Marriage doesn’t need “to be regulated by the state at all,” say Republicans

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,974
Criminal Mexi Midget
OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma Republicans are promoting a bill that would make marriage a private institution in their state. The legislation, filed by Rep. Mike Turner, could end all government regulation of marriage and leave the matter to individuals and their churches. The ACLU has called the bill the first of its kind in the US.

In an interview with Oklahoma’s News9, Turner made a reasonable, liberty-minded case for his bill, expressing skepticism as to whether “marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all.” He said there is a “realistic opportunity” for the bill to succeed.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/oklahoma-divorce-marriage-government-video/#axzz2rZDcBgmv

what say you.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
Haters gonna hate. Seems a convenient way to make marriage a religious institution. Not gonna happen.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,248
Scotland
Actually I'd prefer a Constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a long-term bond between consenting adults and that people who enter into such a bond get equal treatment under the law (namely, no difference between same-sex marriage and other forms of marriage on spousal rights such as insurance, pension, etc.).
 

barkomatic

macrumors 601
Aug 8, 2008
4,027
1,798
Manhattan
I don't usually agree with Libertarian or Republican efforts to define marriage -- but based upon the excerpt you provided what they are proposing is an interesting idea.

I don't think traditional marriage, and its related divorce industry works well in our society anymore and it may be time to re-think how we institutionalize relationships. As long as gay people are treated equally I'm open to a conversation about it. However, there would need to be a way for people to get "married" outside of a church or without a churchs permission.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,667
1,738
Having read it through, it doesn't make that much sense. What makes sense is to allow churches to determine whether they wish to perform marriage services for same sex couples. Beyond that they cannot claim they are being forced to act against their religion. I don't see how they would work around the civil aspects, considering some of those extend to the federal level.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,974
Criminal Mexi Midget
I don't usually agree with Libertarian or Republican efforts to define marriage -- but based upon the excerpt you provided what they are proposing is an interesting idea.

I don't think traditional marriage, and its related divorce industry works well in our society anymore and it may be time to re-think how we institutionalize relationships. As long as gay people are treated equally I'm open to a conversation about it.
nice post :D
 

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2009
2,104
2,162
IOKWARDI
Marriage is a legal contract between two individuals who want to commit to each other. The state provides a handy predefined template for such a contract, but individuals do have a certain amount of leeway in customizing their commitment.

If Oklahomans travel to Arkansas or New Mexico to get married, Oklahoma still must recognize their marriages. Striking the language from the books is hardly enough to just make the problem go away.
 

NewbieCanada

macrumors 68030
Oct 9, 2007
2,565
34
Having read it through, it doesn't make that much sense. What makes sense is to allow churches to determine whether they wish to perform marriage services for same sex couples. Beyond that they cannot claim they are being forced to act against their religion. I don't see how they would work around the civil aspects, considering some of those extend to the federal level.
There's no need to "allow" them to do that. Churches have always had the legal right to perform services for whoever they want. That right has never been challenged anywhere.

----------

I don't usually agree with Libertarian or Republican efforts to define marriage -- but based upon the excerpt you provided what they are proposing is an interesting idea.

I don't think traditional marriage, and its related divorce industry works well in our society anymore and it may be time to re-think how we institutionalize relationships. As long as gay people are treated equally I'm open to a conversation about it. However, there would need to be a way for people to get "married" outside of a church or without a churchs permission.
The United States do not exist in a vacuum. Marriage is a concept that is understood and recognized around the world. Every single country. Religious. Secular. Even freaking North Korea. Would you want, for example, an American couple visiting a Muslim country to be arrested for adultery because they aren't married? Or force people immigrating to the United States to dissolve their (say) Argentine or German marriage and have a new one in the US?
 

dec.

Suspended
Apr 15, 2012
1,322
747
Toronto
I think there are too many legal issues that marriage affects, like divorce (yep, apparently Adam DOES get tired of Eve sometimes), child custody rulings, inheritance laws, immigration issues... how would these be regulated?

I wonder if the "traditional (A&E) marriage" crowd would feel their marriage being devalued by such a change, since it shouldn't be a problem at all for anyone to get married to anyone, we welcome "The First Branch of Oklahomas Extremely Gay Friendly Catholic Church"!
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,974
Criminal Mexi Midget
it would make more sense to eliminate the churches from the picture, rather than the state.
Why settle for half-measures?

They both have no business in a contract between adults.
a "marriage" contract from a church has no legal standing with the GOVT. nothing more than a simple paper , no more valid than monopoly money.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,667
1,738
There's no need to "allow" them to do that. Churches have always had the legal right to perform services for whoever they want. That right has never been challenged anywhere.
That's what I thought, although I wasn't sure. I have mentioned that the religious aspect is typically presented through logical absurdities. They concern themselves with government interference in religion, yet want a certain kind of interference (in their favor) ignoring that it could infringe on the beliefs of another religion with differing rules. I would personally like to see these things settled faster. The entire issue consumes a lot of money and resources trying to limit the rights of others where they can't even demonstrate provable harm.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
A couple of comments from the OP's article ...

Not a totally favorable thing for anyone when it comes to an annulment or divorce. How would you feel if your church said no to a divorce, because they don't believe in it. Do laws have to be made so the church can say who gets custody, how much child support is to be paid, etc. It's not something churches do, and besides, how would lawyers make a decent living.
And in reply to that comment ...

If marriage becomes a private issue, then so does divorce. Get the government out of both institutions. If a couple married outside of government regulation desires a divorce, let the church--or whatever organization pronounced them married--decide on how the dissolution should be resolved. Folks are intelligent enough to do that.
So by that logic, would this be an invitation to bring Sharia Law into play for any Muslims married under Islam?
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,974
Criminal Mexi Midget
A couple of comments from the OP's article ...



And in reply to that comment ...



So by that logic, would this be an invitation to bring Sharia Law into play for any Muslims married under Islam?
Church documents have no legal standing, church & state are separate, as they should be
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,036
16,505
The Misty Mountains
If I understand it correctly, a private institution means that gays would find someone to marry them too. That seems contrary to the conservative agenda. The problem is property rights and family access. This will always be controlled by the courts. Very odd behavior for members of a country founded on the concept of freedom, new motto "freedom that falls within my religious tolerance..." :p
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Church documents have no legal standing, church & state are separate, as they should be
Except as proposed in Oklahoma.

----------

If I understand it correctly, a private institution means that gays would find someone to marry them too. That seems contrary to the conservative agenda.
This is what I don't get as well. If you let adults make this decision for themselves, then surely gays would marry.

I suspect there is a follow-up law lurking in the shadows ...
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,974
Criminal Mexi Midget
If I understand it correctly, a private institution means that gays would find someone to marry them too. That seems contrary to the conservative agenda. The problem is property rights and family access. This will always be controlled by the courts. Very odd behavior for members of a country founded on the concept of freedom, new motto "freedom that falls within my religious tolerance..." :p
Gays can get a church marriage certificate from a church that recognizes them, Methodist /episcopalian
Except as proposed in Oklahoma.
Completely irrelevant & invalid to the Feds , besides, look above