He cited a 2006 amendment to the state constitution that defined marriage as being only between a man and a woman and declared that any judicial interpretation to the contrary “shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee”.
Advertisement
The main premise of the bill – which delves into American legal history and cites the dissenting opinions in Obergefell – is that state governments can reject federal laws and court orders they deem illegal or unconstitutional.
The House Civil Justice subcommittee members heard about 90 minutes of testimony on Wednesday from pastors and lawyers and former legislators – much of it surrounding religious grounds and issues of states’ rights to nullify a Supreme Court decision – before it killed the Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act. Though this bill will not be passed, a number of similar proposals against the legalization of same-sex marriage are also trying to challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“Who are the people who have the right to nullify?” Mae Beavers (R-Mt. Juliet) has four other cosponsors.
Rep. Sherry Jones, D-Nashville, said that she didn’t think the bill would be successful, partly because of the costs associated with it, and expressed concern that the federal government could retaliate by yanking $8.5 billion in funding to state programs. The Supremacy and Full Faith & Credit Clauses are clear and like it or not, access to marriage is a reality for all same-sex couples regardless of conservative attempts to roll back legal precedents they disagree with. “That’s why we all pray for [Supreme Court Justice] Ruth Bader Ginsberg every night”, Sanders said.
But some Republicans who oppose gay marriage say a better approach would be to pass a resolution demanding that the state’s attorney general file a lawsuit to block the ruling.
One of the more damaging testimonies against the bill came from David Fowler, head of the Family Action Council, which looks to “To equip Tennesseans and their public officials to effectively promote and defend a culture that values God’s design for the family, for the sake of the common good”.
Pody and Beavers are undeterred. “Are we going to secede from the union?” He also disputed the estimated amount that the fiscal note claims the state would lose in federal funds by passing the act.
Advertisement
Pody plans to introduce an amendment that makes some changes as to how the bill would be implemented, but not its substantive goal or effect. The state must continue to abide by the Oberkefell decision.
