Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma

[specsaregood]

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

Nobody has; so let's be friendly and not argue about speculation. All we know is what the author said and what the basic introduction of the bill says:

"[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all," Turner said.

AS INTRODUCED
An Act relating to marriage; creating the Preservation of Marriage Act (POMA); providing for noncodification; and providing an effective date.
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB2466&Tab=0

Both of those things sound positive to me. Let's hope that Rep. Turner gets back to Suz and she posts his comments here. Heck, maybe he'll feel inclined to join in the discussion if we stay civil.

 

[jmdrake]

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?

Constitutional protections for what? You believe that there is a constitutional right to have a marriage license? Seriously? What's next? If a state decides not to regulate firearms at all, will you be upset because they've taken away your constitutional right to have a gun permit? People need to have a right to have the government limit their rights? WTF?

 

[phill4paul]

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.

In the video he says that before filing he will see how the appeals work regarding the gay marriage ban. So, Pete is correct (IMHO) in that he is merely bringing this up as a way prevent gay marriage as opposed to "getting government out of marriage" or he would go ahead and file the bill regardless.

I hope that OK loses its appeal and that this bill goes forward. It is a much needed discussion regardless of the motivation.

 

[torchbearer]

Constitutional protections for what? You believe that there is a constitutional right to have a marriage license? Seriously? What's next? If a state decides not to regulate firearms at all, will you be upset because they've taken away your constitutional right to have a gun permit? People need to have a right to have the government limit their rights? WTF?

I like that one.

 

[invisible]

In the video he says that before filing he will see how the appeals work regarding the gay marriage ban. So, Pete is correct (IMHO) in that he is merely bringing this up as a way prevent gay marriage as opposed to "getting government out of marriage" or he would go ahead and file the bill regardless.

I hope that OK loses its appeal and that this bill goes forward. It is a much needed discussion regardless of the motivation.

Yes. That is EXACTLY what this is all about. This has been all over the news here, people here are pissed about the court ruling.

 

[invisible]

Constitutional protections for what? You believe that there is a constitutional right to have a marriage license? Seriously? What's next? If a state decides not to regulate firearms at all, will you be upset because they've taken away your constitutional right to have a gun permit? People need to have a right to have the government limit their rights? WTF?

I thought that one was better, lol.

 

[torchbearer]

I thought that one was better, lol.

that is why i see non-codification as code speak for really small almost non-existant government.
maybe at the end, the capitol of oklahoma will be the size of a rural post office.
and I will move there to be with distant kin.

 

[specsaregood]

In the video he says that before filing he will see how the appeals work regarding the gay marriage ban. So, Pete is correct (IMHO) in that he is merely bringing this up as a way prevent gay marriage as opposed to "getting government out of marriage" or he would go ahead and file the bill regardless.
I hope that OK loses its appeal and that this bill goes forward. It is a much needed discussion regardless of the motivation.

It could just be a matter of political expediency. ie: If OK wins the appeal then he knows there wont be any real support for his bill from either side so he doesn't want to waste his time or political capital.

 

[invisible]

that is why i see non-codification as code speak for really small almost non-existant government.
maybe at the end, the capitol of oklahoma will be the size of a rural post office.
and I will move there to be with distant kin.

I'm very glad that I moved here! But I'll admit that the hardcore religious conservative attitude that is so prevalent here is difficult to swallow. Seriously, when you meet someone for the first time, one of the first questions they ask is "what church do you go to?" Come on up, you'll be just in time to help a Ron Paul supporter into the Governor's office, and perhaps get a few more into the State Legislature. Not to mention the possibility of good people running for Coburn and wankford's seats. Can you just imagine what will happen if a Governor who endorsed and campaigned for Ron Paul is elected?

 

[erowe1]

Constitutional protections for what? You believe that there is a constitutional right to have a marriage license? Seriously? What's next? If a state decides not to regulate firearms at all, will you be upset because they've taken away your constitutional right to have a gun permit? People need to have a right to have the government limit their rights? WTF?

Great point.

And sadly, I think it points to a problem we're going to face. Getting the government out of marriage is only attractive to most of the pro-gay marriage people when it looks like same-sex marriage licenses are not going to be a possibility. Now that the tide is turning, and most people think they're inevitable, and will turn the government into a tool that advances the gay agenda, rather than impedes, it, those on that side won't want to give that up.

 

[pcosmar]

What's next? If a state decides not to regulate firearms at all, will you be upset because they've taken away your constitutional right to have a gun permit?

NO,, That is not what this proposes, (from what has been stated)

And no text of the proposal has been presented.

I would be fine with eliminating all permits.. and all laws preventing anyone from possessing and carrying a gun in any manner they choose.

This aims to prohibit,, and to prohibit Gay marriage they will prohibit all marriage.

I would be fine with eliminating Licensing,, and even recognition. As Long as no one it prevented or prohibited.

Read the Bill. I will whenever it is posted.. But the stated purpose (thus far) is Prohibition.

 

[jmdrake]

Can you just imagine what will happen if a Governor who endorsed and campaigned for Ron Paul is elected?

 

[pcosmar]

Constitutional protections for what?

Equal rights under the Law.

You believe that there is a constitutional right to have a marriage license?

NO. I do not even believe it is necessary. It is however a reality.. and as such,, it has financial benefits,, and legal benefits.

So denying those benefits is a violation of Equal Rights under the Law.

 

[erowe1]

So denying those benefits is a violation of Equal Rights under the Law.

The only way to change that is by getting rid of all state recognition of marriage. If there is not equal protection under the law, then that inequality is centered around the distinction between the married (whoever they are) and the unmarried (whoever they are). Redefining the married category to include more people won't do a single thing to lessen that unequal protection between the married and the unmarried.

 

[jmdrake]

NO,, That is not what this proposes, (from what has been stated)

What has been stated by who? Provide a quote or, in your own words, STFU.

And no text of the proposal has been presented.

Wrong. The text of the shell legislation has been presented. The problem is all that exists currently is a shell.

Here. Read it for yourself. Others have but you've been too busy spouting off your opinion to get informed.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14 INT/hB/HB2466 INT.PDF

Where do you think people got the term "noncodification" from?

I would be fine with eliminating all permits.. and all laws preventing anyone from possessing and carrying a gun in any manner they choose.

Good for you.

This aims to prohibit,, and to prohibit Gay marriage they will prohibit all marriage.

Says the liberal media, the ACLU and you. But gay marriage is not prohibited in any state and was not prohibited before the so called "ban" on gay marriage was overturned in Oklahoma. So if the effect of the proposed bill is to keep gay marriage as it was before the "ban" was overturned, then you are wrong. If, on the other hand, a law is drafted that states that anyone who gets married will face legal punishment, be in fine or imprisonment, then I will agree with you and eat crow. If not, you will agree with me and eat crow. Deal? How would you like your crow cooked? I'm thinking Cajun.

I would be fine with eliminating Licensing,, and even recognition. As Long as no one it prevented or prohibited.

Well before the "ban" on gay marriage was overturned, gays were not prevented or prohibited from getting married. And this is the crux of the problem of the debate. The word "ban" is being misused.

Read the Bill. I will whenever it is posted.. But the stated purpose (thus far) is Prohibition.

The bill in its current form, which is just a shell, has been posted. Now I challenge, no I defy you to come up with any quote from Rep Turner where he says anything about the need for marriage, gay or otherwise, to be "prohibited". You keep saying that, but you have yet to provide a quote. Methinks its because you don't have one and all you are going from is the claim from the liberal media about what he said. It's like you've become one of the neocons who read Fox news saying "Ron Paul says give into terrorism" without ever trying to find out what Ron Paul actually said.

 

[invisible]

Exactly. Brogdon got something like 40% in the 2010 primary when the Drone Queen first ran for the office. She isn't very popular these days. Brogdon has a really good chance. In the State Legislature, he was one of the prime movers behind anti real id and anti globalist legislation. There is already a thread for this is in "Liberty Candidates" section.

 

[jmdrake]

Equal rights under the Law.


NO. I do not even believe it is necessary. It is however a reality.. and as such,, it has financial benefits,, and legal benefits.

So denying those benefits is a violation of Equal Rights under the Law.

Except IF A LAW IS PASSED DENYING THOSE BENEFITS TO EVERYONE THERE IS NO DISPARATE TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW!

Come on Pete. You're smarter than this. Nobody, not even you, is claiming that the purpose of said law is to deny benefits to some while granting them to others. So why bring that into this argument?

 

[invisible]

What has been stated by who? Provide a quote or, in your own words, STFU.



Wrong. The text of the shell legislation has been presented. The problem is all that exists currently is a shell.

Here. Read it for yourself. Others have but you've been too busy spouting off your opinion to get informed.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14 INT/hB/HB2466 INT.PDF

Where do you think people got the term "noncodification" from?



Good for you.



Says the liberal media, the ACLU and you. But gay marriage is not prohibited in any state and was not prohibited before the so called "ban" on gay marriage was overturned in Oklahoma. So if the effect of the proposed bill is to keep gay marriage as it was before the "ban" was overturned, then you are wrong. If, on the other hand, a law is drafted that states that anyone who gets married will face legal punishment, be in fine or imprisonment, then I will agree with you and eat crow. If not, you will agree with me and eat crow. Deal? How would you like your crow cooked? I'm thinking Cajun.



Well before the "ban" on gay marriage was overturned, gays were not prevented or prohibited from getting married. And this is the crux of the problem of the debate. The word "ban" is being misused.



The bill in its current form, which is just a shell, has been posted. Now I challenge, no I defy you to come up with any quote from Rep Turner where he says anything about the need for marriage, gay or otherwise, to be "prohibited". You keep saying that, but you have yet to provide a quote. Methinks its because you don't have one and all you are going from is the claim from the liberal media about what he said. It's like you've become one of the neocons who read Fox news saying "Ron Paul says give into terrorism" without ever trying to find out what Ron Paul actually said.

No! This is all about keeping gay marriage out of OK. Read the news reports from here. Not just about the bill, but about the court decision. Many of OK's politicians were very quick and strong in condemning the court decision. Turner's bill is a reaction to the court decision. That this is the intention of the bill is unarguable fact, and this is why it is a "shell bill". The interesting part is the problem - the unintended consequences of the bill are only starting to be considered.

 

[specsaregood]

Turner's bill is a reaction to the court decision. That this is the intention of the bill is unarguable fact, and this is why it is a "shell bill". The interesting part is the problem - the unintended consequences of the bill are only starting to be considered.

I don't see why we can't take a "crisis" and turn it into an opportunity of pushing our agenda. I couldn't care less if I agree with the intentions of those who sign on to support non-codification are the same as long as I agree with the final legislation.

 

[Origanalist]

No! This is all about keeping gay marriage out of OK. Read the news reports from here. Not just about the bill, but about the court decision. Many of OK's politicians were very quick and strong in condemning the court decision. Turner's bill is a reaction to the court decision. That this is the intention of the bill is unarguable fact, and this is why it is a "shell bill". The interesting part is the problem - the unintended consequences of the bill are only starting to be considered.

But, they will now be considered. And that is good.