Tennessee Judge upholds gay marriage ban, breaks streak of recent pro-gay marriage rulings

For the first time in recent court rulings a judge has upheld a U.S. state's ban on gay marriage. He seems to say that marriage is only for procreation of children.

www.slate.com...

For the first time since the Supreme Court overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act in June of 2013, a court has ruled that the constitution does not protect gay couples’ right to get married.

The decision, issued by Roane County Circuit Judge Russell E. Simmons Jr., of Kingston, Tennessee, holds that Tennessee’s gay marriage ban is rationally related to state interests and thus does not violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause. “Marriage,” Simmons writes, “simply cannot be divorced from its traditional procreative purposes. … The promotion of family continuity and stability is certainly a legitimate state interest.” Simmons also held that:

There is nothing irrational about limiting the institution of marriage for the purpose for which it was created, by embracing its traditional definition. To conclude otherwise is to impose one’s own view of what a State ought to do on the subject of same-sex marriage.

What a goober. It will eventually be overturned. No worries.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Likely will be, but this does break the year-long streak of pro-gay marriage rulings. It may have some company when the Sixth circuit rules, but, of course, the Supreme Court will have to sort all of these rulings out next year and it's hard to see how they would say it's a state's rights issue due to the many states in which gay marriage is now legal. Posted this because it's an interesting pattern breaker.

a reply to: Aleister

I am very strongly in favor of gay rights but it's good to see some states allow you the choice. Odd sure but that's why we have 50 states.

originally posted by: Aleister
For the first time in recent court rulings a judge has upheld a U.S. state's ban on gay marriage. He seems to say that marriage is only for procreation of children.

Menopause happens after childbearing age...infertility does not mean adoption is not possible.

Actually this is the most sensible definition of marriage I have seen. Marriage has been traditionally for establishing a stable enviroment for the raising of children. It is not a 'moral' or 'religious' thing, it is purely biological. Man and Woman create child. Man and Man, or Woman and Woman, do not.

I would not be opposed to removing all benefits from couples (any couple) that is not married for the purpose of raising children. Why should any couple get special benefits if they are not trying to participate in the continuation and improvement of the human race????
FYI I have no kids, so under my definition, I would not be able to be 'married' either no matter my sexuality.

a reply to: lakesidepark
You're right, the Tennessee crack was a low blow. I've removed it from the OP. As to your point, there have been many many couples who meet in their sixties or later who've fallen in love and married, and almost all of them wouldn't plan to adopt a child. So for the judge to mention that point as an issue in his ruling is beyond my understanding, hence the crack. Thanks for pointing it out.

Good!! Tennessee will burn last...

I'm pretty sure now that we have split decisions in the circuit courts decisions, its a fast track for the Supreme Court to rule on it. We could actually get a legitimate ruling on this nonsense.

originally posted by: lakesidepark

originally posted by: Aleister
For the first time in recent court rulings a judge has upheld a U.S. state's ban on gay marriage. He seems to say that marriage is only for procreation of children. I guess in the hills of Tennessee they've never heard of menopause or infertility.

Menopause happens after childbearing age...infertility does not mean adoption is not possible.

Actually this is the most sensible definition of marriage I have seen. Marriage has been traditionally for establishing a stable enviroment for the raising of children. It is not a 'moral' or 'religious' thing, it is purely biological. Man and Woman create child. Man and Man, or Woman and Woman, do not.

I would not be opposed to removing all benefits from couples (any couple) that is not married for the purpose of raising children. Why should any couple get special benefits if they are not trying to participate in the continuation and improvement of the human race????
FYI I have no kids, so under my definition, I would not be able to be 'married' either no matter my sexuality.

Flame on, but your derogatory comments about the hills of Tennessee do not change facts, and they are the same facts in the flatlands of Ohio or the mountains of Colorado, doesn't matter.

Ok, so say your a straight kid adopted into a gay family as a baby, which is a huge possability because gays only account for 1% of the population!!!! What are your gay patents going to teach you about sex and reproduction? Nothing!! This whole gay adoption thing is wrong on so many levels, i dont have the time or energy to deal with it. This alone in the downfall of America and the human species and you people are to busy being tolerant and politicly correct.

a reply to: CRUSTY37

My parents are straight and they taught me nothing about sex and reproduction....what is your point?

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: lakesidepark

You're right, the Tennessee crack was a low blow. I've removed it from the OP. As to your point, there have been many many couples who meet in their sixties or later who've fallen in love and married, and almost all of them wouldn't plan to adopt a child. So for the judge to mention that point as an issue in his ruling is beyond my understanding, hence the crack. Thanks for pointing it out.

Whats so ironic in that example...is that, if that older couple is not financially well off, and have to use any government benefits (Medicare, SSS retirement, SSDI)...they will suffer a penalty upon marriage. There are many couples (especially with the advent of Obamacare), that have to consider divorce in order to make ends meet, or even to keep enough medical benefits just to stay alive. The benefits of inheritance and hospital visitation rights and the paper bond becomes far outweighed by realities of living. My parents (once divorced, and then reunited later in life) had to defer marriage for years exactly because of issues such as this. They remarried finally, only after a cancer diagnosis of my father put an end date to their time together, and they wanted to part this world together as married.

If gay marriage was a road to changing THAT travesty of justice, then my opinion would change drastically, and I might cheer them on. For now...I have to ask...why do they want marriage if NOT doing it to raise children? There are other legal methods to secure the other rights.

originally posted by: lakesidepark
why do they want marriage if NOT doing it to raise children? There are other legal methods to secure the other rights.

There are piles of places online that explain this. Maybe have a google safari?

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: lakesidepark

why do they want marriage if NOT doing it to raise children? There are other legal methods to secure the other rights.

There are piles of places online that explain this. Maybe have a google safari?

I guess I was hoping someone would add it to the thread, if only to add a contrast to the more narrow definition already presented thru the judges quote in the OP. As you didn't, I won't...I will continue my thoughts from my perspective. Feel free to help others avoid the safari, I spend too much time using it as it is for issues more dramatically important than opposing my own thoughts on a random thread.

In other words, that was a prompt for someone to add their thoughts, not for you to prod me into researching it as that only enlightens me, why don't YOU enlighten ALL of us?

I've always been of the opinion that the best interest of our society is to promote marriage as a biologically preferred method of raising children, however the arguments of 'traditional' marriage always focus on a religious aspect, and I was surprised the judge took on the biological aspect. To me, the words 'traditional marriage' distorts the argument into theology, and ignores medical and social benefits of couples bound with a common purpose to perform their part in the continuation and improvement of the human race.

I would support that argument as it is a concrete argument with measurable benefits to society as a whole, even if that makes my situation (couple with no children and too old to raise children) invalid.

'Marraige before sex' is sneered on as ancient morality...but in days prior to birth control, it was important to teach this, in order to insure that any procreation resulting in reproduction was followed by a lifetime of care for the new life created, to add a contributing member to the human race, and not a burden to it. Sex was not always considered a recreational activity...it does serve a purpose, and without it, our earth would soon be devoid of all higher life forms. Marriage served to recognize and affirm that reality.

But...didn't say that would make anyone happy, even the religious may object to a narrow definition that ignores their beliefs. But at least that argument has substance, as exclusive as it is.

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: Aleister

I am very strongly in favor of gay rights but it's good to see some states allow you the choice. Odd sure but that's why we have 50 states.

Choice?

Who gets a choice?

originally posted by: CRUSTY37

originally posted by: lakesidepark

originally posted by: Aleister
For the first time in recent court rulings a judge has upheld a U.S. state's ban on gay marriage. He seems to say that marriage is only for procreation of children. I guess in the hills of Tennessee they've never heard of menopause or infertility.

Menopause happens after childbearing age...infertility does not mean adoption is not possible.

Actually this is the most sensible definition of marriage I have seen. Marriage has been traditionally for establishing a stable enviroment for the raising of children. It is not a 'moral' or 'religious' thing, it is purely biological. Man and Woman create child. Man and Man, or Woman and Woman, do not.

I would not be opposed to removing all benefits from couples (any couple) that is not married for the purpose of raising children. Why should any couple get special benefits if they are not trying to participate in the continuation and improvement of the human race????
FYI I have no kids, so under my definition, I would not be able to be 'married' either no matter my sexuality.

Flame on, but your derogatory comments about the hills of Tennessee do not change facts, and they are the same facts in the flatlands of Ohio or the mountains of Colorado, doesn't matter.

Ok, so say your a straight kid adopted into a gay family as a baby, which is a huge possability because gays only account for 1% of the population!!!! What are your gay patents going to teach you about sex and reproduction? Nothing!! This whole gay adoption thing is wrong on so many levels, i dont have the time or energy to deal with it. This alone in the downfall of America and the human species and you people are to busy being tolerant and politicly correct.

lol I am not sure if your being serious or just mocking people who think like this. My parents were Catholic you know what the taught me about sex and reproduction? Don't do it. Which is what most kids learn from religious parents. So if the parents were gay and religious the would most likey go the dont do it route as well. If they were not religious then they would teach them the same thing non religious parents teach children. It is not rocket science. However I am sure you know this and are just making fun of stupid people. Better to educate them than mock them.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: CRUSTY37

My parents are straight and they taught me nothing about sex and reproduction....what is your point?

I taught my grandson about sex.

I went to the library, got a book and read it to him.

a reply to: lakesidepark

I didn't know married couples in America were so heavily penalized, seriously, didn't know that. And as you explain it there are many many couples who would marry but who aren't because of the governmental cost. I didn't know that. Maybe gays will be at the forefront of fighting that injustice, because being married should neither help or hurt someone via governmental benefits, that's not equal rights. And I've got a feeling you may have some gays leading that question into the public eye.

So your entire point on this subject seems to say, on one level, that the gays who do marry have to be damn serious about it and very much in love. Seems to be a point in the favor of letting them do that if they want to. Equal rights under the law and all.

Way to go Tennessee, at least you are keeping up the image of extreme bigotry that we have all come to expect.
If you agree with that judge, you need to take a hard look into your own heart.
Freedom of religion also means freedom to not have one and to not have to hold yourself to standards of those who are.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: CRUSTY37

My parents are straight and they taught me nothing about sex and reproduction....what is your point?

I taught my grandson about sex.

I went to the library, got a book and read it to him.

Some cable station should put on a reality show with just that theme. A new child is read the book every week, and the camera's film his reaction and questions. If I may ask, what was the after effect? Were you and he closer as a result of this, or was there more of a distance? Did he ask questions after you read him the book? And what book was it, and did it have a section on gay sex in it? Thanks.

So to keep on topic, I guess if a gay parent or grandparent did the same thing, would it be different than a kids grandmother reading the book? I would think that it wouldn't make a difference, that the kid, knowing nothing about sex (in the internet age, hahahahahahah, hehehehehahahahah huh?), would ask almost the same questions.