Tennessee Governor Signs Law Allowing Potential Officiants to Refuse to Solemnize a Marriage

Marriage generally requires two steps. You get a marriage license. Then, you have to "solemnize" it.  The basic idea is to have some ceremony with witnesses. The license should do it. The solemnization adds some additional symbolism and clarity to the whole thing. 

Traditionally, this was a church ceremony. So, the idea was to get God involved. The word is defined as "formal or ceremonious observance of an occasion or event." It does not necessarily have a religious connotation though it usually does. In this case, it includes going to City Hall.

During the debate over same-sex marriage, some people talked about taking the government out of the "marriage" business. The people who say this do not usually mean that married people should not have special rights and obligations. For instance, tax consequences, or a right to visitation at the hospital. 

They consider "marriage" as a religious term. They would call the other thing a sort of "civil union." But, that is a government-based marriage. It is a civil union.

The alleged concern for religious liberty, which Justice Alito has flagged, is specious. Jesus tells us that divorce is immoral except in special cases (the gospels disagree when). Biblical law disallows more marriages as "incestuous" than the civil law. 

Homosexuality is more controversial for some people. But, religious liberty is for all. And, it was not that long ago that divorce was broadly problematic. Just ask the British royals. Being divorced was verboten for many people, including politicians, in this country not that long ago. 

The concern is thinly veiled homophobia. There is a push to allow public officials to not take part in marriage "ceremonies" when their religious beliefs are at stake. The word, along with the word "solemnize" is misleading. A public official must take part in many things they might oppose. For instance, a Quaker will have to take part in actions that further warfare in various respects. Tax policy clashes with personal morality in various respects. It is not a religious ceremony.

Tennessee passed a law ("public welfare requiring it") that allows a public official not to solemnize a marriage. The law simply notes the exception. 

An original draft more explicitly flagged it as a religious exemption. The law also is general. Someone opposed to divorced people remarrying can take advantage of it. But, again, such people have been around for quite some time. What motivates these laws is LGBTQ+ bias. There is enough cover to claim they are neutral laws. That should only convince those who wish to be.

The law is flagged as a way to chip away at the rights of same-sex marriage. A person can still get married. The state is not allowing officials to deny licenses. Any number of people can solemnize a marriage. This includes "ministers, preachers, pastors, priests, rabbis and other spiritual leaders of every religious belief" and a range of governmental officials. Then, there is a qualification on what that means. If people want to talk about religious liberty, how about states trying to parse like this:

In order to solemnize the rite of matrimony, any such minister, preacher, pastor, priest, rabbi or other spiritual leader must be ordained or otherwise designated in conformity with the customs of a church, temple or other religious group or organization; and such customs must provide for such ordination or designation by a considered, deliberate, and responsible act.

New York recently passed a law to allow non-ordained people to marry one time. The whole parsing here to be is a First Amendment problem. Just let anyone who wishes to do so officiate a marriage. If you want, which is fine, require the person to take a class or something to familiarize themselves with the rules. They also can be checked out to show they are not frauds or something. But, to me, this is a more real concern than what is behind this regulation. And, we should understand the context:

Republican officials in Tennessee have banned gender-affirming care for minors, repeatedly singled out transgender athletes, removed LGBTQ+ people from the state's nondiscrimination laws and targeted gender identity policies and education in schools. By May last year, according to the Human Rights Campaign, Tennessee had passed 19 laws restricting LGBTQ+ rights since 2015.

Overall, the law is discriminatory in motivation and practice. A same-sex couple is most likely to find out that someone won't complete the marriage. The couple has a right to consider this a homophobic act. There are worse anti- LGBTQ+ acts these days, especially the anti-trans laws out there. 

But, it is part of an overall campaign. The people doing this will also try to do things with more teeth to harm same-sex couples. If you work in government, one of your jobs might be to handle marriage licenses. Or handling divorces. Is there a law saying that if you disagree with a divorce, you should not have to handle the paperwork? If you are a judge, can you not take part in a civil lawsuit because you find the litigation immoral?

The whole thing is a symbol of what is wrong with the Republican Party these days. They promote bigotry from the top down.