As eyes worldwide turn to the United States in light of recent legal events — such as the overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision — the public has begun to revisit some past issues that they felt were overlooked by the media. Most notably is the case of the Tennessee Proposed Common Law (a "judge-made" decision to pass an individual right not formally passed by legislature), which, originally, excluded gay couples but gave the greenlight to child marriage and polygamy.
The document was first presented by Representative Tom Leatherwood and supported by former state Sen. David Fowler, amongst 24 other Tennessee Republicans. Claiming to speak in the name of the state's people, they maintained that the Common Law was necessary because the current marriage legislation — that since the Supreme Court's 2015 decision, included LGBTQ+ couples — went against their religious beliefs. What was initially known as the "Anti-Gay Law" was written as an alternative for the current legislation (which enraged many conservatives since it now includes gay folks), but created a lot of controversy. This was not only because it didn't grant gay couples the right to get married using this document, but also because it created a loophole to bypass or ignore issues important to Tennessee Liberals.
What initially sparked the media's attention was the lack of an age restriction in the proposal, which would technically make child marriage legal. This could have major implications as the practice of child marriage reinforces gender discrimination, increases female poverty rates, and decreases the number of young girls receiving formal education. Furthermore, child marriage normalizes grooming and increases sexual assault rates amongst young girls, besides enlarging rates of teen pregnancy. After the backlash on the topic, an amendment was made, and now heterosexual couples who wish to sign the contract must have reached majority age, which in Tennessee, is 18 years old.
In addition, Representative Johnny Garrett of Goodlettsville brought to light another apparent problem: there was nothing in the proposed legislation that prevented people from signing multiple contracts, meaning polygamy would also be theoretically legal. In regards to this issue, Leatherwood's response was “I mean, people can commit bigamy now. They can commit fraud now", which, to people opposed to the bill, sounded a lot like "It's already broken. Why fix it?"
The overall public impression of the law was that it seemed to have been rushed, badly written, and deeply biased. The concerns were that it would be used to cover up child abuse and statutory rape, aside from affirming polygamy and reinforcing homophobia. The negative response to the proposal was so significant that Leatherwood had no choice but to send the bill to summer study, meaning that it will no longer be on the table until the following year, when the State Representative has already declared that he will lobby for it once again.
The outcome of this case sets a precedent for those who feel like the people's voice doesn’t actually matter. It proves that, when properly organized, public protests and uprisings can indeed assure that the populace’s demands are met, which applies to an infinite number of scenarios — similar to this one or not. This is a very valuable lesson, especially given the current media controversy created around some recent widespread legal decisions. It's important to remember that democracy is made by the people and for the people, and thus — as demonstrated by this event — it lies in every citizen's hands the power to stand for what they believe is right.
Published July 5, 2022
Written by Isabela Lico ~ Edited by Sasha Thomas ~ Graphics created by Fiona Xu
Comments