Frankly, I wouldn't be insulting apes like that. Some of the current people in the government of the Volunteer State clearly are nowhere near as intelligent.
The bigger danger for the 'We ain't got no state income tax!' TN tribals is that the OTHER apes in the state will sue for 'defamation of character' and WIN.
So many possibilities. Catholic clerks refusing to recognize marriages where one of the parties was divorced (even if neither party is Catholic). Orthodox Jewish clerks refusing to solemnize intermarriages. Hindu clerks refusing to register marriages between Hindus of different castes. Muslim clerks refusing to allow Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, while permitting the reverse. So much religious freedom. Wow.
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.”
I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me, too! What franchise?”
He said, “Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
The 'Publicans are the Party of Small Gummint, and your conjecture would required the pork being added to a HUGE number of barrels ..., without much of any of the pork going to the McConnells or Pauls.
The Law of Unintended Consequences is illegal in TN ..., sez so, right there in their Constitution ...
This is designed to be a lawsuit. One that they will appeal as long as they can to hopefully, and very likely, get to the SCROTUS in order for the SCROTUS to overturn Obergefell.
Same with the rest of the hateful legislation being passed in TN and FL and other red and gerrymandered purple states.
I don't know how it is in France, but in the US marriage grants more than 1100 benefits just from the federal government to the couple. That was one of the reasons LGBT people fought so hard to have our right to marry legally recognized.
It's the same and that's the problem, we have the PACS (a contract who can be easily dissolved) but it doesn't give the same benefits. Take 2 couples, one married, one not. If one partner dies, in the former case, the surviving partner has right to a part of the retirement pension and is the most direct heir, in the latter no.
Yeah, I don't know about rights – but before we were married my wife had to go to hospital with some sort of emergency, and they wouldn't let me in with her because we weren't married. She was well pissed off and so was I. It way well have changed, but I wouldn't know because we are now married.
My question is why even HAVE A CLERK when the ACTUAL person solemnizing the marriage can just fix their approval via a controlled computer application?
Get rid of the pork-barreling like e-mail got rid of so much other overhead while actually improving access AND communication (and upping economic productivity).
Why have a clerk? Because some of us didn't want to go out and find a solemnizer, or pay for unnecessary hoop-jumping. We just wanted to go to the court house and get the papers signed. It's a state-granted licence, the state must accept and adjudicate applications for it.
I did not know you could get married merely by having a clerk sign a piece of paper.
"All states and the District of Columbia, as well as U.S. Territories, require a marriage license issued by local civil authorities. As a rule, ministers of religion (e.g. rabbis or Christian pastors) are authorized in law to perform marriages; various state or local officials, such as a mayor, judge, deputy marriage commissioner, or justice of the peace, are also empowered to conduct civil wedding ceremonies, which may take place in public offices. Many counties in Pennsylvania allow self-uniting marriages for which no official minister is required, owing to the state's Quaker heritage."
Seems like normally someone with authority higher than merely a clerk is involved. Admittedly, a clerk with a grandiose title, but still just a glorified clerk.
Looks like The Commonwealth is, once again, an exception.
I take it you didn't watch 𝘕𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵. In one episode a couple comes before Judge Harry to be married, he pulls out a pen, signs the marriage license, and says you're married. He then explains that all that is required for them to be legally married is his signature, not a ceremony.
Being "empowered to conduct civil wedding ceremonies" does not mean a ceremony is necessary.
No. A priest should have no secular power in a marriage contract. He can say the magic words that "marry" the couple in the eyes of the Catholic Church, but has no business making it legally binding. That is the state's job. A ceremony and solemnization should be strictly optional. Hell, a notary public should be sufficient to certify the marriage contract.
The priests in the US do not have that secular power unless it is delegated to them by the state, or some other local authority? All the 'should' in the World will not change that into a 'does not'.
US couples do not, regularly, get married in the church and then have to travel down to the city hall to get the official blessing, or vice-versa, in my experience.
Rhetorical B/S Flag on 'Should'. First, never said 'should'. Second, I'm proposing a solution while you're just talking about a never-gonna-happen change based solely on your anti-clericalism, and a change that STILL won't solve the problem if a mere clerk 'sez so'. The clerk still can refuse to sign if they don't 'believe' the marriage is 'godly'.
Second, a copy can just as easily be signed and notarized on a suitably controlled database output as it can be signed and notarized on a xerox copy of an 'original' paper record. Or, the system, itself, can be the notary, with suitable auditing and oversight, and the license can be printed or saved to file by the people who need it. The payment can even be processed online. If others don't believer it's a true copy, it can even more easily be verified, online.
However, at some point, you have too few voting clerks employed and/or gummint employees get greedy and/or sloppy. But, that's not an issue because that ALREADY true.
Perhaps the IT community could be co-opted to jump on the bandwagon by letting it play with blockchain tech just to keep them happy and allow them to buff their resumes.
The opportunities for a Win-Win-Win are just waiting to be identified.
Oh, right you didn't use the word 'Should', so you're not talking about how things should be.
And you still haven't addressed the controls to prevent tampering with the database as compared to the controls to prevent tampering with an original paper.
And so you show your lack of knowledge of computer security. The problem of authenticating the solemnizer *and* the participants aside, the lack of a paper copy is a security risk in and of itself. Consider a homophobic hacker who gets into the state database and deletes all the same-sex marriage licenses. Now gay couples have no way to prove they're married. Heterosexual couples are frequently taken at their word. Gay couples have faced many instances where they are not. I suspect a considerable number of same-sex couples carry a copy of their marriage license when they travel.
"like e-mail got rid of so much other overhead" and significantly reduced security. The protocols that underlie e-mail are incredibly trusting. It is incredibly easy to forge an e-mail. Why do you think there is so much spam? Security has been layered on top of these, but for the most part is optional. There's a reason you still have to sign an entire dead tree to close a mortgage besides pork-barreling and inertia. Electronic contracts are easily forged.
We've traded a lot of security for convenience. If most people understood how much, they'd run screaming from these applications.
Once again, being antagonistic just because you can.
You know nothing about my familiarity with computer security, especially in the NIST Standards required for Critical Infrastructure and the like.
Right now my state prefers electronic car insurance to carrying around easily forged 'cards', which the officer has to verify ANYWAY. and which is similar to other gummint systems and 'permissions and certifications'. It's a problem when a lot of the workforce locally commutes and works in a far more gooberville state, where money is used to enrich the politicians and corporations.
AND, because you didn't notice in your rush to strut and fret on the stage, I was talking about a PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM that CAN BE IMPLEMENTED, not some regressive system that some don't want to change, and you seem to be defending, because "Tradition!"
"Once again, being antagonistic just because you can" Again, that's you. In practically everything you post.
I know what bullshit you said which shows you don't have a real understanding of practical computer security. I've worked in IT for 27 years and had to secure systems against both hackers and the ignorance of users.
I'm not defending it because 'Tradition', I'm defending it because despite the inconvenience sometimes paper is better. Especially when it comes to contracts. It's much harder to tamper with undetected. Digital signatures help somewhat with that, but we've had a half dozen signature algorithms fall to advances in technology, so what seems tamper-proof today may not be tomorrow.
Sometimes a parchment or stone tablet is better, too. Sometimes 'hearing' the evidence from Olde People in a court is better.
The entire history of IT has included streamlining of useless, senseless paper trails and the like.
BTW, did you see how your back-and-fill included "... sometimes paper is better." By your own admission you likely have no idea if this is or is not both possible and a better system, but purport so to be contrary.
I'm not being contrary. Where did you see me admit I have no idea if your "proposed" system is better?
Ok. IT has removed a lot of paper, but not all, and it never will, because it is much easier to detect if a paper contract has been tampered with than an electronic one. *Vital* statistics should be as proof against tampering as possible. That includes marriage licenses.
In all your efforts to insinuate I have no idea what I'm talking about, you haven't even *begun* to address the security concerns of your proposal.
I have given such protocols a lot of thought, because I'd like to see the elimination of paper and the arrival of applications like digital voting.
In theory this makes the lawsuit easier, since he's saying *the state can refuse the license*, not that the clerk's office will find an alternate person to stamp your paperwork. So this is not a reasonable accommodation, it's a refusal of service.
AFAIK the 'full, free consent' notion already covers when one party is coercing or manipulating the other. So for example if one of you is drunk, the state can say come back when you're sober. No extra law is needed to let the state refuse service when some gold digger takes granny off her meds and wheels her, incoherent, to the state house. And if extra laws on that are needed, they certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the clerk's religion.
They want to protect old wealthy idiots from being bilked, but not protecting children from the very real threat of child marriage. Or what I call giving a little girl to her rapist.
One is not a very likely scenario, that there is already certain protections from and legal recourse after the fact. The other happens all the fucking time and as long as parents are okay with it, there’s nothing the minor can do until she’s old enough to sign contracts, by then it’s already years of servitude and rape.
Yes. Golddiggers have been a phenomenon probably since we before we came out of the trees. *Now* suddenly he wants to try to prevent these marriages, because he knows better than an elderly person in full control of their faculties that simply doesn't want their children to inherit.
Some of those beaches remind me of a low tide strip of sand in Tarrytown on the Hudson River that my father used to call Ouch Beach because it was covered in big rocks and whatever flotsam was left by the receding tide.
She's been married, what, 4 times? 5? And twice to the same guy. She seems confused. Not a surprise, as she's a Christian. And did she simply ignore what her Jesus said about adultery? Seems she's a Brylcreem Christian, sticking to her religion so long as it's convenient to do so. That kind of "devotion" is worthless.
I thought she was quarce or quince married/divorced? Although I guess if she's still married to someone there are more marriages than divorces. 😁 A bit mean but I can't see why anyone would want to marry her.
Probably wouldn't fly today any more than whatsherface something like "I was raped by a doctor – bittersweet for a Jewish girl."
Actually I recently saw an interview with Mel Brooks – not sure from how long ago – where he said they would never be able to make blazing saddles today. I don't know.
I've tried to watch Blazing Saddles on AMC, one of the pay cable channels that acts like a broadcast channel with how much they bleep out, and AMC actually removed all the fart noises from the scene of all the cowboys eating beans and farting. Why not just cut the scene entirely? It makes no sense without the fart noises!
IF kkkristers want a marriage license they must prove they attended church a minimum of 150 Sundays over the last 3 years. That should pretty much stop marriage.
It is, without exception, the people who make the most noise about their conservatism who are the most willing to play fast and loose with the Constitution. By labeling himself this way, he is trying to set himself up as someone with special insight into what the Constitution is supposed to mean. About as far from the truth as it gets.
OT: We have still more proof that it's gay men who groom children for sex, not Republicans. Because Republicans would never, ever do that, not even one tiny little bit.
Have you ever been to West Virginia? Take a good look at what passes for the human population there. If you're looking to have sex in WV, bestiality is impossible to avoid.
Well to be fair, the US used to be one of the few countries where a team was the legal age for sex and marriage. Not sure what the situation is today, but in NZ it's pretty much always been 16. Although I think there'd be quite a few eyebrows raised if some 40-year-old was marrying a 16-year-old.
Just did some checking, and the vast majority of countries the world have a lower age of consent than the US. Some as low as 12. Christ, I didn't even think it would get that low. Although Japan was 13 – except the law there is very complicated if I remember correctly – anyway they're going to raise it to 16, or perhaps have already.
To the county clucks in Davy Crockett territory...
It's very simple. If you can't do the job you were elected/appointed to do because of your "sincerely"-held religious beliefs, then step down and become ministers. Or monks. Let's see just how truly sincere those beliefs of yours are.
O/T Moscow Mitch fell in his hotel room at the former Trump International Hotel and landed in the hospital. Thoughts and prayers, Mitch--meaning, I have nothing to offer you! What a fitting irony. This is the hotel in DC that foreign dignitaries stayed at in order to funnel money to Trump in plain sight, flouting the Emoluments clause of the Constitution--you know, that document that Republicans deem #2 after 'The Bible.'
The Old Post Office Tower. A spectacular old Romanesque building originally, though I haven't been inside since Trump bought it and turned it into a hotel. And the second-highest tower in DC. Used to be the local's "secret alternate" DC viewing spot, when their tourist friends came into town and couldn't get into the Washington Monument.
My thoughts and prayers are that the building recovers from the damage done to it.
Turtle Man had every chance to align himself with those who wanted to impeach Trump and end any possibility of Mango Muttonhead ever running for POTUS again. He refused.
Given the history of commenting here, I'm pretty sure one or two have considered engineering a ..., mishap ..., except engineering is too elitist, from what I've read ...
Bill Bryson famously wrote
“ The bigger danger for Tennesseans is not that they might be descended from apes, but that they might be overtaken by them”.
Frankly, I wouldn't be insulting apes like that. Some of the current people in the government of the Volunteer State clearly are nowhere near as intelligent.
The bigger danger for the 'We ain't got no state income tax!' TN tribals is that the OTHER apes in the state will sue for 'defamation of character' and WIN.
Ah, a challenge to Obergefell. Just what the bigots on SCOTUS have been waiting for.
And maybe Loving vs Virginia.
I WOULD LOVE to see mister 3/5 squirm and sweat.
Wonder how Justice Three-Fifths feels about that. 🤔
I sincerely believe he looks in the mirror and sees a white man.
The worst part of that statement is how much evidence exists to support it. Yikes.
Uncle Thomas has had a stiffy since the moment he heard about this.
You beat me to it.
"You can just imagine the outcry if, in the future, a Muslim clerk in Tennessee...."
That's quite the imagination you have there.
So many possibilities. Catholic clerks refusing to recognize marriages where one of the parties was divorced (even if neither party is Catholic). Orthodox Jewish clerks refusing to solemnize intermarriages. Hindu clerks refusing to register marriages between Hindus of different castes. Muslim clerks refusing to allow Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, while permitting the reverse. So much religious freedom. Wow.
I'm not necessarily an expert on Tennessee, but I suspect that there are very few clerks there who are Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, or even Catholic. 😁
There is still the wrong protestant sect 😏
Point noted. I had assumed, perhaps mistakenly that all Protestants would stick together. 😁
Remember the Emo Philips joke:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.”
I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me, too! What franchise?”
He said, “Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
Yeah, that was voted joke of the year at some stage. I don't know how you remember all those different sects, but it's still good. 😁
Copy and paste is a good friend.
Can't be an issue.
The 'Publicans are the Party of Small Gummint, and your conjecture would required the pork being added to a HUGE number of barrels ..., without much of any of the pork going to the McConnells or Pauls.
The Law of Unintended Consequences is illegal in TN ..., sez so, right there in their Constitution ...
It's so awful of you to make fun of poor Sen. McConnell while he's in the hospital, suffering. You atheists are so unfeeling. (Keep up the good work.)
Are non atheists allowed to mock him ?
This is designed to be a lawsuit. One that they will appeal as long as they can to hopefully, and very likely, get to the SCROTUS in order for the SCROTUS to overturn Obergefell.
Same with the rest of the hateful legislation being passed in TN and FL and other red and gerrymandered purple states.
They are working to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible so that they can keep control as long as possible.
What's the qualification to be a county clerk in Tennessee ?
From this bill, would it be legal for me to refuse to sign any marriage license ? I am anti marriage (not a joke).
I don't know how it is in France, but in the US marriage grants more than 1100 benefits just from the federal government to the couple. That was one of the reasons LGBT people fought so hard to have our right to marry legally recognized.
It's the same and that's the problem, we have the PACS (a contract who can be easily dissolved) but it doesn't give the same benefits. Take 2 couples, one married, one not. If one partner dies, in the former case, the surviving partner has right to a part of the retirement pension and is the most direct heir, in the latter no.
Yeah, I don't know about rights – but before we were married my wife had to go to hospital with some sort of emergency, and they wouldn't let me in with her because we weren't married. She was well pissed off and so was I. It way well have changed, but I wouldn't know because we are now married.
My question is why even HAVE A CLERK when the ACTUAL person solemnizing the marriage can just fix their approval via a controlled computer application?
Get rid of the pork-barreling like e-mail got rid of so much other overhead while actually improving access AND communication (and upping economic productivity).
Why have a clerk? Because some of us didn't want to go out and find a solemnizer, or pay for unnecessary hoop-jumping. We just wanted to go to the court house and get the papers signed. It's a state-granted licence, the state must accept and adjudicate applications for it.
I did not know you could get married merely by having a clerk sign a piece of paper.
"All states and the District of Columbia, as well as U.S. Territories, require a marriage license issued by local civil authorities. As a rule, ministers of religion (e.g. rabbis or Christian pastors) are authorized in law to perform marriages; various state or local officials, such as a mayor, judge, deputy marriage commissioner, or justice of the peace, are also empowered to conduct civil wedding ceremonies, which may take place in public offices. Many counties in Pennsylvania allow self-uniting marriages for which no official minister is required, owing to the state's Quaker heritage."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage
Seems like normally someone with authority higher than merely a clerk is involved. Admittedly, a clerk with a grandiose title, but still just a glorified clerk.
Looks like The Commonwealth is, once again, an exception.
I take it you didn't watch 𝘕𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵. In one episode a couple comes before Judge Harry to be married, he pulls out a pen, signs the marriage license, and says you're married. He then explains that all that is required for them to be legally married is his signature, not a ceremony.
Being "empowered to conduct civil wedding ceremonies" does not mean a ceremony is necessary.
No. A priest should have no secular power in a marriage contract. He can say the magic words that "marry" the couple in the eyes of the Catholic Church, but has no business making it legally binding. That is the state's job. A ceremony and solemnization should be strictly optional. Hell, a notary public should be sufficient to certify the marriage contract.
In FL notaries can marry people. And in Tennassee.
The priests in the US do not have that secular power unless it is delegated to them by the state, or some other local authority? All the 'should' in the World will not change that into a 'does not'.
US couples do not, regularly, get married in the church and then have to travel down to the city hall to get the official blessing, or vice-versa, in my experience.
But they do have to file the marriage license and get a copy. Regardless of who the state designates as the officiating witness.
As for 'should' vs 'does' you were the one who brought up how it 'should' be.
Rhetorical B/S Flag on 'Should'. First, never said 'should'. Second, I'm proposing a solution while you're just talking about a never-gonna-happen change based solely on your anti-clericalism, and a change that STILL won't solve the problem if a mere clerk 'sez so'. The clerk still can refuse to sign if they don't 'believe' the marriage is 'godly'.
Second, a copy can just as easily be signed and notarized on a suitably controlled database output as it can be signed and notarized on a xerox copy of an 'original' paper record. Or, the system, itself, can be the notary, with suitable auditing and oversight, and the license can be printed or saved to file by the people who need it. The payment can even be processed online. If others don't believer it's a true copy, it can even more easily be verified, online.
However, at some point, you have too few voting clerks employed and/or gummint employees get greedy and/or sloppy. But, that's not an issue because that ALREADY true.
Perhaps the IT community could be co-opted to jump on the bandwagon by letting it play with blockchain tech just to keep them happy and allow them to buff their resumes.
The opportunities for a Win-Win-Win are just waiting to be identified.
And I've met very few IT folks who cared anything about blockchain.
Oh, right you didn't use the word 'Should', so you're not talking about how things should be.
And you still haven't addressed the controls to prevent tampering with the database as compared to the controls to prevent tampering with an original paper.
And so you show your lack of knowledge of computer security. The problem of authenticating the solemnizer *and* the participants aside, the lack of a paper copy is a security risk in and of itself. Consider a homophobic hacker who gets into the state database and deletes all the same-sex marriage licenses. Now gay couples have no way to prove they're married. Heterosexual couples are frequently taken at their word. Gay couples have faced many instances where they are not. I suspect a considerable number of same-sex couples carry a copy of their marriage license when they travel.
"like e-mail got rid of so much other overhead" and significantly reduced security. The protocols that underlie e-mail are incredibly trusting. It is incredibly easy to forge an e-mail. Why do you think there is so much spam? Security has been layered on top of these, but for the most part is optional. There's a reason you still have to sign an entire dead tree to close a mortgage besides pork-barreling and inertia. Electronic contracts are easily forged.
We've traded a lot of security for convenience. If most people understood how much, they'd run screaming from these applications.
Once again, being antagonistic just because you can.
You know nothing about my familiarity with computer security, especially in the NIST Standards required for Critical Infrastructure and the like.
Right now my state prefers electronic car insurance to carrying around easily forged 'cards', which the officer has to verify ANYWAY. and which is similar to other gummint systems and 'permissions and certifications'. It's a problem when a lot of the workforce locally commutes and works in a far more gooberville state, where money is used to enrich the politicians and corporations.
AND, because you didn't notice in your rush to strut and fret on the stage, I was talking about a PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM that CAN BE IMPLEMENTED, not some regressive system that some don't want to change, and you seem to be defending, because "Tradition!"
"Once again, being antagonistic just because you can" Again, that's you. In practically everything you post.
I know what bullshit you said which shows you don't have a real understanding of practical computer security. I've worked in IT for 27 years and had to secure systems against both hackers and the ignorance of users.
I'm not defending it because 'Tradition', I'm defending it because despite the inconvenience sometimes paper is better. Especially when it comes to contracts. It's much harder to tamper with undetected. Digital signatures help somewhat with that, but we've had a half dozen signature algorithms fall to advances in technology, so what seems tamper-proof today may not be tomorrow.
So what?
Sometimes a parchment or stone tablet is better, too. Sometimes 'hearing' the evidence from Olde People in a court is better.
The entire history of IT has included streamlining of useless, senseless paper trails and the like.
BTW, did you see how your back-and-fill included "... sometimes paper is better." By your own admission you likely have no idea if this is or is not both possible and a better system, but purport so to be contrary.
I'm not being contrary. Where did you see me admit I have no idea if your "proposed" system is better?
Ok. IT has removed a lot of paper, but not all, and it never will, because it is much easier to detect if a paper contract has been tampered with than an electronic one. *Vital* statistics should be as proof against tampering as possible. That includes marriage licenses.
In all your efforts to insinuate I have no idea what I'm talking about, you haven't even *begun* to address the security concerns of your proposal.
I have given such protocols a lot of thought, because I'd like to see the elimination of paper and the arrival of applications like digital voting.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/03/ai-generated-voice-recording-grants-access-to-telephone-banking
Red Notice literally used this to defeat a vault security system.
“𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠, 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 … 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑙𝑘𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑙𝑘𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑠,”
In theory this makes the lawsuit easier, since he's saying *the state can refuse the license*, not that the clerk's office will find an alternate person to stamp your paperwork. So this is not a reasonable accommodation, it's a refusal of service.
AFAIK the 'full, free consent' notion already covers when one party is coercing or manipulating the other. So for example if one of you is drunk, the state can say come back when you're sober. No extra law is needed to let the state refuse service when some gold digger takes granny off her meds and wheels her, incoherent, to the state house. And if extra laws on that are needed, they certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the clerk's religion.
They want to protect old wealthy idiots from being bilked, but not protecting children from the very real threat of child marriage. Or what I call giving a little girl to her rapist.
One is not a very likely scenario, that there is already certain protections from and legal recourse after the fact. The other happens all the fucking time and as long as parents are okay with it, there’s nothing the minor can do until she’s old enough to sign contracts, by then it’s already years of servitude and rape.
They're only children, overwhelmingly girls, so what their owners want to do with them is none of the state's business. /s
Yep – private property is sacred to capitalism.
Yes. Golddiggers have been a phenomenon probably since we before we came out of the trees. *Now* suddenly he wants to try to prevent these marriages, because he knows better than an elderly person in full control of their faculties that simply doesn't want their children to inherit.
Speaking about gold-diggers, what is this shit about guv hucksterbee bringing back child labor? I caught a blurb at the end of a new story.
That sounds like the plots of any number of 'Hollywood Theatre", even back to long before Silent-Era Hollywood.
Whence do you think Hollywood STOLE IT?
Isn't it nice to know that Tennessee is just as lacking in brains as it is in beaches?
Also lacking in the matter of Health Care (they're ranked 40th Overall).
But, they don't think so, in either case, apparently ...
https://www.planetware.com/tennessee/best-beaches-us-tn-70.htm
Now, most of them might be what I would call a 'Brown Water Beach" but that's immaterial to the Chamber of Commerce.
Some of those beaches remind me of a low tide strip of sand in Tarrytown on the Hudson River that my father used to call Ouch Beach because it was covered in big rocks and whatever flotsam was left by the receding tide.
How I'd love to see the FFRF become involved if someone in the Volunteer State seeks their help on this.
Also put Americans United For Separation of Church and State in the picture.
And throw in American Atheists while you're at it. I'm all for a full-court press on these idiots.
Ard there Satanists in Tennessee ?
They're everywhere. :)
TST lists a congregation in Tennessee.
If a thrice divorced clerk isn't a good enough judge of who should or should not be married, then who is???
(Not a serious question, I just wanted to use the word "thrice".)
KIM DAVIS: "I Do as I say, not as I do."
She's been married, what, 4 times? 5? And twice to the same guy. She seems confused. Not a surprise, as she's a Christian. And did she simply ignore what her Jesus said about adultery? Seems she's a Brylcreem Christian, sticking to her religion so long as it's convenient to do so. That kind of "devotion" is worthless.
She pans to get married once for each tooth in her head. So, yeah, five.
She was at 4 in 2015, but that was 8 years ago. If she hasn't already done it, she's about due.
I thought she was quarce or quince married/divorced? Although I guess if she's still married to someone there are more marriages than divorces. 😁 A bit mean but I can't see why anyone would want to marry her.
I stopped counting after three. : )
I can't wait to see how you work the word "cockatrice" into a sentence.
I could cockatrice when I was younger, but now... : )
I was definitely cock (in) atrice when I was younger but I gradually disciplined myself.
Hmmmmm – that's a bit laboured I guess. Best I could do though.
"He ravaged y homeland of Thrace. Then he raped it again, and still again."
"He raped Thrace thrice?"
--A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum
Probably wouldn't fly today any more than whatsherface something like "I was raped by a doctor – bittersweet for a Jewish girl."
Actually I recently saw an interview with Mel Brooks – not sure from how long ago – where he said they would never be able to make blazing saddles today. I don't know.
I've tried to watch Blazing Saddles on AMC, one of the pay cable channels that acts like a broadcast channel with how much they bleep out, and AMC actually removed all the fart noises from the scene of all the cowboys eating beans and farting. Why not just cut the scene entirely? It makes no sense without the fart noises!
IF kkkristers want a marriage license they must prove they attended church a minimum of 150 Sundays over the last 3 years. That should pretty much stop marriage.
"...[A] self-described 'Christian Constitutional Conservative Republican." Why not just say "Republican?" It's the same thing.
It is, without exception, the people who make the most noise about their conservatism who are the most willing to play fast and loose with the Constitution. By labeling himself this way, he is trying to set himself up as someone with special insight into what the Constitution is supposed to mean. About as far from the truth as it gets.
OT: We have still more proof that it's gay men who groom children for sex, not Republicans. Because Republicans would never, ever do that, not even one tiny little bit.
https://www.wonkette.com/west-virginia-republicans-will-not-be-denied-their-child-brides
West Virginia is also one of only 2 states (along with the District of Columbia) in the entire country where bestiality is still legal.
Quelle surprise.
Have you ever been to West Virginia? Take a good look at what passes for the human population there. If you're looking to have sex in WV, bestiality is impossible to avoid.
Makes me glad I never travelled further east than Minnesota.
(Minneapolis is just east of Wichita Falls, TX where I had Tech School in the Air Force)
I never travelled further east than Cyprus, and west than French Britain.
Went I went to Vietnam, I travelled so far west I wound up in the east.
Damned round planet. No edges.
If the planet had edges, the cats would have knocked everything over them by now.
https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/esperanto-AI-chip-exploits-thousands-of-minon.jpg
Furthest west California. Furthest east Lebanon.
Eta: Where is French Britain?
Maybe she meant French and Saunders?
The peninsula on the west.
There are parts of West Virginia where finding a sex partner who doesn't have two heads is a major accomplishment.
Think John Denver may have been in error when he penned the words "Almost heaven..." for "Take Me Home, Country Roads."
It helps if you're having a mountain high, even a rocky one.
Ouch! 😁
Isn't Wyoming the other?
In Wyoming, it's called "Saturday Night".
"Isn't Wyoming the other?"
New Mexico.
Well to be fair, the US used to be one of the few countries where a team was the legal age for sex and marriage. Not sure what the situation is today, but in NZ it's pretty much always been 16. Although I think there'd be quite a few eyebrows raised if some 40-year-old was marrying a 16-year-old.
Just did some checking, and the vast majority of countries the world have a lower age of consent than the US. Some as low as 12. Christ, I didn't even think it would get that low. Although Japan was 13 – except the law there is very complicated if I remember correctly – anyway they're going to raise it to 16, or perhaps have already.
To the county clucks in Davy Crockett territory...
It's very simple. If you can't do the job you were elected/appointed to do because of your "sincerely"-held religious beliefs, then step down and become ministers. Or monks. Let's see just how truly sincere those beliefs of yours are.
"Born on a mountaintop in Tennessee..." where the air is so thin, brains don't develop properly.
The Rockies say "those aren't mountains, these are mountains".
The Himalayas clears throat.
Yeah, yeah. Just because India has a motorboat attached...
They act like ayatollahs
O/T Moscow Mitch fell in his hotel room at the former Trump International Hotel and landed in the hospital. Thoughts and prayers, Mitch--meaning, I have nothing to offer you! What a fitting irony. This is the hotel in DC that foreign dignitaries stayed at in order to funnel money to Trump in plain sight, flouting the Emoluments clause of the Constitution--you know, that document that Republicans deem #2 after 'The Bible.'
The Old Post Office Tower. A spectacular old Romanesque building originally, though I haven't been inside since Trump bought it and turned it into a hotel. And the second-highest tower in DC. Used to be the local's "secret alternate" DC viewing spot, when their tourist friends came into town and couldn't get into the Washington Monument.
My thoughts and prayers are that the building recovers from the damage done to it.
Turtle Man had every chance to align himself with those who wanted to impeach Trump and end any possibility of Mango Muttonhead ever running for POTUS again. He refused.
That he fell in Trump territory seems fitting.
At least he didn't 'fall out a window' or 'fall onto a bullet or poison"?
Given the history of Trump's foaming-at-the-mouth MAGAt troops, I'm pretty sure one or two considered engineering a...mishap.
Given the history of commenting here, I'm pretty sure one or two have considered engineering a ..., mishap ..., except engineering is too elitist, from what I've read ...
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2023/03/senior-senator-down
Interesting take on it here. Much too complex for a non-American though.
Wishing him a speedy death!!! NO t&p from me.
A surge of sugar babies in Tennessee? Is there an international airport there? Asking for a friend.