Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee ® signed a bill Wednesday allowing public officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

State lawmakers approved Tennessee House Bill 878 last week. The legislation states people “shall not be required to solemnize a marriage” if they refuse to doing so based on their “conscience or religious beliefs.” According to the Tennessee Legislature website, the governor signed the bill Wednesday.

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    …You actually just demonstrated my point. If 62% percent of the people in polyamorous relationships are women, that means that there are fewer men ‘monopolizing’ more women. Socially, that’s not a good thing. If you wanted to demonstrate that women had more power in relationships, you would need to show that there were fewer women in polyamorous relationship, e.g., that is was more common to have a single woman with multiple male partners, rather than a man with multiple female partners.

    • blackstampede@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Sorry, I was in the middle of doing something else when I wrote that, and not thinking clearly.

      Either way, polyamory is the biggest example of large scale, voluntary, non-religious, polygamy-like relationships that we have, and it’s stabilized at +12% women, which is a far cry from the harems you’ve described. We’ve also been assuming that they’re straight, which they are not. Some estimates put the prevalence of bisexuality at 50% among poly women, much higher than in the broader population.

      Most examples of broadly polygamous societies were a long time ago, highly religious, and had no access to modern technology, transportation, or media. Women at the time could be kept as property because they were taught by their religion and culture that it was right, because they didn’t have the ability to travel quickly to get away, because they often didn’t have money or property, and because their society didn’t recognize them as legal people.

      None of this is true now.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Look around you. Look at Alabama, at Texas, at Louisiana, at the ‘Freedom’ caucus in the House, at consistent efforts to eliminate bodily autonomy for women, and roll back women’s rights, and how those efforts are succeeding. Look at the way conservative states are limiting access to factual educational materials for children (and adults!) in public libraries, and they way that they’re trying to limit speech online.

        We’re not far from regressing back to a point where women were property. We are dangerously close.

        • blackstampede@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          No, we’re not.

          There have been recent challenges to freedom of speech, bodily autonomy, and privacy, along with other developments that both of us disagree with and find to be dangerous. But there is a vast distance between where we currently are and a society in which women are considered property. Women hold roughly 30% of public offices (varying between about 25% and 35% depending on type of office), are about 20% of the US military, and as I said before, fill almost half the working and management positions in the country.

          It is not possible to make women property or force them to be subservient at scale. They may not be equally represented everywhere, and there is certainly room for improvement, but they hold too much power for this to happen.