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

a reply to: Annee

And if I decide to be bound in a none contractual marriage to someone I surely wouldn't need a man made Govt . to legislate it . Marriage is God ordained in which all other parties are not party to . Self identification is the highest form of identity . Take that Obama and Harper . no licence no money and no lawyer ....now back to the ball game .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Annee

And if I decide to be bound in a none contractual marriage to someone I surely wouldn't need a man made Govt . to legislate it . Marriage is God ordained in which all other parties are not party to . Self identification is the highest form of identity . Take that Obama and Harper . no licence no money and no lawyer ....now back to the ball game .

I don't care.

Its what we have. Equal Rights of what we already have.

Changing it - - eliminating it - - whatever is a different discussion.

"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent"

It's like a self fulfilling prophecy, he is making it so.

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.

Failed in US history didn't you? The one to interpret the Constitution is the supreme court. The president's job being the executive branch is to enforce those laws. And the legislative branch makes the laws.

a reply to: Gothmog

Stop trying to make this an equal rights issue . They already had equal rights .

No that is not true. and yes it was an equal right issue. I was not married, yet I had a partner for 20 years who has now past away. I went through hell with the hospital that my partner was in. I had power of attorney and had given the hospital a copy of this legal document. After a week while my partner was laying in a coma on a respirator, I was not allowed to speak to his doctors to find out what their plans of treatment were to get him off the respirator. I went to the hospital twice a day and only could speak to the treating nurses.

When I asked to speak with the doctors I was told that that the doctors where to busy to speak with me. I had enough of the nurses excuses, I could tell the nurses were afraid of the doctors. My partner was in intensive care, after a week of this insane nonsense I told the nurse that I wanted my partner moved to a different hospital and I will do everything in my power to make that happen. I left the hospital and arrived home at 4:30 pm when I walked in the door my phone rang and it was the hospital administration, the woman on the phone told me that I had "no rights" to have any information concerning my partner medical condition. I told her, the hospital had a copy of my power of attorney. She told me there was no record of that in my partner medical files.

Someone in the hospital removed them! Because I threaten to move my partner to a different hospital. Thank G-d the law firm was still open, I jump in my car and raced to the law office and asked the secretary to make three copies of my power of attorney living will which gives me the power to make all medical dissensions for my partner. I took the documents and drove back to the hospital. I went to intensive care and gave one copy to be put back in my partners files then I gave her another copy and told her to give it to my partner doctors and for him to shove it up his a...

I went home and got another call, this time it was my partner doctor, he told me that I could not have my partner move from the hospital. The doctor just lied to me and I knew he would. See, I already called a different hospital early that day asking them what I needed to do to have a person removed in critical care to their hospital. They told me it was easy, all the doctor had to do was call in a request.
So, I am on the phone with my partner doctor and he is lying to me. I told him to call the other hospital where I wanted my partner sent to, and call in a dam request or I was going to start legal proceeding against him and the hospital. I made it very clear that he was not given my partner adequate care.

The next day my partner was on his way to a different hospital and before he arrived I got a call from a team of doctors telling me what kind of treatment they were going to do for him, and to get him off the respirator. They saved his life.
After two more weeks in the hospital and a week of physical therapy I was able to take him home.

Four months later my partner became sick again with a compilations of different medical issues and died.

As for equal rights, mine was taken away from me because I was gay. I could have sued the hospital it was a slam dunk case. The CEO from the first hospital tried to reach me, he called me several times but I refused to answer the phone. He wrote me two letters trying to get in touch with me, but I threw them in the garbage.

You see, it was about the money. When my partner hospital bills came in the mail it was over $350-000.00 The first hospital was not allowed to bill for my partner treatment, because what they did to him. However the second hospital made all the money and my partner insurance company paid it.

As for the gay marriage It never bothered me, but having equal rights does. What the hospital did was discriminating against me and my partner. I care less about gay marriage, I don't need a piece of paper to prove I love someone.

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.

originally posted by: dragonridr

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.

Failed in US history didn't you? The one to interpret the Constitution is the supreme court. The president's job being the executive branch is to enforce those laws. And the legislative branch makes the laws.

What the hell are you talking about, dragonridr?

SCOTUS IS is the Supreme Court, hence Supreme Court Of The United States. Where do you get the president out of that statement?

Failed at comprehensive reading and general knowledge, did you?

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Phage
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.

That's probably the nub of it, the judges challenge is that if the Supreme Court says that, then his opinion doesn't matter when it come to divorce....of marriage.

"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."
Maybe this time the constitution is the winner, since the judge apparently hasn't yet had the need to divorce a same sex marriage, or more properly, a need to rule on a non-issue, as he or his state see it.

Actually the judge is trying to point out that when the federal government takes over an area. That they make the laws. And the federal government has no laws in place on marriage because until now it has always been a state issue. The judge is saying if they mandate part of it they control all of it. he's not wrong but he's making a useless point but judges all over are upset believing the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction on marriage. And according to Constitution this is a state issue.

a reply to: Liquesence

Somehow the person he was quoting didn't show instead it showed Phage's quote.

a reply to: Liquesence
My guess would be that dragonrider intended to quote Gothmog.
I've run afoul of similar situations.

Best way to solve this is to ELIMINATE the TAX BREAKS maried people get and then MAke it s PERSONAL AGREEMENT not a LEGAL CONTRACT. MArriage licensing came about so th e government could get a cut of the money.


A real mariage is a agreement between two people alone with God. not the bastardized things we call marriages today.

Better yet stop allowing judges,and anyone in government to perform,license or do a wedding. Also you dont need a priest to do your vows either.

a reply to: yuppa

MArriage licensing came about so th e government could get a cut of the money.

But the legal status goes way beyond license fees. (25 bucks? 75 bucks? Really? That's what it's about?) Woohoo! Major source of revenue there. I wonder if it even covers the costs of record keeping.

Best way to solve this is to ELIMINATE the TAX BREAKS maried people get and then MAke it s PERSONAL AGREEMENT not a LEGAL CONTRACT.

What needs to be solved, exactly?

A real mariage is a agreement between two people alone with God. not the bastardized things we call marriages today.

According to...you?

Also you dont need a priest to do your vows either.

What happens to the assets acquired during the marriage when the marriage goes away?

originally posted by: yuppa

A real mariage is a agreement between two people alone with God. not the bastardized things we call marriages today.

Marriage is defined only by those in it.

Legal Marriage is a government contract.

a reply to: dragonridr

not just history
thats how the governments still works
he doesnt even know what the branches of government do

and yet has such strong feelings on the matter
this is whats wrong

a reply to: dragonridr

It's NOT a states' issue. It's a Civil Rights issue, and that makes it a federal issue. SCOTUS didn't make any new laws, they struck down an unconstitutional one.

a reply to: windword

States have the right to make any marriage laws they wish. They just can't be discriminatory.

Legal age would be a good example. It varies from state to state but is not discriminatory.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: seeker1963

Want some P or D and you think your in love and then for some reason or another you feel duped? Too damned bad!

I guess that applies to hiring a contractor to do something for you, paying them to get started, they split, and you have nothing.
Too damned bad for you. Okay.

Of course, there are pre-nuptial contracts.

Since when does falling in love become comparable to hiring a contractor to do a job?

You must beg the government to cover for your mistakes?

Do you have any idea what a legal marriage is? It has absolutely nothing to do with love, but rather a man and woman forming a corporation, it's a legal contract.

Most people in the USA have absolutely no idea that when they apply for a marriage license it's a submission of corporation.

When people get a divorce one party has to sue the other for dissolve the marriage/corporation. Marriage in the church, and marriage in the state are two completely different things, but since most churches enjoy the benefit of non-profit, they have whore'd themselves out and make people get marriage license from the state as well.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: dragonridr

It's NOT a states' issue. It's a Civil Rights issue, and that makes it a federal issue. SCOTUS didn't make any new laws, they struck down an unconstitutional one.

It is a state issue and the legislature of the state needs to rewrite their current law to reflect the ruling, or they face legal repercussions.

Supreme court decisions do not alter or create law. It interprets the law and rules on it's constitutionality.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: windword

States have the right to make any marriage laws they wish. They just can't be discriminatory.

Legal age would be a good example. It varies from state to state but is not discriminatory.

Agreed.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: dragonridr

It's NOT a states' issue. It's a Civil Rights issue, and that makes it a federal issue. SCOTUS didn't make any new laws, they struck down an unconstitutional one.

It is a state issue and the legislature of the state needs to rewrite their current law to reflect the ruling, or they face legal repercussions.

Supreme court decisions do not alter or create law. It interprets the law and rules on it's constitutionality.

States don't have the right to legislate unconstitutional laws.