Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma

Doesn't the fact that they're not proposing any kind of criminalization of homosexuality prove that they aren't these radical people who "hate gays?" Someone like Fred Phelps is a radical person who hates gays, who thinks that God is punishing America since we don't lock homosexuals up in prison. People like the Phelps are the actual extreme anti gay people, not your average evangelical Christians who just believe in the Biblical concept of traditional marriage.

No. Absolutely not. That proves nothing.
Phelps is way outside the bounds. I don't know many on these forums that would care for his views aside from Theocrat. However, the majority of socon Christians are just fine getting a knife twist where they are able while simultaneously reinforcing their belief system as the only and proper one.
And, honestly, there is a certain amount of laughability when the position is taken that letting gay marriage be recognized for benefits will be some kind of a huge drain on federally over reaching. How many gays are there? Common estimates are 5%. Yeah, letting gays get equal state and federal benefits are gonna be a huge drain on the already bloated system.
 
I just don't really understand all of the hate for social conservatives here when some of Ron's biggest supporters in 2008 and 2012 were social conservatives. The JBS and Constitution Party types were huge supporters of Ron when he ran for President. Why alienate those people?
 
Apples and oranges. Are people required to enter into Obamacare? No. Though there is a tax penalty if one does not have an insurance alternative. Are people required to pay into S.S. and is it an automatic deduction from a paycheck much like federal taxes are? Yes.

Okay. So how do you expect a state to actually nullify Obamacare? It still is a federal program after all. Anyway, most states are very large public sector employers. States could "nullify" by refusing to turn over SS withholdings to the federal government. Maybe not the wisest decision but it could happen. Regardless, if you want the government out of marriage, doing what the lawmaker in the OP is attempting is the only way I can see to actually accomplish that. I don't see any proposal from you to accomplish what you say you wish to accomplish.

Just a question, because it raises an interesting point, if you are for nullification of what you deem government over reach how would you feel about a state nullify an act such as the Civil Rights Act of '64. Granted there are things in it we both find common cause in, such as private property infringements, but what if a state nullified altogether. Deciding that state and municipal governments can deny access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.

State nullifying social security would increase personal liberty. Why do you think states blocking access to public facilities on the basis of race might increase personal liberty? :confused:
 
No, I am not talking about house raids. I think you know that. I am talking about the bogus belief of separate but equal. The belief that says "We don't care what other people do in their bedrooms. It's between them and God. I love the sinner but hate the sin. Look here, we allow them to have civil unions. Now we don't recognize it when it comes to state or federal laws. But, there is nothing stopping them from getting married."
It's bunk.

Except in this case there is no "separate". There's just "equal". The proposal is to get the government out of marriage. And somehow you think that's a "sanction"? :confused: You don't want to end or transform social security? really ;confused:
 
Agreed. But that's not the issue. The sad fact is that people die intestate every day. So the question remains: when the government is out of the marriage business, where does an intestate's property go? Please keep in mind I'm referring to both real and personal property.

Under most state intestacy statutes in effect today the property would go to the surviving spouse and/or children, because the law presumes that this is how most people would want their estate to pass. But if the government doesn't have a system of civil marriage, how is it to determine who the recipient should be?

I'm surprised that some of the posters opt for the government to take title to the estate instead of members of the decedent's family.

Once again, people have to apply for a marriage license. It takes no more effort to do that than it does to write a will. Also, prior to marriage being "licensed" and "recognized", the courts recognized common law marriages. Folks who were "married" in the eyes of the state could still be "married" in the eyes of the court. But again, why wouldn't someone get a will in lieu of a marriage license? That said, I suppose intestate succession laws could be amended to leave early possessions to "roommate" if there are no other relatives. That would keep stuff from going to the state.
 
Okay. So how do you expect a state to actually nullify Obamacare? It still is a federal program after all. Anyway, most states are very large public sector employers. States could "nullify" by refusing to turn over SS withholdings to the federal government. Maybe not the wisest decision but it could happen. Regardless, if you want the government out of marriage, doing what the lawmaker in the OP is attempting is the only way I can see to actually accomplish that. I don't see any proposal from you to accomplish what you say you wish to accomplish.



State nullifying social security would increase personal liberty. Why do you think states blocking access to public facilities on the basis of race might increase personal liberty? :confused:

Repealing CRA provisions would increase the personal liberty of the property owner to use their property as they see fit.
 
Okay. So how do you expect a state to actually nullify Obamacare? It still is a federal program after all. Anyway, most states are very large public sector employers. States could "nullify" by refusing to turn over SS withholdings to the federal government. Maybe not the wisest decision but it could happen. Regardless, if you want the government out of marriage, doing what the lawmaker in the OP is attempting is the only way I can see to actually accomplish that. I don't see any proposal from you to accomplish what you say you wish to accomplish.



State nullifying social security would increase personal liberty. Why do you think states blocking access to public facilities on the basis of race might increase personal liberty? :confused:

- double post
 
This is stupid. He still wants government involved.


Oklahoma bill would put an end to marriage licenses

Marriage licenses would become a thing of the past in Oklahoma under a bill filed by state Rep. Todd Russ.

The Cordell Republican says he wants to protect court clerks from having to issue licenses to same-sex couples. He doesn’t want these workers put in the position of having to condone or facilitate same-sex marriage.


Under his plan, a religious official would sign a couple’s marriage certificate, which would then be filed with the clerk. Marriages would no longer be performed by judges. If a couple did not have a religious official to preside over their wedding, they could file an affidavit of common law marriage.

“Marriages are not supposed to be a government thing anyway,” he said Wednesday.


Russ, a credentialed Assemblies of God minister, is upset with rulings that have supported same-sex marriage.

“There’s a lot of constituents and people across the state who are not through pushing back on the federal government for the slam down they’ve given us with Supreme Court rulings,” he said.

Same-sex marriage became legal in Oklahoma in October. That’s when the high court declined to review a federal court decision striking down a voter-approved ban on the practice.

It is now legal in 36 states and the District of Columbia. On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to determine whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

In 2004, Oklahoma voters approved, 1,075,216 to 347,303, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

“Oklahoma voted overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage, and yet the Supreme Court stuck it down our throats,” Russ said.

He called his House Bill 1125 an example of “conscience legislation,” meant to allow people to exercise their religious values in good conscience. He compared it to Hobby Lobby’s case against the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act.

Rep. David Brumbaugh, R-Broken Arrow, has also filed legislation concerning same-sex marriage. His bill seeks to prevent religious officials from having to “solemnize or recognize any marriage that violates the official’s conscience or religious beliefs.”

He said pastors came to him concerned that if they didn’t officiate same-sex marriages, their churches could lose tax-exempt status.

Toby Jenkins, executive director of Oklahomans for Equality, said that between Oct. 6 and mid-December, his group has documented 3,165 same-sex marriages in 23 counties.

He expressed disappointment with the two bills involving same-sex marriage.

“I was so hoping that our legislators would attend to the duties of our state and big issues like education, health care, dealing with crime and crumbling infrastructure,” he said. “I hoped they would make that their focus, but once again it sounds like Oklahoma legislators have decided to pick on a portion of our population.

“For 23 years, at least one anti-gay bill has been introduced every session. I was so hoping 2015 would be different.”

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-bill-would-put-an-end-to-marriage-licenses/article/5386633/?page=2
 
Last edited:
the only reason the govt cares about being involved in marriage is because of the income tax.. get rid of that tax and suddenly they wont have any concern of whom marries whom
 
This is stupid. He still wants government involved.


Oklahoma bill would put an end to marriage licenses
This was my assumption after reading the first page of this thread.. the govt will stop itself from being involved.. the ACLU calls that outlawing marriage.. whereas the state rep is just going to let the private churches and what not deal with it all
 
Back
Top