Similar to the U.S. Constitution (ERA amendment anyone?), Tennessee's Constitution makes itself pretty tough to change. (You can read all about the process after the jump.) This is probably for the best. Despite these built-in safeguards, idiotic, pandering, self-serving, politically motivated proposals do make their way through the Tennessee General Assembly from time to time.
This is one of those times.
There will be two proposed amendments on the November ballot. One is a good thing, the other is awful.
Amendment #2 allows for property tax relief, essentially a property tax freeze, for Tennessee residents 65 or older. It would still be up to local jurisdictions to enact it. This is a good amendment and it should be approved by voting 'YES' for Amendment #2.
Amendment #1, however, is an abomination. This amendment, the "anti-gay marriage" amendment, would define marriage as being between one man and one woman. It takes away rights from citizens of the State of Tennessee, and violates the civil rights of an entire class of people. This is a terrible amendment and it should be rejected by voting 'NO' for Amendment #1.
Note that you must vote 'NO', indicating that the proposed amendment should not be made to the Tennessee Constitution. A 'NO' vote is not a vote against gay marriage, it is a vote for civil rights. (Although many "low information" voters will hopefully read it the first way.)
Read the Tennessee Board of Elections summary of the Constitutional amendment process and the full text of the two proposed amendments after the jump (also available at KnoxVotes.org)...
How the amendment gets to the ballot
For a Constitutional amendment to appear on the ballot, a resolution must be passed by two consecutive sessions of the general assembly. The first passages must be by a majority in each house. The second passage must be by a two-thirds vote in each house. The question must then appear on the ballot at the next general election where a governor is selected. Article XI, Section 3, Tennessee Constitution.
The Ballot
Constitutional amendments are placed on the ballot directly after the candidates for governor. T.C.A. §2 5 208(f)(1). If the question exceeds three hundred (300) words, the Attorney General's office may prepare a summary. Neither question on this year's ballot exceeds 300 words. The language reflects the wording of the resolutions, but is put in the form of a question. A "yes" vote is a vote to amend the Constitution while a "no" vote is a vote not to amend the Constitution.
Counting the votes
In order for the amendment to pass and become part of the Constitution, two things must happen:
1) The amendment must get more "yes" votes than "no" votes; and
2) The number of "yes" votes must be a majority of the votes cast in the gubernatorial election.
To determine the votes needed, all votes for all candidates for governor are added together. This number is divided by two or halved. The number of "yes" votes must exceed that number. If the number of "yes" votes exceeds the number, the Constitutional amendment passes and becomes part of the Constitution.
Voting
Despite the fact that the number of votes cast for governor is used to determine the outcome, it is not necessary to vote in the governor’s race in order to vote on the Constitutional amendment. Likewise, it is not necessary to vote for an amendment in order to vote in the governor’s race.
Amendment #1 (Marriage)
Passage of the amendment would define marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Amendment #2 (Property Tax Relief)
Passage of the amendment would allow, but not require, the legislature to implement a program of property tax relief for persons sixty-five (65) years of age or older.
Full text of the proposed amendments follows...
Constitution Amendment #1
Shall Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section:
SECTION___. The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman, is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.
Yes □
No □
Constitution Amendment #2
Shall Article II, Section 28, of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee be amended by inserting the following language immediately after the fourth paragraph:
By general law, the legislature may authorize the following program of tax relief:
(a) The legislative body of any county or municipality may provide by resolution or ordinance that:
(1) Any taxpayer who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older and
who owns residential property as the taxpayer’s principal place of residence shall pay taxes on such property in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of tax on such property imposed at the time the ordinance or resolution is adopted;
(2) Any taxpayer who reaches the age of sixty-five (65) after the time the ordinance or resolution is adopted, who owns residential property as the taxpayer’s principal place of residence, shall thereafter pay taxes on such property in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of tax on such property imposed in the tax year in which such taxpayer reaches age sixty-five (65); and
(3) Any taxpayer who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older, who purchases residential property as the taxpayer’s principal place of residence after the taxpayer’s sixty-fifth birthday, shall pay taxes in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of tax imposed on such property in the tax year in which such property is purchased.
Yes □
No □
|
Topics:
|
|
Discussing:
- Are Chat bots a waste of time? (1 reply)
- Smith & Wesson noise problem (1 reply)
- Musicians dropping out of President's Freedom Concert Series (1 reply)
- It's time for new blood in Congress, Barnett in - Burchett out (1 reply)
- Burning Down The House... (2 replies)
- Behind Lege Lies (1 reply)
- Peace (1 reply)
- Speak your truth, fight and believe. (1 reply)
- Large banks have too much AI data center debt? (1 reply)
- GOP misleading on federal health care funding (1 reply)
- Feds indict civil rights group (3 replies)
- Georgia issues burn ban, first time in state history (2 replies)
TN Progressive
- Smith & Wesson not a good fit for Blount County (BlountViews)
- Pellissippi Parkway extension delayed again (BlountViews)
- Blount County early voting record turnout (BlountViews)
- Louisville, TN, town center coming soon? (BlountViews)
- WATCH THIS SPACE. (Left Wing Cracker)
- America As It Is Right Now (RoaneViews)
- A friend sent this: From Captain McElwee's Tall Tales of Roane County (RoaneViews)
- The Meidas Touch (RoaneViews)
- Massive Security Breach Analysis (RoaneViews)
- (Whitescreek Journal)
- My choices in the August election (Left Wing Cracker)
- July 4, 2024 - aka The Twilight Zone (Joe Powell)
TN Politics
- Homeland Security retreats on plan to get data on mail-in voters (TN Lookout)
- Metro sues state again to block airport board takeover (TN Lookout)
- NAACP files for federal court injunction to stop new Tennessee congressional map (TN Lookout)
- John Cole’s Tennessee: Old Faithful, Tennessee style (TN Lookout)
- Tennessee Republican senator wants to change book-ban law (TN Lookout)
- Trump launches new strikes on Iran after US Army helicopter downed (TN Lookout)
Knox TN Today
- Cool off with Daytime Docs (Knox TN Today)
- Book Whisper summer list continues (Knox TN Today)
- Lacrosse champs + Officer G + Jim Thomas + In Memoriam (Knox TN Today)
- Mama said…. “Ain’t no sense in beatin’ a dead horse.” (Knox TN Today)
- Young Reader’s Shelf: Where the Wild Things Are & author’s birthday (Knox TN Today)
- Where They Are Now: Heather Overton (Knox TN Today)
- Kaden Long leads Central Bobcats to quarterfinals of Josh Heupel’s UT 7v7 event (Knox TN Today)
- HPUD offers explanation for discolored water: Manganese (Knox TN Today)
- Youth Scoop: Activities for all ages in Knox & area (Knox TN Today)
- 6/10 HEADLINES: News and events from Knox, World, USA, Tennessee & Historic Notes (Knox TN Today)
- The Ice King started it! (Knox TN Today)
- The Sherrods: They settled near the Holston (Knox TN Today)
Local TV News
- Tri-Cities Airport runway expected to reopen Thursday morning (WATE)
- 'Backbone of the digital world' East TN tech founder explains different types of data centers (WATE)
- Game time announced for Tennessee's SEC home opener against Texas (WATE)
- Challenge in Knox County Sheriff GOP primary denied after corruption case indictments (WATE)
- Creek restoration showcases Knoxville's latest investment to reduce flooding (WATE)
- Morristown man sentenced for mail fraud scheme using dead baseball players’ names (WATE)
News Sentinel
State News
- Rock City gondola rejected by Lookout Mountain planners - Chattanooga Times Free Press (Times Free Press)
- Demo at Broad and Main in Chattanooga clears way for $45M hotel - Chattanooga Times Free Press (Times Free Press)
- The American Dream - Chattanooga Times Free Press (Times Free Press)
- Jury finds driver guilty after 2023 Frazier Avenue crash - Chattanooga Times Free Press (Times Free Press)
Wire Reports
- Federal judge warns Justice Department not to revive payout fund - The Washington Post (US News)
- Middle East crisis live: US says second day of Iran strikes ‘completed’; Tehran claims it has targeted US base in Bahrain - The Guardian (US News)
- Prices are soaring on these everyday grocery items, driving up inflation - The Washington Post (Business)
- Shares retreat as techs extend losses, US strikes on Iran lift oil - Reuters (Business)
- Stock futures fall after U.S. launches additional strikes against Iran, oil rises: Live updates - CNBC (Business)
- Karmelo Anthony lawyers file notice of appeal day after he was sentenced to 35 years - Dallas News (US News)
- Feds won’t seek death penalty in plea deal with man accused of killing top Minnesota Democrat - CNN (US News)
- Oracle Reports Earnings Amid a Rapid Cloud Transformation - Barron's (Business)
- Southern Baptists vote to advance a formal ban on churches with women pastors - AP News (US News)
- Some Senate Dems still won’t commit to Graham Platner - Politico (US News)
- University of Florida Chooses Stuart Bell for President Over Some Conservative Criticism - The New York Times (US News)
- Mace Defeat Heralds an Exodus of Rabble-Rousers From Congress - The New York Times (US News)
- Nomination Sent to the Senate - The White House (.gov) (Business)
- SpaceX Leaves Some Banks Peeved at Junior Roles in IPO Lineup - Bloomberg.com (Business)
- Exclusive | Jeanine Pirro’s Prosecutors Probe Big Banks for Alleged ‘Debanking’ - WSJ (Business)
Local Media
Lost Medicaid Funding
Search and Archives
TN Progressive
Nearby:
- Blount Dems
- Herston TN Family Law
- Inside of Knoxville
- Instapundit
- Jack Lail
- Jim Stovall
- Knox Dems
- MoxCarm Blue Streak
- Outdoor Knoxville
- Pittman Properties
- Reality Me
- Stop Alcoa Parkway
Beyond:
- Nashville Scene
- Nashville Post
- Smart City Memphis
- TN Dems
- TN Journal
- TN Lookout
- Bob Stepno
- Facing South

Amendment #1
As a proud member of the Homo Community, I can say with full confidence that Amendment #1 will in fact be approved, and by a wide margin. Sadly, the right wing in this country can't hang their legitimacy on a platform based on real solutions to real problems, so they just have to make shit up to keep themselves in power. They require a boogeyman of some sort in order to define themselves as his opposite; this is the very definition of a reactionary. They don't have any productive ideas to fix the real problems facing our society, so they provoke culture wars as a distraction from their failures (much like Iraq is a distraction from the failed War On Terra™). It's a long-standing tactic among the reactionaries in the US, dating back to the beginning of the Republic.
The thing that gives me hope, though, is this: every single time the right wing have provoked a culture war in the US, they've ultimately lost. Whether it was over the preservation of slavery, the denial of women's suffrage, the gold standard, segregation, or voting rights, the culture wars they provoke always ultimately backfire. Sure, they might gain a temporary measure of advantage by firing up the base for a single election, but over the course of years or decades, we've shown a remarkable ability to set things right.
I firmly believe that gay marriage will eventually become mundane in the US (as it should be), but I believe equally firmly that there are many dark years ahead in the meantime. We will see discrimination and rank bigotry (the darkest antithesis of any definition of "freedom") enshrined in our state Constitution as has happened across the country lately, and it will stick for some time before the error is ultimately corrected.
The thing the reactionaries still haven't figured out after 230 years is this: don't ever piss off the liberals about something that truly matters. It eventually backfires on them every single time.
--Socialist With A Gold Card
"I'm a socialist with a gold card. I firmly believe we need a revolution; I'm just concerned that I won't be able to get good moisturizer afterwards." --Brett Butler
I can say with full
I can say with full confidence that Amendment #1 will in fact be approved, and by a wide margin
Sadly, I think you are correct, as is the rest of your comment. Last time I saw anything about it, the amendment was running somewhere around 70% to 80% for approval. Even Bredesen said he would vote for it.
It will also bring those Conservative Christians out in droves to vote for Corker. Or maybe Choate. We can at least hope on that one!
the impression
I may have inadvertantly given you the impression that I wrote this [ed note: not the post, the explanation of the process and the text of the amendments that follows the post]. I did not. The state election office sent it to me and I put it on our website (KnoxVotes.org) and sent it to our update list.
I never mentioned where I got it from. You can sign up for our updates at (link...).
Thanks, corrections noted.
Thanks, corrections noted. And thanks for keeping us informed.
Some day, people supporting
Some day, people supporting such amendments will be viewed as on the wrong side of history.
It's also funny to me that people are quick to bash republicans over this when the democrats are just as pro-banning gay marriage, generally.
ETA: and by 'such amendments', i mean the gay one. Though I will be voting 'no' on both.
---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?
Curious why you will vote
Curious why you will vote 'no' on the property tax relief for seniors? Special treatment/reverse discrimination, or...?
Curious why you will vote
Curious why you will vote 'no' on the property tax relief for seniors? Special treatment/reverse discrimination, or...?
I have very mixed feelings on this. I support the idea at some level but I reject the idea as a Tennessee State Constitutional Amendment.
I see this as an issue of County Rights, the same concept as States Rights when compared to the U.S. Constitution.
Some day in the future some Tennessee communities may have a majority population of retired residents. What will the answer be then? Impact fees, special local sales taxes?
As I have written many times, watch the spending and you don't have to have measures like this. The spending is the problem.
It's also funny to me that
Um, because the Republicans have a long and storied history of being anti-civil rights? Because the only examples they can usually think of, when pressed, of elected Republicans who made real achievements on that front did so hundreds of years ago? (Abe Lincoln, Harry Burn, et al)
Because the official Democratic National Committee party platform indicates that marriage is an issue that should be left to the states to resolve, taking no position on whether or not states should marry same-sex couples?
("We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families," the platform says.)
Dems nationwide aren't out grandstanding on this issue like the Gov. Shame on him, by the way.
Curious why you will vote
variety of reasons: special treatment, it's really a city/county issue, seems to be something that could be handled without amending the constitution, and I generally just don't like people mucking with the constitution.
And #9 makes a decent point, with our aging boomers.
---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?
Well ...
Frankly, I'm kind of ambivalent about it too. As Uncle says, why is an amendment even necessary? Couldn't the legislature just pass a law permitting it?
If there were some sort of means test applied to it, I think it might be somewhat more palatable; but I can imagine an elderly millionaire plopping a house into the middle of his corporate headquarters' campus and calling the whole property his "primary residence." It just seems like an opportunity to open more loopholes in an already loopy tax system.
I'm open to persuasion either way, but this just seems like a strange thing to be inserting into the state Constitution.
--Socialist With A Gold Card
"I'm a socialist with a gold card. I firmly believe we need a revolution; I'm just concerned that I won't be able to get good moisturizer afterwards." --Brett Butler
SWAGC and Uncle
SWAGC and Uncle (particularly Uncle) the way I read this is to give local governments the option to do this, i.e. to make it a local decision. I haven't researched it, but I'm assuming there must be something in the Constitution that prevents passing such legislation without county-by-county private acts or something (i.e. mabye this extends a little constitutional "home rule"?).
#1 I dont know why people
#1 I dont know why people are afraid of "gay cooties"....I'll be voting no but I'm sure that fundie preachers will be whipping up support for the sheeple to get out and vote for it.
#2 could be interesting...personally I feel they should leave it to the counties to decide vs yet another law. It would be nice if they could limit the tax relief based on income vs age so we dont wind up with a county full of retired millionaire boomers.
Sounds like sprawl on a stick.
#2 could be interesting...personally I feel they should leave it to the counties to decide vs yet another law. It would be nice if they could limit the tax relief based on income vs age so we don't wind up with a county full of retired millionaire boomers.
I was thinking along the same lines. Talk about the law of unintended consequences. Wouldn't there be an explosion of McMansions with shinny happy retired baby boomers from Ohio?
Sounds like sprawl on a stick.
The Tennessee Constitution and Property Taxes
I might be able to shed some light here on the property tax amendment. The Tennessee Constitution sets rates for property based on classifications. Residential is at 25%; commercial at 40%. The Constitution does not allow for differential rates within categories. That forbids the general assembly from just going ahead with passing a law to accomplish what the proponents desire, eg. taxing the property at what amounts to a different rate for a class of people within the residential classification or allowing for such at the county or municipal level. If this is passed more has to happen before the change would take effect. First, the General Assembly would have to pass a law as allowed by the constitution. What is interesting is that this amendment proscribes exactly what that law would be. That is unusual. If such a law is passed in Nashvile then the governing body of a city or county would have to in turn vote in the affirmative beforei the policy could take effect in that jurisdiction. So what this amounts to is enabling legislation two steps removed that would let cities and counties consider the enactment of this policy.
Thanks for the
Thanks for the clarification.
--Socialist With A Gold Card
"I'm a socialist with a gold card. I firmly believe we need a revolution; I'm just concerned that I won't be able to get good moisturizer afterwards." --Brett Butler
Thanks for the explanation.
Thanks for the explanation. In googling around, I found that the General Assembly had passed legislation for this previously, but it was ruled unconstitutional. I couldn't find why, but you have explained it. They are trying to go back and make it constitutional so they can pass the legislation as Bill describes.
Apparently it is also a popular idea. It passed the House and Senate with only one opposing vote.
That still won't stop me
That still won't stop me from voting NO in big red letters forty feet high. This kind of discrimination is wrong no matter how you slice it. I fail to see how anyone's marriage could be damaged by a gay couple getting married. The divorce rate in this country is nearly 2 out of 3 marriages now, seems to me the real threat to marriage in America is marriage in America.
Maybe if the religious fundamentalists would shut their pie holes for one single minute and really think about why marriages are failing all over this country, they could come up with a far more productive use of their time, such as helping people of all leanings make stronger relationships and better marriages and families, rather than running around screaming, "The gays are coming! The gays are coming!" Seems to me that a lot of these so-called good Christian preachers are FAR too interested in what is going on in someone else's bedroom.
Just sayin'...
"You can't fix stupid..." Ron White
Um, because the Republicans
You're kidding, right? Go look for yourself.
Bill,
Thanks for the clarification.
---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?
And your point is?
This piece of legislation (the Civil Rights Act, for those who don't feel like clicking) is widely acknowledged to have been what turned the South into a gigantic swath of red. Interesting you'd use it as an example. Congressional votes on the Civil Rights Act actually split along regional lines. In the North, both parties supported the Civil Rights Act; in the South, both parties opposed it. The difference is that Democrats dominated the South for generations, so the opposition was more apparent.
Meanwhile, there's not one elected black Republican in Congress; there are three times more Hispanic Democrats than Republicans. On the NAACP’s most recent Federal Legislative Report Card, every Republican in Congress received a failing grade; the National Organization for Women blasts the Bush Administration constantly in screeds like this one (NOW President Kim Gandy: "The Bush administration is sacrificing working families on the altar of corporate greed.")
I could go on, but I suspect we'll still be on opposite sides of this issue.
Compromise
I have not been personally embroiled in the issue of gay marriage, and I am often accused of thinking too simplistically, but is it fair to say that most of the strife revolves around the term "marriage", and that most of those who are resistant could be comfortable with a fully comparable relationship identified by a unique name? As it stands now, we are looking at, as a famous man said of another conflict, a long, hard slog. It seems that what is truly important are the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that a given couple may enjoy if they are willing to commit to stable, productive relationships.
As I see it, a major risk is that the cause may be set back progressively farther by pressing onward with too much fervor.
Although I agree with you on
Although I agree with you on the practicalities of the issue, the use of a different term for gay couples implies a "separate but equal" system, which evokes too many bad memories to contemplate. I'm not saying a separate system would result in lesser rights, but it certainly would run the risk.
Yes, the fundamental issue (at least to me) is recognition of the same legal rights afforded to straight couples; I don't really care what it's called, as long as it's legally indistinguishable from the rights of "marriage" that everybody else receives. Anything less than full equality results in a mockery of the notions of equality and liberty.
This has been my gut feeling ever since the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to legalize gay marriage in that state. At the time, I thought, "Oh no, here we go. It's WAY too early to be having this argument." But now that the issue has been joined, we can't afford to back down from the fight -- we'd lose too much ground.
--Socialist With A Gold Card
"I'm a socialist with a gold card. I firmly believe we need a revolution; I'm just concerned that I won't be able to get good moisturizer afterwards." --Brett Butler
I have just "voted" in
I have just "voted" in WBIR's poll on Constitutional Amendment #1. I was amazed to find the tally so close (329 for, 303 against).
Of course these are low numbers, the poll has probably only been running a day or so, it's unscientific, and, and, and . . . . . . but I expected to be one of about six voting "against" in a sea of thousands of "for's".
I had better check the site again using IE; firefox is so friendly, it may be lying to me.