Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma

[jmdrake]

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.

Read the news reports? Trust the media?

That said, I have no doubts that some people just want to "stop" gay marriage. So? Gay marriage is already legal in Oklahoma an has been since the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws! The only question is, will gay marriage be recognized?

Okay. Tell me this. Do you HONESTLY believe that there is ANY possibility of a bill that actually criminalizes marriage? I don't want to here some crap about how the denial of marriage benefits to some while granting them to others somehow is a "legal sanction" because even if that were the case (and it's not), nobody is claiming that the new law will treat gays and straights differently on marriage. So again, tell me if you honestly believe that a law will be passed in Oklahoma that if a man and a woman go to a church and have a private ceremony where someone says "I now pronounce you man and wife" they will risk arrest and/or fines and/or imprisonment? Because that is how polygamy is illegal. Polygamists can be arrested and sent to prison just for having a private ceremony where a man or woman who is already married marries someone else.

 

[pcosmar]

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

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.

 

[erowe1]

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.

Notice that's not a quote of his own words. The person who thinks that "illegal" is an appropriate word there is the same one who thinks that the bill would "prevent all marriages."

 

[phill4paul]

I don't want to here some crap about how the denial of marriage benefits to some while granting them to others somehow is a "legal sanction" because even if that were the case (and it's not), nobody is claiming that the new law will treat gays and straights differently on marriage.

It is a sanction. The fines are the social security contributions that will not be awarded to a surviving spouse. The fines come into play regarding tax benefits. Same regards on a state level. These individuals are being forced to contribute into a system that does not recognize them equally.

 

[pcosmar]

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

IF ,, IF

I would love to see the Government out of Marriage in Total. No license,, No Benefits. Nada. I would love it.

That does not seem to be the focus of this suggested and yet unwritten fictitious Bill.

I suspect it is more stunt than anything. But it may well raise discussion on getting the Government out, (something that almost never happens)

 

[erowe1]

These individuals are being forced to contribute into a system that does not recognize them equally.

That's true of all unmarried people, regardless what particular kind of unmarried they are.

Shifting around the boundaries of the categories so that some of the people who count as unmarried today would count as married tomorrow wouldn't change that.

 

[Suzanimal]

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.

Me too, I'm not a Social Conservative and for the most part I agree with pcosmar on the issue. If the guy is in fact trying to get government out of marriage, I don't care what his reasons are but if he's trying to ban all marriage to be a dick, that's a different story.

He hasn't emailed me back yet and I'll post it if he does.

I found this in another story...

From The Advocate

WATCH: End State's Role in Marriage, Says Okla. Lawmaker

The idea of ending the state’s role in marriage so it could avoid dealing with same-sex marriages, while occasionally discussed, has never been seriously proposed as legislation, said Ryan Kiesel, executive detector of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Oklahoma affiliate. Any legislators considering such a move are “out of touch with most Oklahomans,” Kiesel told KWTV.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...h-end-states-role-marriage-says-okla-lawmaker

 

[jmdrake]

It is a sanction. The fines are the social security contributions that will not be awarded to a surviving spouse. The fines come into play regarding tax benefits. Same regards on a state level. These individuals are being forced to contribute into a system that does not recognize them equally.

So let me see if I understand you. However the Oklahoma state legislature words this, you will see it as a "sanction" because Oklahoma residents aren't getting federal benefits? Never mind that this so called "sanction" is applied equally to gays and straights. Folks can't "get their money" so it's a sanction? Soooo.....if a state "nullifies" Obamacare, is that a "sanction"? A state decides "We're not going to take Common Core money" is that a "sanction"? Sorry, but that's an odd definition of "sanction." And it undermines 10th amendment efforts at the state level to restore liberty and reduce the scope and power of the federal government.

 

[phill4paul]

That's true of all unmarried people, regardless what particular kind of unmarried they are.

Shifting around the boundaries of the categories so that some of the people who count as unmarried today would count as married tomorrow wouldn't change that.

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.

 

[eduardo89]

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?

Can you show me the section in the Bill of Rights (or anywhere in the Constitution) where guarantees a right for homosexuals to have their unions recognised by state governments, i.e.: compels state governments to recognise their union?

 

[phill4paul]

So let me see if I understand you. However the Oklahoma state legislature words this, you will see it as a "sanction" because Oklahoma residents aren't getting federal benefits? Never mind that this so called "sanction" is applied equally to gays and straights. Folks can't "get their money" so it's a sanction? Soooo.....if a state "nullifies" Obamacare, is that a "sanction"? A state decides "We're not going to take Common Core money" is that a "sanction"? Sorry, but that's an odd definition of "sanction." And it undermines 10th amendment efforts at the state level to restore liberty and reduce the scope and power of the federal government.

Can a state nullify social security? No. It cannot. It is a federal program. It is not a state issue excepting in that whether or not a state "recognizes" a marriage is the determining factor with regard to survivor benefits.

 

[eduardo89]

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.

How is the state ceasing to recognise any marriage equal to the state banning marriage? Are they going to throw people in jail for getting married in a church? Are they going to throw people who live together and have children in jail if they call each other husband and wife?

You're being ridiculous (as usual). This bill will get government out of marriage, which is a good thing. Whatever the motives, who cares. If a state were to repeal all regulations with regards to the manufacture, sale, purchase, and possession of firearms as a favor to the gun lobby, it would still be a great move in regards to personal liberty despite a corporate welfare motive behind it.

 

[jmdrake]

IF ,, IF

I would love to see the Government out of Marriage in Total. No license,, No Benefits. Nada. I would love it.

That does not seem to be the focus of this suggested and yet unwritten fictitious Bill.

I suspect it is more stunt than anything. But it may well raise discussion on getting the Government out, (something that almost never happens)

Okay Pete, try to follow along. At first you were claiming that the law was going to make marriage illegal based on nothing but misleading statements by the media and the ACLU. Then you fell back on the "Well let's not discriminate" argument. Well..nobody has claimed, not even you, that this proposed bill even attempts to treat gays and straights differently on the question of marriage. Nobody.

I do not believe for one minute that this law, which is currently just a shell, will add criminal or civil penalties to marriage. And a criminal or civil penalty is defined as being fined by the government instituting the penalty or being imprisoned by that same government. A state law which merely has the effect of cutting off federal benefits is not a sanction. If it is then I guess we need to start lobbying our state reps to always take federal handouts. So if there is no possibility of discrimination in the new law, and so far you have not even alleged that, and if there aren't any civil or criminal penalties for getting married, and anyone who things an Oklahoma legislator is going to propose a law that anyone, straight or gay, who gets married will by fined and/or imprisoned by the state of Oklahoma just isn't thinking this through, then....what's your point?

 

[Brett85]

And you believe that shit because the ACLU said so? Seriously? Nowhere in the article does Rep Turner say any such thing. You've been snookered. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

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.

 

[Origanalist]

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?

 

[jmdrake]

Can a state nullify social security? No. It cannot. It is a federal program. It is not a state issue excepting in that whether or not a state "recognizes" a marriage is the determining factor with regard to survivor benefits.

Well Mark Levin would agree with you on that. I'm not sure Tom Woods would. (LOL I said "Woods would") I take it you don't believe states can nullify Obamacare or the NSA or a host of other things states are attempting to nullify? Nullification has not been tried. But if a state were to pass a law stating that it would no longer collect and send social security checks to the federal government, what would happen? The real answer to that question is "How far will the people in various states allow the federal government to push them?"

Oh, and I see you didn't even attempt to address my question about Obamacare. Do you believe that Obamacare is somehow not a federal program?

 

[pcosmar]

Can you show me the section in the Bill of Rights (or anywhere in the Constitution) where guarantees a right for homosexuals to have their unions recognised by state governments, i.e.: compels state governments to recognise their union?

Can you show me anything in the Constitution where guarantees a right for straights to have their unions recognized by state governments,or that gives Government any authority over marriage at all?

And yet there are Tax breaks,, legal rulings, SS benefits all given to a Spouse.

And there is the 14th Amendment which this directly related.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/federal-judge-rejects-oklahomas-gay-marriage-ban.html?_r=0

A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled Tuesday that the state’s constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage violated the federal Constitution, the latest in a string of legal victories for gay rights and one that occurred in the heart of the Bible Belt.

 

[specsaregood]

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. 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!

 

[jmdrake]

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.

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.

 

[jmdrake]

Can you show me anything in the Constitution where guarantees a right for straights to have their unions recognized by state governments,or that gives Government any authority over marriage at all?

None. And that's why a law which equally denies state recognition of marriages to gays or straights is totally constitutional. Even the ACLU had to admit they have no real argument against this.