Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma

[torchbearer]

Uh...huh...and what strategy do you have to get us there? I have one! Get gays and straights united to push for a "benefits designee" position by denying "marriage" benefits to gays and straights! Seriously, if this actually passed I could see people in OK putting pressure on their reps to change how federal benefits are doled out. I don't see that happening from the "Let's temporarily expand the definition of marriage before we get rid of government recognition of marriage altogether" approach.

if you ever run for office, i'd like to be on your campaign. got a good head on the block.

 

[jmdrake]

http://newsok.com/news9-oklahoma-la...eep-same-sex-marriage-illegal/article/3926997
Turner says it's an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution.

I said provide a quote or STFU. I didn't say provide hearsay evidence for a not to be trusted media. Quote as in "statement inside quotation marks".

 

[pcosmar]

PCosmar is a hardcore liberal, probably the most liberal/progressive member of this forum. It's pretty far out there in left field for him to take the position that the federal government should try to overturn this proposed Oklahoma law.

LoL..

NO,, I am an Anti-Authoritarian.

I am also a Christian believer that believes that Gay Marriage is no marriage at all despite what the state says..
(Only God sanctions marriage)

It is Something that Government should have nothing to do with,, but as long as the Secular State is involved in any aspect of it,, then Equal Rights, Equal Protections and Equal Benefits should apply to all.

and denying "Marriage"(secular) to any group(arbitrary collective) is discrimination. Just as it was when Interracial Marriages(the same damn mindset) were banned.

 

[jmdrake]

if you ever run for office, i'd like to be on your campaign. got a good head on the block.

Thanks. But you were the one that convinced me of the "Get the government out of marriage" position.

 

[Origanalist]

Exactly. In its current form it is no different than Dr. Paul's proposal. And Dr. Paul has used pretty much the same arguments in the past that if you dont' like the idea of govt sanctioned gay marriage, then get the govt out of the marriage business!

Well, as long as it's not Ron Paul that proposed it, I guess it's all right.........

 

[jmdrake]

For the record I don't think you are a liberal. I think you are unfortunately taking spin by the liberal media and treating it like gospel. How many times has it been now where someone in the media claimed Ron Paul said something that he never actually said and it was just their interpretation of the man?

LoL..

NO,, I am an Anti-Authoritarian.

I am also a Christian believer that believes that Gay Marriage is no marriage at all despite what the state says..
(Only God sanctions marriage)

It is Something that Government should have nothing to do with,, but as long as the Secular State is involved in any aspect of it,, then Equal Rights, Equal Protections and Equal Benefits should apply to all.

and denying "Marriage"(secular) to any group(arbitrary collective) is discrimination. Just as it was when Interracial Marriages(the same damn mindset) were banned.

 

[pcosmar]

I said provide a quote or STFU. I didn't say provide hearsay evidence for a not to be trusted media. Quote as in "statement inside quotation marks".

The only "quote" out of his mouth (as far as I have seen) is some hearsay about his alleged constituents. The same empty quote you have posted several times.

 

[invisible]

Thanks. But you were the one that convinced me of the "Get the government out of marriage" position.

Ron Paul was the first person I've ever heard say it. That was in Des Moines in 2007, when he was asked about gay marriage at a meeting with religious figures (the "Pastors and Homeschoolers Conference").

 

[jmdrake]

Exactly. In its current form it is no different than Dr. Paul's proposal. And Dr. Paul has used pretty much the same arguments in the past that if you dont' like the idea of govt sanctioned gay marriage, then get the govt out of the marriage business!

I think we've become so accustomed to losing that when it actually looks like we're winning we don't know how to react.

 

[invisible]

PCosmar is a hardcore liberal, probably the most liberal/progressive member of this forum. It's pretty far out there in left field for him to take the position that the federal government should try to overturn this proposed Oklahoma law.

I also really had to laugh at this one!

 

[Sonny Tufts]

That is why I advocate for a "benefit designee" regarding federal benefits. It nips the problem in the bud. There doesn't have to be squabbling over who is getting what and why they are getting it.

Suppose the designated beneficiary is dead, and no alternate beneficiary is named?

If the government got out of the marriage business who would get the property of a person who dies without a will?

 

[pcosmar]

. I think you are unfortunately taking spin by the liberal media and treating it like gospel.

OH hell no, I am not making stuff up about the Social Controllers fight over marriage. And it certainly is not just "liberal Media". The SO Called Conservative sites go into conniptions every time some ill conceived law or ban is overturned.

As in this case.

The Marriage Ban was struck down as unconstitutional,, and the Prohibitionists are having fits.

 

[invisible]

This is pretty ridiculous. We have here a real opportunity to put front and center right in peoples faces the consequences of granting government power they shouldn't have, and a opportunity to take it away.

Who gives a damn what reason people have for finally understanding it's not in their best interest for government to have that power?

Exactly. Unfortunately, here in OK, it won't really be viewed that way. Here it will be seen through the lens of it being a 10th Amendment issue, and not really looking any further than that. But as phill4paul says, the part that is and will even more interesting to follow is the discussion here that is only starting, about what the ramifications and unintended consequences of the bill will be.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Liberals have been falsely painting the debate as "legalizing" gay marriage VS making it "illegal", and I strongly suspect that the ACLU is enhancing that perception here. I seriously doubt they actually want to ban marriage in Oklahoma. I assume they just wouldn't recognize either straight or gay marriages, which is what we want. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[jmdrake]

The only "quote" out of his mouth (as far as I have seen) is some hearsay about his alleged constituents. The same empty quote you have posted several times.

My point exactly. There is no quote where he says that this is an effort to "keep gay marriage illegal". Glad you finally realized that. So, we have a quote from him that you call "empty hearsay" and we have the lamestream media putting words in his mouth. That's it. Now lets analyze the "empty hearsay" of his constituents. It is not hearsay to say that Rep. Turner said his constituents are open to the idea of getting the government out of marriage. So...have you ever politician come out and say "My constituents feel X so I'm going to do Y"? Usually politicians will at least find some constituents that believe Y and state that as one of their reasons for their action. And, do you honestly think, Turner hasn't had any constituents say "Let's make gay marriage illegal altogether"? Because....I don't. So the fact that he picked those particular constituents to quote tells you something. But if you're going to assume the worst about this man and what he is trying to do...

 

[Christian Liberty]

PCosmar is a hardcore liberal, probably the most liberal/progressive member of this forum. It's pretty far out there in left field for him to take the position that the federal government should try to overturn this proposed Oklahoma law.

Considering I've seen him positively quote Chuck Baldwin at least a couple times, I really doubt this is true.

 

[jmdrake]

OH hell no, I am not making stuff up about the Social Controllers fight over marriage. And it certainly is not just "liberal Media". The SO Called Conservative sites go into conniptions every time some ill conceived law or ban is overturned.

As in this case.

The Marriage Ban was struck down as unconstitutional,, and the Prohibitionists are having fits.

I didn't say you were making up stuff about "Social Controllers fight over marriage". I'm saying you claimed Rep. Turner said something that you don't actually have the source to back up. All you have is the media saying what he said. Why can't you just admit that?

 

[jmdrake]

Suppose the designated beneficiary is dead, and no alternate beneficiary is named?

If the government got out of the marriage business who would get the property of a person who dies without a will?

What happens if a single person dies without a will? If you don't have a will you are saying "Government....please decide what will happen to my property when I did." Do you know about Steig Larson, the man who wrote the "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" books? Well he had a girlfriend that he apparently loved but never married. He hated his biological family. He died without a will. Guess who got all the proceeds?

While the federal benefit issue is difficult to unravel, inheritance is not. The same effort it takes to apply for a marriage license is what it takes to write a will that says "I leave all my earthly possessions to X." Seriously, a will in most states can be that simple.

 

[Origanalist]

Considering I've seen him positively quote Chuck Baldwin at least a couple times, I really doubt this is true.

I know, that one came out of left field. (pun intended)

 

[Origanalist]

What happens if a single person dies without a will? If you don't have a will you are saying "Government....please decide what will happen to my property when I did." Do you know about Steig Larson, the man who wrote the "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" books? Well he had a girlfriend that he apparently loved but never married. He hated his biological family. He died without a will. Guess who got all the proceeds?

While the federal benefit issue is difficult to unravel, inheritance is not. The same effort it takes to apply for a marriage license is what it takes to write a will that says "I leave all my earthly possessions to X." Seriously, a will in most states can be that simple.

Exactly. That simply falls under the catagory of personal responsibility.