up with a flat tax that favored no one it might take the wind outa everyone's sails, but we're talking about money here. The people who would make those decisions aren't going to make them; not as long as the majority of their constituents are only willing to vote for what favors them. Once again proving that the biggest enemy of America are Americans.

[MacGyver]

How about we get the government out of everyone's marriage - gay and straight.  Seriously.  Make them all civil unions, and if there are benefits to be had, then extend them to everyone.

 

If you then want the church to recognize your relationship, and want a ceremony in a church - then find one that echoes your beliefs and get them to perform one for you.

 

Even as a Christian, I just don't get it. I don't particularly agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but it's not like the sin they bring to the table is somehow greater than the sin that I bring to the table.  And, from a "who is my neighbor" perspective, I just don't understand how you keep someone out of a hospital room or whatever in a time of need. 

 

Power is terribly corrupting, but I'm wary of the end result when we as the church try to use the government(Babylon, if you will) as a weapon to do our bidding.

[Guest TankerHC]

[quote name="Caster" post="1052121" timestamp="1382450681"] You know there's a simple way to shut BOTH sides up on the matter. Remove all tax credits for marriage. Say to the masses 'We don't care who you marry, it won't save you any money.' Both sides will be pissed but they will stop the bulk of their bickering amongst themselves. Everything boils down to money. America has proven the principle takes a back seat to cash every time. If NO one got a tax beak for being married, fewer would do so all around. The pot would boil for a little while longer then it would fizzle out and people would move on.[/quote] Even though I'm married. This is something I can completely agree with. While we're at it (and I know this won't be popular), stop the EIC. The only thing "earned" about it when someone makes 14000 per year and gets a 3000 dollar tax "refund" is other people's money. Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2 Edited October 22, 2013 by TankerHC

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You know there's a simple way to shut BOTH sides up on the matter.

Remove all tax credits for marriage. Say to the masses 'We don't care who you marry, it won't save you any money.'
Both sides will be pissed but they will stop the bulk of their bickering amongst themselves. Everything boils down to money. America has proven the principle takes a back seat to cash every time. If NO one got a tax beak for being married, fewer would do so all around. The pot would boil for a little while longer then it would fizzle out and people would move on.

Principle takes a back seat to power, which may include money, but it's not the money that causes the problem. You could take all

the tax credits away, for marriage and many other things. Haves and have nots are the problem, Caster, not because of money,

either. A class or group of people wants something to call their own, or to be included into another group to make them feel better

about themselves. There's no reason in an emotion like that. Been going on since the beginning of time. One of the seven deadly

sins called greed that is the cause. Taking away a tax break wouldn't do anything. It would be better to revamp the entire tax code.

Taxes are the problem, but doing it for one group won't do more than cause another problem.

[Guest TankerHC]

Principle takes a back seat to power, which may include money, but it's not the money that causes the problem. You could take all
the tax credits away, for marriage and many other things. Haves and have nots are the problem, Caster, not because of money,
either. A class or group of people wants something to call their own, or to be included into another group to make them feel better
about themselves. There's no reason in an emotion like that. Been going on since the beginning of time. One of the seven deadly
sins called greed that is the cause. Taking away a tax break wouldn't do anything. It would be better to revamp the entire tax code.
Taxes are the problem, but doing it for one group won't do more than cause another problem.

They should try being part of what they already have. The title United States Citizen is available and seems to be getting more available every day. .

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Our political parties, inclusively, would rather we be fighting over this kind of issue than controlling the size of government.

If you want to follow the money, find out how much is going to deceive everything and everyone with issues like this. All I

think of this is it's being a pure progressive political issue. If we think of our Constitution as a classic, or as a living, breathing

document, that should tell you how to guide yourself. This is not a timeless issue.

 

I don't care what they do in the bedroom, but I do care whether or not they force their way in the door.

[TMF]

I don't care what they do in the bedroom, but I do care whether or not they force their way in the door.

Haha, seems inherent that they force their way in the back door. Zing!

[Peace]

There was a time when we needed to have folks get married and have kids - to grow our country and economy.  It also re-inforced our culture -largely of single-marriage, 2-4 kid, working class families.  Thus the tax credit made sense.

 

I don't know enough to say whether it should be removed or not.

 

As far as marriage.  hmm.

 

I was a pastor for years, and was a Christian for many more years.  As most people see it, I am neither now.  So, as someone who has "been on the inside" - who was a conservative evangelical - who's world-view was formed by - and who's life was given over to Christian mission, and who is sympathetic to the many, many Christian loved ones and friends with whom I share life, this is my perspective:

 

This whole issue is a case of the church pointing a gun at her foot and pulling the trigger.  Society evolves (I know, bad word).  We are creatures of progress - thus the reason that we are not still living in caves with pointy sticks.  Women's rights (as they have differed from men's .. ie. the recognized rights of the powerless vs the recognized rights of those who held power) over time is an easy way to view this change.  Most of us now would say that any culture that deprives women of basic rights is a barbaric culture. 

 

    At some point in the not-to-distant past, conservative religious types saw the writing on the wall and knew that this (marriage equality) fight was coming to a national stage to stay.  If,... if at that point they had said,

     "Hey... we're for separation of church and state, and we realize that we are not the only people group in our country or in the world.  So, we would like to keep the name "marriage" exclusive to the church - as it has great religious significance to us.  In order to do that, how can we help you (those who do would like to be legally recognized as a family unit) be treated fairly by the government - which should be impartial to us all?"

      ... if the church had done that, conservative politics might be in a very different state... many middlers .. and even fiscally conservative democrats (want-to-be republicans who are incompatible with bigotry), would most likely be republicans, and 2012 would've looked much different.  - With that said, I do understand that uber-conservatives who's values are inextricably tied to their reilgious convictions would probably have jumped ship at that point - which is sad,..

 

and here is why....

      -Do you remember "Where The Red Fern Grows"?  How you catch your first raccoon to train your hound?   .. Billy puts a shiny piece of metal in a log with a small hole.  (I know we all know this story)  The raccoon grabs the shiny metal and will not let go of it.  This results in dead raccoon.   (you can do the same thing with some monkeys - termite holes, and fruit)  The conservative/religious tie in this country is a lot like that raccoon and that shiny piece of metal.  Great conviction without long-term strategy... and no willingness to give up an inch in order to take a mile later.  Short-sightedness and emotional obsessing (I want it all... now!) is killing conservsative politics in our country.

 

  Culture progresses; it's what we do.  Denying that is,... well...good luck.   If you find yourself wanting to kick that comment, just take a good, honest look at human history - the good and the bad... choose any specific culture, Christianity included... tell me progress is bad (David, Solomon?... where do you think all of Solomon's wealth came from?... do you think fairies mined the gold?  nope.. slaves.. with a horrific living situation and a short life span...Catholic church in the middle-ages anyone?  Luther?).  Progress is what we do, and in the moment - being trapped in the present (and formed by the past), we are mostly ill-suited to judge progress.  Managing (instead of trying to deny it), might be a better policy.

 

 "Conservative" as an absolute is not functional in governance.  It's a non-starter for beings that are naturally progressive (intellectually and emotionally) - the results of which we are obviously seeing.  "Conservative" and "Liberal" are meant to indicate the rate of progress - not "for or against" progress.  With my view being that conservatives do their best to match the pace of (policy) progress at or just below the speed of cultural and economic progress.  Liberals tend to want to drive the progress through policy.  I am of the opinion that this is an important distinction that the american public needs to know in order to understand and steward our government.

 

 When conservatives stopped managing progress and started trying to deny it (ie. "drive progress backwards through policy), they were grabbing on tight to that shiny piece of metal in the log, and they are now getting bludgeoned  to death. - because they are working against human nature - in doing this, they come off as uncaring of others... thus they are loosing emotional and intellectual connection with the population.  No amount of conviction will make up for that, and over the long haul, people groups will give in to emotional comfort over logic... thus the way policy is pushed through media these days.

 

Serparation of church and state is a good thing.  Adults treating other adults like adults is a good thing.  

 

Adults (in power) failing to treat other adults (subjects) as adults -throw in taxes... seems to me I remember something about that in a history book.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Peace

[Dustbuster]

It wasn't that long ago that it was unheard of for blacks to vote... or women. We need less government, not more of it. Let the churches decide who they will or won't marry.

Right now this country is so fucked up we need a govt that can prioritize issues that are killing the strength of our base needs and not Adam and Eve morphing into Adam and Steve... We have kids in tn without school books, we have kids in high school incapable of simple math. But our courts have time and money to deal with this crap. Let the rabbis Swamis and bishops duke this one out....
And those that have time and money to bitch about being recognized for their sexual preference should be part of a solution and not a problem putting effort into something of value. Not a sexual preference issue.

The Same sex marriage issue is as valuable as rallying for Asian porn to be free if you have Comcast ... Geez...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[Chucktshoes]

Haha, seems inherent that they force their way in the back door. Zing!

If you have to force it, you need more lube.

[Hozzie]

Also keep in mind that is isn't just about out of state people pushing this.  I believe at least some of these cases are where TN residents went to another state to get married but it is not recognized by TN, so they can't do a name change, etc.  They are recognized by the Federal Gov't for tax purposes, etc, but in some cases it can also affect their ability to healthcare, etc within the state.

 

I am sick of all of it from all sides, but as many have mentioned, this is a religious issue, not a state government issue.  Let the church be hypocrites to whomever they want, I could care less.  When it is the state government whom we all pay taxes to, that is a different matter. 

Edited October 22, 2013 by Hozzie

[Guest TankerHC]

[quote name="Hozzie" post="1052161" timestamp="1382453380"] Also keep in mind that is isn't just about out of state people pushing this. I believe at least some of these cases are where TN residents went to another state to get married but it is not recognized by TN, so they can't do a name change, etc. They are recognized by the Federal Gov't for tax purposes, etc, but in some cases it can also affect their ability to healthcare, etc within the state. I am sick of all of it from all sides, but as many have mentioned, this is a religious issue, not a state government issue. Let the church be hypocrites to whomever they want, I could care less. When it is the state government whom we all pay taxes to, that is a different matter.[/quote] It's supposedly about tax dollars and shared benefits and has nothing to do with religion. In all of these lawsuits not one word about religion is mentioned. Every single thing they claim is not available to them unless married can be done legally without being married. Are their states that do not allow people to designate certain beneficiaries? Is Tn one? You can leave your money to your dog if you want to? Are there states that do not allow you to buy insurance? How hard is it to designate someone to be allowed into a hospital room? Who's stopping them from joining the military? I know for a fact that in Tennessee you can about designate anyone to do anything. I was asked just 8 months ago to sign to remove life support from someone who wasn't even related to me by that person and it was completely legal. N9, this is about one thin and one thing only. Forced acceptance of a deviant lifestyle. The female lead of an arm of a gay militant group said so herself just last year. The reasoning behind these lawsuits is false. I won't be buying into the propaganda. Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2 Edited October 22, 2013 by TankerHC

[Hozzie]

It's supposedly about tax dollars and shared benefits and has nothing to do with religion. In all of these lawsuits not one word about religion is mentioned. Every single thing they claim is not available to them unless married can be done legally without being married. Are their states that do not allow people to designate certain beneficiaries? Is Tn one? You can leave your money to your dog if you want to? Are there states that do not allow you to buy insurance? How hard is it to designate someone to be allowed into a hospital room? Who's stopping them from joining the military? I know for a fact that in Tennessee you can about designate anyone to do anything. I was asked just 8 months ago to sign to remove life support from someone who wasn't even related to me by that person and it was completely legal. N9, this is about one thin and one thing only. Forced acceptance of a deviant lifestyle. The female lead of an arm of a gay militant group said so herself just last year. The reasoning behind these lawsuits is false. I won't be buying into the propaganda. Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

 

The issue is that there should be no definition of marriage at the State or Federal level.  There are benefits directly tied to marriage.  Change the State and Federal code to only recognize civil unions and link all benefits to a civil union, then it won't be an issue.  Marriage is a religious term that was adopted before this all was an issue.  Either leave it as Marriage and allow gays to "Marry" or change it to Civil Union and make everyone have a Civil Union to be recognized by the State and Federal Governments.  If you want to be "Married", go to a church.

 

But I suspect that won't be good enough for Religious folks either as that would be an assault on religion??

Edited October 22, 2013 by Hozzie

[walton6467]

I don't know much about this, but all I know is I really, really, really, really don't want to be gay married to anyone.

[TMF]

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1052168" timestamp="1382454443"] It's supposedly about tax dollars and shared benefits and has nothing to do with religion. In all of these lawsuits not one word about religion is mentioned. Every single thing they claim is not available to them unless married can be done legally without being married. Are their states that do not allow people to designate certain beneficiaries? Is Tn one? You can leave your money to your dog if you want to? Are there states that do not allow you to buy insurance? How hard is it to designate someone to be allowed into a hospital room? Who's stopping them from joining the military? I know for a fact that in Tennessee you can about designate anyone to do anything. I was asked just 8 months ago to sign to remove life support from someone who wasn't even related to me by that person and it was completely legal. N9, this is about one thin and one thing only. Forced acceptance of a deviant lifestyle. The female lead of an arm of a gay militant group said so herself just last year. The reasoning behind these lawsuits is false. I won't be buying into the propaganda. Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2[/quote] You're probably right on most accounts there. I'm just too lazy to research it. The only thing I disagree with is the "forcing acceptance of a deviant lifestyle." I don't see that as something to be legislated, and I certainly don't consider gay marriage to be any more deviant than the things that go on with many hetero marriages or adults in general. I don't see what would change if gays were recognized as married couples by the state. You were in the military too, so I know you saw what I did in terms of "mutually beneficial" marriages. We don't have to agree those were moral or ethical, but they were still legal and not our place to legislate against. Edited October 22, 2013 by TMF

[MacGyver]

From my perspective, if you want to keep the government out of your own personal life - and I do, then you don't have a lot of standing to demand the government keep someone else from doing something in their own private life. 

 

This is dangerous.  I find it kind of ironic, really.  The problem with the "moral majority" type view of using the power of the government to extend your influence is that you're trying to use what will always be a corrupt institution to do your bidding. And yet, you're naïve enough or stupid enough to believe that corruption won't rub off on you.

 

The government doesn't have a bit of bearing on how I worship, and frankly they wouldn't have much bearing even if they told me I can no longer worship. I already see myself as sort of an exile - there's nothing the government is going to do to change that. 

 

The power structure that is our government isn't going to change.  I'm wary of anyone who thinks they can change it, or even influence it.  More often than not, it seems that the reverse happens and the power ends up influencing them instead.  Not to mention, the simple question that's happening today - what happens when your "majority" loses it's strength?  It shouldn't surprise you to see all of those structures of power that you've worked so hard to build turned against you.