shape of Tennessee on striped background with words Tennessee news

University of Tennessee Re-establishes Controversial Diversity Office

Last year Tennessee’s Legislature removed all state funding for the Office of Diversity at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, after a series of controversial emails that promoted the use of made-up, gender-neutral pronouns and urged students to avoid words and activities associated with the Christian celebration of Christmas.

But legislators restored the money in this year’s budget, and the school announced this week that the office was being restarted with the hiring of a director for an LGBT pride center.

News Source:

NOTE: FACT provides links to external websites for educational purposes only. The inclusion of any links to other websites does not necessarily constitute an endorsement.

Get News Stories In Your Inbox Every Week

shape of Tennessee on striped background with words Tennessee news

Voyeur Takes Photos in Knoxville Target Dressing Room

Thanks to Target’s transgender policy, a man was able to easily gain access to the women’s dressing room in a West Knoxville Target and take pictures of his victims with his cell phone for about an hour before being caught. “As we’ve stated many times, transgender individuals are not our main concern but rather voyeurs and sexual predators who will gain access to their victims by using Target’s policy to do so,” said American Family Association’s Tim Wildmon. AFA has been calling for a boycott of Target since the retail chain began allowing biological men to use women’s restrooms and changing rooms.

News Sources:

Get News Stories In Your Inbox Every Week

shape of Tennessee on striped background with words Tennessee news

Motion to Intervene in Knoxville Insemination Case Denied

This week, Judge Greg McMillan of Knoxville ruled that 52 state legislators would not be allowed to argue that a state statute referring to children born by insemination to a husband and wife should not be interpreted in a way that would substitute the word “spouse” for the word “husband.” The court said that interpreting the statute to treat children in a mother-mother family the same as a mother-father family was not a “policy” issue. Sadly, the attorney general of Tennessee believes that the judge should rewrite the statute, too.

See Also:

Get News Stories In Your Inbox Every Week

silhouette of a man and woman reading newspapers with words press statement underneath on red background

FACT Files Motion to Intervene in Knoxville Custody Case

FRANKLIN, Tenn. (September 9, 2016) —Today, the Constitutional Government Defense Fund, an initiative of The Family Action Council of Tennessee, Inc. filed a Motion to Intervene on behalf of fifty-three Tennessee state legislators in a very important case flowing from the U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision last year, Obergefell v. Hodges. The case tests the extent to which Obergefell dictates policy results in other areas of family law and transfers those policies to the judicial branch.

The Motion was filed in a divorce proceeding pending in Knoxville involving a marriage between two women. During the marriage, one of the women conceived a child by artificial insemination. The issue involves the custody rights of the woman who has no biological relationship to the child.

The controversy centers on a statute that deems a child born to a “married woman” by means of artificial insemination, with the consent of the “married woman’s husband,” to be the “legitimate child of the husband and wife.”

The two women have asserted that that statute, enacted in 1977, is unconstitutional if it is applied according to the plain meaning of the words used and is not interpreted by the courts to apply to same-sex marriages.

David Fowler, attorney for the legislators, said:

“These legislators are to be commended for taking quick action in the midst of campaigning and preparing for a special session next week. They understand the importance of this case constitutionally. This is not a case involving the policy that should be applicable in situations such as this. Rather, this case involves a very important constitutional question—Does the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision authorize judges to determine for state legislative bodies what policies it must have relative to custody issues in divorce proceedings? If it does, then matters of family law, which have historically been within the constitutional powers of the states to determine, will have essentially been judicially taken from the states and placed in the hands of federal judges.”

“I hope their constituents appreciate the fact that they are defending the will of the people, who, through their state constitution, vested the power of determining public policies issues in the legislative branch that is directly accountable to them and for defending our state’s sovereignty from further encroachment as a result of the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision,” Fowler concluded.

Media Contact: Laura Bagby, Director of Communications  |  Office Phone: 615-261-1338  |  Email: