TN Judge denies divorce because Gay Marriage

[Deleted]

Yet another appointed official refusing to do their job...


A Tennessee Judge Is Refusing to Let a Straight Couple Get Divorced—Because of Gay Marriage

www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/09/03/tennessee_judge_refuses_straight_divorce_because_of_gay_marriage.html

When Thomas and Pamela Bumgardner decided to get divorced, they likely assumed the process would be straightforward. The Tennessee sexagenarians have no children and provided no reason why Chancery Court Judge Jeffrey Atherton shouldn’t grant their request. Yet Atherton ordered four days of testimony from the couple—then held that their marriage wasn’t “irrevocably broken” and denied their divorce. His justification?

The conclusion reached by this Court is that 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.

The high court, Atherton concluded, must explain “when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Until then, he contended, state courts cannot decide marriage and divorce cases.


Obviously, this is a stunt—and a childish, dishonorable one at that. By using his esteemed position to protest binding Supreme Court precedent—from the bench!—Atherton is violating two basic components of his job. First, he is (rather cruelly) refusing to allow the Bumgardners’ divorce for no good cause other than his own political chagrin. Second, he is implicitly rejecting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, using it as an excuse not to perform those duties that he is required, by law, to perform.



It may come as no surprise that Atherton secured his judgeship through election, supports homeschooling, and works as a Baptist deacon in his spare time. But many right-wing judges are capable of following the rule of law while personally objecting to the precedent they must follow. Judges can, in keeping with judicial decorum, imply that the Supreme Court should reconsider a past decision. But Atherton has gone far beyond the limit of his position, not only protesting Obergefell by halting his judicial duties but also to taking a blameless couple hostage in the process. He has, in short, proved himself unfit for the bench. The Tennessee legislature can impeach and remove Atherton during its upcoming legislative session. It should do so as soon as possible.

[pinkdutchtulips]

I would be so PISSED if my divorce was denied due to SSM >

[pixy0stix]

4 DAYS of testimony? For a simple divorce? Fuck.

[UMaineTeach]

what was that about activist judges?

[ChillyMcFreeze]

[captainobvious]

[Deleted]

This is... petty.

[tacosforlife]

Sept 3, 2015 15:22:16 GMT -5 @slayerkate said:

It may come as no surprise that Atherton secured his judgeship through election, supports homeschooling, and works as a Baptist deacon in his spare time. But many right-wing judges are capable of following the rule of law while personally objecting to the precedent they must follow. Judges can, in keeping with judicial decorum, imply that the Supreme Court should reconsider a past decision. But Atherton has gone far beyond the limit of his position, not only protesting Obergefell by halting his judicial duties but also to taking a blameless couple hostage in the process. He has, in short, proved himself unfit for the bench. The Tennessee legislature can impeach and remove Atherton during its upcoming legislative session. It should do so as soon as possible.

I cannot be the only one thinking that this article was written specifically for CEP, can I?

[tictac]

Excuse you, you're forcing 2 people to stay married to each other against their will to make some petty political statement?!?!?

[ECB]

People are idiots.

[meshaliuknits]

Dick move, judge. Dick move.

[jln]

He can join Kim Davis in jail.

[blink]

I guess everyone needs their 15 minutes of fame. I just hope his gets him off the bench.

[LadySusan]

Sept 3, 2015 15:45:43 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

I have a friend who clerked for him. She says he's like this a lot and uses interesting terms like "sodomites."

My favorite part of this brief is the end where he says he thinks both the petitioner and respondent are basically terrible people. lol.

Hey, lucy, who is that sexy chap?  Is he acting in costume porn, I mean, period drama?  I've been meaning to ask.