Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma

[torchbearer]

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

something does come from rational debate. I've learned a ton being on these forums too. after all these years, i'm not the same person i was when i first created this account. and that says something about this ethereal place.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

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?

Assuming no other beneficiary were named, it'd become unowned property, and the next person to come along and homestead it would be the owner.

- nevermind, thought this was a different thread. In today's system, I assume it would become property of the state.

 

[invisible]

Assuming no other beneficiary were named, it'd become unowned property, and the next person to come along and homestead it would be the owner.

No. Assuming you are talking about real estate, it would be left to rot until the gov't took it, and someone then bought it at a tax auction. If someone else paid the taxes and kept them current instead, in some places they could file a lien against the property themselves.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

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.

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.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma

Kiesel says prohibiting all marriage is new territory. In fact, the ACLU was unable to find an example of where a state has ever tried to ban all marriage. Kiesel believes the entire idea just boils down to politics.

http://www.news9.com/story/24543033/lawmakers-consider-preventing-all-marriage-in-oklahoma

New Hampshire is the only state where there was a legislative effort to get government out of marriage. 10 law makers sponsored an amendment to end marriage and replace it with domestic unions. It is a pragmatic libertarian idea that is popular with some folks involved with the Free State Project and other liberty activists.

The federal government said if NH did that, everyone in NH would be considered not married for federal purposes and all privileges, rights and permissions related to marriage would end. Because of that, most law makers didn't even take the measure seriously. The vote on the amendment was 62 in favor to 277 against.

So, this might need to happen on a federal level to be possible. Of course, I don't currently see it happening on a federal level. NH recently and now OK are the only places I've known of where this issue was more than just a bunch of folks in a room arguing political philosophy.

Here it is if you want to read it.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/amendments/2012-1097H.html

 

[phill4paul]

However, the federal government said if NH did that, everyone in NH would be considered not married for federal purposes and all privileges, rights and permissions related to marriage would end.

And there you have it. Marriage /= domestic partnership. Despite what some might think. Which is the purpose of the socons agenda with "marriage is between a man and a woman" legislation.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Courts do consider legislative intent when reviewing and ruling. I'm not sure how that would work here, but I'd have to think that the intent of these legislators could somehow figure into something not in line with liberty. I'm just skeptical that way. Consider also how courts can really skew things. I would at least need to read the text.

 

[cjm]

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?

Just google "intestate succession" and the name of your state to get the current order, then ignore any reference to "spouse" and that's how it would probably work. So in most states, property will probably go to (1) children, (2) parents, (3) siblings, and then there are cousins/aunts/uncles/etc. But you get the idea. It's been figured out and legislated.

 

[phill4paul]

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?

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.

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.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

@phil4paul,
Do you have to get married (licensed by the state) and file as married jointly? Only if you want the advantages, same as with O'care. Are there penalties if you don't get married by the state?

 

[Keith and stuff]

In addition to the 2012 amendment that 62 legislators supported. There was a bill in 2011 that 59 legislators supported. It was introduced by a free staters. Both of these issues were coverage by the media and talked about for days in political circles. I'm glad that partly due to the efforts of free staters in NH, this is now no longer a just a topic of debate among liberty lovers. Now it has been brought up in a state legislature 3 times, and even in another state, OK. And it seems that conservatives are bringing it up. It's great when pragmatic libertarian ideas spread to conservatives.

The 2011 bill. http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2011/HB569

This isn't the only free stater sponsored legislative issue that has spread to OK. The same libertarian free stater that sponsored the get the government out of marriage bill sponsored, HB418 - relative to the use of open source software and open data formats by state agencies and relative to the adoption of a statewide information policy regarding open government data standards. HB418 became law in NH. The governor of OK was so impressed with it, she implemented much of it in OK.

 

[phill4paul]

@phil4paul,
Do you have to get married (licensed by the state) and file as married jointly? Only if you want the advantages, same as with O'care. Are there penalties if you don't get married by the state?

No you do not have to get married. Do you have to pay S.S. if you are legally employed?

 

[invisible]

Now it has been brought up in a state legislature 3 times, and even in another state, OK. And it seems that conservatives are bringing it up. It's great when pragmatic libertarian ideas spread to conservatives.

NH recently and now OK are the only places I've known of where this issue was more than just a bunch of folks in a room arguing political philosophy.

Only thing is, in the case of OK, this particular issue isn't being brought up due to the spread of pragmatic libertarian ideas.

One thing that I've found very interesting is that even though OK's State Legislature has probably the next highest percentage of Ron Paul supporters compared to NH, some of our best legislation is being authored and cosponsored by people who endorsed santorum! I've been looking very closely at the State Legislature to see who could possibly be good choices to run for Coburn and wankford's seats, and discovered both of those things. It's VERY weird to look at some of the excellent state level legislation being written, and then see that those involved in many cases endorsed santorum instead of Ron Paul. Look at some of the legislation on OK's link that I offered here earlier. Look at who was involved with it, and then look at who endorsed santorum: http://blog.4president.org/2012/201...tors-endorse-rick-santorum-for-president.html

For instance, how about this gem?
http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/43497#.UuSSNZhMFkg
http://votesmart.org/bill/16474/4349...elopment#43497

 

[Christian Liberty]

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.

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.

I'll side with decentralization every time, ultimately going down to the individual. I am absolutely opposed to any attempt by the Federal government to regulate anything of this nature.

 

[phill4paul]

I'll side with decentralization every time, ultimately going down to the individual. I am absolutely opposed to any attempt by the Federal government to regulate anything of this nature.

I get that. I am at that place myself. And, believe, me I honestly think that there are "enlightened" Christians on this forum that actually believe that not adding to government in this regard is the correct course of action with the end goal of government being out of marriage entirely. However, the socon Christian agenda is really about punishment for lifestyles they do not agree with. The fed will not recognize benefits unless a state "recognizes" gay marriage as valid. The socon agenda is to punish gays for a lifestyle they don't agree with while upholding their traditional beliefs as the only valid belief system.
The door has already been smashed. A system in which every individual is required to pay into it is already in the room. Unless socon Christians want to be adamant in their belief that government should be out of marriage then government is gonna be in marriage. But that is not what socon Christians want. As Pete made clear. They are authoritarians.

 

[Ender]

That is not getting "Government Out of Marriage".

That is Using Government force to Outlaw marriage.

They can't get their way so they will attack marriage itself. It is still the government regulating it,, It is forbidding it altogether.

Both petty and stupid.

That's what I read- doesn't sound at all liberating.

 

[Brett85]

The socon agenda is to punish gays for a lifestyle they don't agree with while upholding their traditional beliefs as the only valid belief system.

What exactly does "punish" mean? Do you know of very many social conservatives who are in favor of the police going into the home of a homosexual and arresting that person for having gay sex? I certainly don't know of very many. Supporting traditional marriage certainly isn't an extreme position when that's the way it's been for quite some time in our country. Even President Obama supported the traditional definition of marriage up until 2012.

 

[phill4paul]

What exactly does "punish" mean? Do you know of very many social conservatives who are in favor of the police going into the home of a homosexual and arresting that person for having gay sex? I certainly don't know of very many. Supporting traditional marriage certainly isn't an extreme position when that's the way it's been for quite some time in our country. Even President Obama supported the traditional definition of marriage up until 2012.

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.

 

[LibForestPaul]

You aren't thinking straight Pete. The legislation is aimed at removing government from marriage, and others are framing that as "making marriage illegal". No one is going to outlaw marriage for fuck's sake, they are talking about outlawing the government of Oklahoma from administering it...

That is what I read. The state simply will not sanction marriages.. Therefore, gay marriages will not be sanctioned by the state. Now, what it means for a state that does not issue marriage certificates, who knows...

 

[Brett85]

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.

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.