Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma

[pcosmar]

but a good bill from the looks of it.

??
It looks good ?

So does the emperors new robe.

 

[Petar]

I have read several sources in searching for the actual text,, Which no one has.

They all,, (including Faux Snooze) present it's purpose as an attempt to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal,, and in opposition to Equal Protection under the Law.

It may spark debate about getting Government out of the equation.. But that is not the focus.

It is focused on preventing Gay marriage.

Wow Pete, I guess you really are just one of those people who can't admit when they are wrong... they are trying to remove government from marriage altogether, and all you can do is sit here and make up alternate realities to describe what is happening... suit yourself I guess...

 

[invisible]

For the life of me I can't find it. I tried. His profile page at the Oklahoma state legislature has links for every bill he authored in 2013.

http://www.okhouse.gov/District.aspx?District=82

There's no mention of marriage in any of them. He first took office in 2013 so there's no earlier dates. Maybe this bill was introduced this month and no link to it is up yet? I did find this:

HB 1429 by Turner Receive Email Updates for this Measure (LENS)

Revenue and taxation; exempting qualifying firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies from state sales tax under specified conditions; effective date; emergency.

Nothing to do with marriage, but a good bill from the looks of it.

It's 2014 now. Try looking in the bills filed for the upcoming session.

 

[jmdrake]

I have read several sources in searching for the actual text,, Which no one has.

They all,, (including Faux Snooze) present it's purpose as an attempt to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal,, and in opposition to Equal Protection under the Law.

It may spark debate about getting Government out of the equation.. But that is not the focus.

It is focused on preventing Gay marriage.

Give it up Pete! The only text of the bill that anyone has put up says noncodification. In other words, the bill is about not recognizing gay marriage and it seeks to do saw by ending government recognition of other marriages. It doesn't matter a flying fig what said "purpose" of the bill is. As I've already explained, and you have yet to respond to, gay marriage is not currently illegal in Oklahoma or anywhere else. So the effect of this bill, in the unlikely event that it actually passed, would not be to prevent gay marriage or any other marriage. It's really no different than Ron Paul saying "I want Israel to be able to defend itself and not to support Israel's enemies." Does that make Ron Paul a Zionist? Nope. But when he says that he's putting his ideas into language that supporters of Israel can understand and not be offended by.

 

[phill4paul]

I think you're missing the point. Yes, that is EXACTLY the intent: to keep gay marriage from becoming state sanctioned in OK. But whether or not you or anyone else agrees with that (I personally don't really agree with it either, I don't care who marries who, it's none of my business), don't the states have the right to make their own laws, instead of having the federal gov't cram it down their throats?

Unfortunately, it is a tangled web. There are over 1k statutory provisions in federal law linked to marriage. Marriage defined by the state in which one lives in.

This to me will be the interesting conversation to come of this. If NO marriage is recognized by the state of OK will that mean that no Oklahoman's will receive marriage benefits from the fed?

 

[erowe1]

I have read several sources in searching for the actual text,, Which no one has.

They all,, (including Faux Snooze) present it's purpose as an attempt to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal,, and in opposition to Equal Protection under the Law.

It may spark debate about getting Government out of the equation.. But that is not the focus.

It is focused on preventing Gay marriage.

That's a good thing. We need to get people who are against gay marriage to see this as their proper response. And this needs to happen before gay marriage becomes the status quo in most states.

 

[invisible]

Wow Pete, I guess you really are just one of those people who can't admit when they are wrong... they are trying to remove government from marriage altogether, and all you can do is sit here and make up alternate realities to describe what is happening... suit yourself I guess...

He's not making up an alternate reality. He's correctly stating the intent of a bill filed in response to the federal gov't trying to overturn a state's law.

 

[jmdrake]

??
It looks good ?

So does the emperors new robe.

You've got another copy of the bill? POST IT ALREADY! But I'm glad you brought up the emperors new robe. You've really undermined your own argument. The point of that story is that it didn't matter what the emperor thought the clothes would do but what they actually did do. By the same token, if this bill says its to "keep gay marriage illegal" then it doesn't actually do that because gay marriage isn't actually illegal. What gay marriage is is unrecognized.

 

[invisible]

Unfortunately, it is a tangled web. There are over 1k statutory provisions in federal law linked to marriage. Marriage defined by the state in which one lives in.

This to me will be the interesting conversation to come of this. If NO marriage is recognized by the state of OK will that mean that no Oklahoman's will receive marriage benefits from the fed?

Exactly! The unintended ramifications of this bill are only just starting to be discussed here. People are starting to go, "hey wait a second, if we do that, then...." This is one worth grabbing the popcorn for!

 

[jmdrake]

He's not making up an alternate reality. He's correctly stating the intent of a bill filed in response to the federal gov't trying to overturn a state's law.

Yes. But Oklahoma state law does not ban gay marriage. It simply doesn't recognize gay marriage. This bill, if it's going to treat all marriages the same as gay marriage, means that marriage would no longer be recognized in Oklahoma. No more marriage licenses for anyone.

 

[pcosmar]

I think you're missing the point.

, don't the states have the right to make their own laws,

To a point.

Do states have the right to Raid your home without a warrant?
Can a state outlaw Firearms entirely?
Can a State Move others into your house,, against your wishes?

Can the state forbid redheads from Marring? or having children?

Can a state write a law preventing Non-Christians from practicing their religion?

NO, That is the Correct purpose of the Federal Government,, Preventing Discrimination and Abuse at the State level.

 

[jmdrake]

Unfortunately, it is a tangled web. There are over 1k statutory provisions in federal law linked to marriage. Marriage defined by the state in which one lives in.

This to me will be the interesting conversation to come of this. If NO marriage is recognized by the state of OK will that mean that no Oklahoman's will receive marriage benefits from the fed?

Exactly! The unintended ramifications of this bill are only just starting to be discussed here. People are starting to go, "hey wait a second, if we do that, then...." This is one worth grabbing the popcorn for!

Exactly! The conversation we need to have is "Why do we need a social security system that doesn't let people give their money to whoever they want? Why do we have an income tax system that sometimes benefits and sometimes punishes people for being married? Why do I have to be married to someone for does that person have to be a pastor or lawyer for them to be able to legally keep my confidence?"

 

[jmdrake]

To a point.

Do states have the right to Raid your home without a warrant?
Can a state outlaw Firearms entirely?
Can a State Move others into your house,, against your wishes?

Can the state forbid redheads from Marring? or having children?

Can a state write a law preventing Non-Christians from practicing their religion?

NO, That is the Correct purpose of the Federal Government,, Preventing Discrimination and Abuse at the State level.

And in this case a state rep is taking the non-discriminatory position that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

 

[pcosmar]

You've got another copy of the bill? POST IT ALREADY!
.

No I haven't seen it. And neither have you.

But to you it looks good (having never seen it)

I am only going by it's stated purpose. (prohibition) and that it was presented in opposition to Equal Rights.

and that does not look good to me at all..

 

[erowe1]

NO, That is the Correct purpose of the Federal Government,, Preventing Discrimination and Abuse at the State level.

I surprised you believe that. I definitely don't. Once we say that a top-down form of government is ethical, I think we undermine everything else that (I think) you and I both stand for.

 

[pcosmar]

And in this case a state rep is taking the non-discriminatory position that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

I don't know that.
I have not seen the Bill.

 

[pcosmar]

I surprised you believe that. I definitely don't. Once we say that a top-down form of government is ethical, I think we undermine everything else that (I think) you and I both stand for.

You don't think there should be Constitutional Protections?? Or you don't think they should be enforced?

Do you believe that states can violate the Bill of Rights at will?

 

[invisible]

To a point.

Do states have the right to Raid your home without a warrant?
Can a state outlaw Firearms entirely?
Can a State Move others into your house,, against your wishes?

Can the state forbid redheads from Marring? or having children?

Can a state write a law preventing Non-Christians from practicing their religion?

NO, That is the Correct purpose of the Federal Government,, Preventing Discrimination and Abuse at the State level.

Oh, I agree. But I don't necessarily feel that this falls into the category of "abuse at the state level", the reason being that marriage laws have been pretty much what they are for some time - look at the history of marriage laws in the US, gay marriage was never been an issue until recently. But OTOH, there was also a time when some states had laws against interracial marriage -this whole gay marriage thing is pretty much a repeat of that same fight over who is allowed to marry who.

edit: Also, if you don't like the laws of one state, you do have the right to move to another. Just like we make the argument that a state can legalize MJ if they want to, that doesn't mean that another state is discriminating if they keep it illegal.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't know that.
I have not seen the Bill.

Okay. I thought you said you had seen the bill, but now I see you saying that you have not seen it. But you try to talk about what Rep Turner said. Well...did you watch the video? I did. Nowhere did he say "I'm trying to ban gay marriage" or "I'm trying to keep gay marriage illegal." Sorry, but you've been had by propaganda from the lamestream media.

 

[erowe1]

You don't think there should be Constitutional Protections?? Or you don't think they should be enforced?

Do you believe that states can violate the Bill of Rights at will?

I don't believe that there should be any top-down governments at all, where a more distant regime (like the one in DC) imposes its military might on more local ones (like Indiana or Egypt) to make sure they have the kind of government it says they must. This belief of mine doesn't change even when those more local regimes are wrong about something and the more distant one is right. Even if the Iraq War really were about replacing a tyrannical regime with a righteous one, it still would have been wrong.

If you want the federal government to have teeth to make sure the states respect the Bill of Rights, then all I can think of that it should be able to do is just cut them off from the Union, and tell them that they forego the benefits of membership. Of course, the irony of that is that every state in the Union would be made better off by doing that.