Oklahoma GOP wants to restrict marriage to people of faith

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, Jan 26, 2015.

  1. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    So now christians own marriage? And do we need more reasons why our founding fathers were smart enough not to make this a christian state?
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...ants-to-restrict-marriage-to-people-of-faith/
    Atheists need not apply: A bill proposed by Oklahoma Republicans would restrict the right to marry to people of faith, and would mandate all marriage licenses be approved by a member of the clergy.
    House Bill 1125, filed on Tuesday by Republican State Representative Todd Russ, is a radical measure that would end secular marriage licenses in the state. In addition, the bill would bar all judges and other secular officials from performing marriages in Oklahoma.
    Russ claims the radical legislation is motivated by his desire to protect court clerks from having to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Russ says he doesn’t want these workers put in the position of having to condone or facilitate same-sex marriage.
    The lawmaker is unapologetic about the fact his bill would restrict marriage to people of faith. Concerning non-believers he said:
    They don’t have a spiritual basis for a marriage and don’t want to have a clergy member or a priest or someone involved in the spiritual aspect, then they can file an affidavit of common-law marriage.
    Russ claims those not wanting to get married by a religious official could file an affidavit through the court clerk’s office claiming common-law marriage. However, as KSWO-TV reports Oklahoma does not currently recognize common law marriages.
     
  2. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
  3. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #3
    this reminds me of the same tactics to eliminate abortion fight in indirectly.
     
  4. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #4
    One of the most infuriating things still in politics is these absolute morons that still hump the bible and seek legislation in the name of our dear savior.

    Never mind the fact the bible is a mere few hundred years old and based on stories that were passed down several times. Never mind the fact the bible condones slavery and spousal abuse. Nah forget all that. The bible hates gay people!
     
  5. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #5
    all the bible says is that men having sex with men is bad. nothing about people being gay nothing about woman being gay what it dos not say is 100,000 more then what it does. but lets just make a blanket statement that fits our faith.
     
  6. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #6
    It's kinda funny. Gays didn't like the common law option, they wanted holy matrimony. Now everybody who's not religious gets a common law marriage so we can keep the gays company.

    It'll never fly, of course. But that's what's great about this country: religious tolerance means we have to let the people who believe in god have their say too.
     
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    They can have all the say they want ... in their own home or church.

    Have all the say you want there.
     
  8. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #8
    It's kinda funny how you try to rewrite history. Gays would have been more than willing to settle for "civil unions" just 10 years ago. However, the sweeping unconstitutional bans that were being passed by voters across the country also included, for the most part, bans on all recognition of same sex unions including civil unions and domestic partnerships. So with that working against them, "the gay agenda" decided to wait a decade and sue for full marriage rights. The religious right's attempt to degrade homosexuals came back and bit them on the ass much faster than they would have imagined it happening. Now they're all pissy about it.

    As for holy matrimony, there's nothing holy about a piece of paper you get at town hall. Christians don't own the the term "marriage".
     
  9. DonJudgeMe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Location:
    Arizona
    #9
    Oh, if only that was the way it worked...:D
     
  10. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #10
    But religions do get to have their laws in the US:

    [T]he heavily Muslim city of Dearborn, Mich., passed an ordinance that allows the call to prayer to be broadcast over loudspeakers. Khan believes that the rapid growth of American Islam means that more towns will enact laws friendly to the religion — such as banning alcohol or gambling. Of course, Christians have already done that in some cases by creating dry counties or passing blue laws that prohibit shopping on Sunday​

    So it's a question of where marriage rates on the scale from allowing the banning of shopping on Sunday to not allowing Sharia law.

    I really can't see that law passing in its current form, but if it does, I'd be shocked if the courts allow it to stand.

    ----------

    Wups! I think you're right. I got mixed up with civil unions and common law marriages.

    My mistake.
     
  11. sjinsjca macrumors 68000

    sjinsjca

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    #11
    Speaking personally: It always offended me that I needed a license to get married to my wife. A license is permission… and what possible legitimacy could there be for some form-filling county clerk to grant permission (or not) for me to marry?

    And so I’ve spent the past three decades very much opposed to the government having any such role. But, of course, this thing we call marriage has legal ramifications, such as establishing rules for making medical decisions by one’s spouse when one is incapacitated. So it’s important that government at least recognize the partnership we call marriage.

    In this case, what IMHO is basically a good idea is proposed in a way that deserves some attention: it replaces the form-filling county clerk with a form-filling member of the clergy, or there’s an option for a form-filing court clerk instead.

    It’s great to limit the role of government, especially when it comes to such a fundamental overreach as granting permission for marriage. And this looks to be a start.

    Meanwhile, the shrieking headline of this thread (and the linked article) is false. As http://www.kswo.com/story/27918885/proposed-bill-would-end-marriage-licenses notes, "Those not wanting to get married by a religious official could file an affidavit through the court clerk's office claiming common-law marriage."
     
  12. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #12
    seems you missed that there is no common law in that state and common law dos not give legal rights. Kind of like having to have abortion insurance where there is no such thing. wait just pass another law to fix this proposed one. meanwhile christians get more rights then others do.
     
  13. scjr macrumors 68000

    scjr

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    #13
    Another futile attempt to deny our citizenry: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    If it should pass, it will be struck down in the courts. Politicians should be spending more time fixing the huge budget mess in Oklahoma and less time on this ugliness.
     
  14. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #14
    The concept of marriage isn't really unique to Christians. Even if you decoupled every bit of state involvement, it would be impossible to ban individual churches from performing such ceremonies, at least on the basis of upholding religious beliefs.
     
  15. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    I dont see the problem, the GOVT should change "marriage" to "civil union" for EVERYONE, let the Christians have their "marriage"
     
  16. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #16
    I more or less agree with you. I think it is time to recognize the fact that people of all types get married. The church has its own term, holy matrimony, anyway, as you alluded to.

    I agree and disagree. The state (i.e. the government) needs a way to recognize what responsibilities people are accepting for caring for each other and each other's finances, debts, contracts, etc., and the care and feeding of children. If we all lived out on frontier, like Andrew Jackson did when young, it really wouldn't matter. Serious disputes were settled with a duel. But, in the cities, people preferred, and prefer, to let the courts settle disputes.

    Sure. We all agree to call this "marriage".

    But the bill, as proposed, makes no sense, because the people would not be claiming common law marriage, they would be married.

    Some Christian churches use the term "holy matrimony" precisely because they want to distinguish the religious aspect from the officially legal contract and/or civil/social construct that is "marriage".
     
  17. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    [​IMG]
     
  18. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #18
    Why pander? Christians never "had marriage" to begin with. Civil Marriage Licenses have been called that for a long time, that's just the name of that type of legal contract. Why should the government change the name of something that's so deeply rooted and established instead of simply opening it up to people who were previously wrongly banned from it? Couples, whether gay or straight, will still refer to themselves as married. No one will say they're getting "civil unioned".
     
  19. TimelessOne macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2014
    #19
    And yet again the gop is proving why they are the party of hate and bigotry.

    Vote for gop = vote for hate and bigotry.
    Now this law would quickly die in the courts. I would not be surprised to see a law past like voter rights of the past that certain states have to get clearance before they can pass things like this as they will show a long history of putting in restrictions.
     
  20. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #20
    True. Go back far enough, and the marriage ritual could be as simple as jumping over a broom.

    But you won't get federal benefits if that's how you got married.

    ----------

    And the religious would say that same-sex marriage once again proves that the Democrat party is the party of hate and bigotry and intolerance toward the religious.

    Vote for Democrats = vote for hate and bigotry and intolerance.
     
  21. DonJudgeMe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Location:
    Arizona
    #21
    This is great news!

    You guys, we gave convinced the religious nuts that being miserable is only for those that believe in God!

    I'm FREE!:D
     
  22. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #22
    Only difference would be that they would be wrong, since allowing gay couples to receive civil marriage licenses would have zero effect on religious people, whereas gay marriage bans cause immediate harm to gay couples and their children. The religious right's attempt to turn the "bigot" label around on pro-equality advocates has been a colossal failure, stop trying to make fetch happen Gretchen. Nothing bigoted about marriage equality, unless you're a bigot of course.
     
  23. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #23
    That an easy answer taxes. :rolleyes:
     
  24. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #24
    How are Christians forced to get gay married? nope they are not faith is personal and gay marriage does to effect them. but they are sure willing to force their faith on others. really they seem to not understand the end result of these laws not everyone is a conservative white christian.
     
  25. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #25
    I'm starting to get an overweliming feeling of living in a country run by idiots. You know, he means well.:rolleyes:
     

Share This Page