Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma

[Suzanimal]

Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma


OKLAHOMA CITY -

State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma.

The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it's an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it's what Oklahomans want.

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

Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.

"Would it be realistic for the State of Oklahoma to say, ‘We're not going to do marriage period,'" asked News 9's Michael Konopasek.

"That would definitely be a realistic opportunity, and it's something that would be part of the discussion," Turner answered.

Such a discussion will be made possible by a current shell bill -- something that can be changed at almost any time to react to upcoming rulings on Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban.

"I think that, especially with issues like this, [these lawmakers are] out of touch with most Oklahomans," said Ryan Kiesel, ACLU Oklahoma executive detector.

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.

"Moving forward I think we'll see less efforts like this," Kiesel said.

Turner admits his idea makes a lot of people uncomfortable. He also says, "I accept that." Turner plans to wait until the federal appeals process plays out. The fight over Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage will now head to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver

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

[jmdrake]

Wow! Okay, I need to bookmark this the next time someone says "But jmdrake, we all know the government will never get out of marriage." Now true, this hasn't happened yet, but that fact that it is at least a serious proposals proves it is a possibility even in our lifetime.

[phill4paul]

Outstanding.

[jmdrake]

Outstanding.

And look who's leading the charge.

Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.

Why there is such disdain for social conservatives by many on this forum is beyond me. It is certainly possible to win them over to our side on many arguments. The key is framing the debate.

[pcosmar]

Wow! Okay, I need to bookmark this the next time someone says "But jmdrake, we all know the government will never get out of marriage." Now true, this hasn't happened yet, but that fact that it is at least a serious proposals proves it is a possibility even in our lifetime.

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.

[phill4paul]

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.

Yeah, after re-reading, I don't understand what is trying to be accomplished because this article is not well written. Is the bill directed at ending government involvement in marriage or is it about making marriage illegal?

[pcosmar]

Yeah, after re-reading, I don't understand what is trying to be accomplished because this article is not well written. Is the bill directed at ending government involvement in marriage or is it about making marriage illegal?

Prohibitionists gonna Prohibit.

http://indieopera.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/CarrieNation.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

[Oklahoma State Rep. Mike Turner says that his bill is] an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal [...]

This does NOT jibe or track with getting the government out of marriage.


[Ryan Kiesel, ACLU Oklahoma executive detector] 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.

So is this Kiesel character just talking out of his ass and deliberately warping what this bill would do?

Or does the bill actually involve "prohibiting and banning all marriage?"

Because "prohibiting and banning all marriage" is very clearly NOT "getting the government out of marriage" ...

[jmdrake]

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.

Did you actually read the article or did you stop at reading the thread title?

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

Don't let your own prejudice blind you to the truth.

[Suzanimal]

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.


Yeah, after re-reading, I don't understand what is trying to be accomplished because this article is not well written. Is the bill directed at ending government involvement in marriage or is it about making marriage illegal?

I don't think so, I think the Rep is trying to get government out of marriage.


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

The ACLU lawyer is the one who's saying he's trying to outlaw marriage.


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.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUaxePL2yg0

[torchbearer]

And look who's leading the charge.

Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.

Why there is such disdain for social conservatives by many on this forum is beyond me. It is certainly possible to win them over to our side on many arguments. The key is framing the debate.

I agree.
Once you get force out of the equation, people can get along. remove the state(force) and then there is no problem. no force either way.
each church or association decides who they marry. and everyone can form a marriage contract. freedom of contract. freedom of association.
now, i don't know if this is what they are thinking in oklahoma. it sounds weird stated, preventing all marriage. almost like they want to get rid of the social institution.

[invisible]

I was wondering when someone would pick up on this in the "how to stop the gay marriage tidal wave" thread. This is exactly how exactly that is being attempted here in OK. A lot of people are awfully upset about a federal judge overturning the state's ban on gay marriage. 10th Amendment is just as popular here as gay marriage is unpopular. When the federal gov't tries to cram something down people's throats here, the people in this state push back: real id, obombacare, agenda 21, 2A. While I personally don't care who marries who, and have no desire to make other people's sex lives my business, this is an example of a state standing up for their right to make their own laws. Those things said, I don't necessarily feel it's the greatest legislation ever introduced, but then again, I haven't been paying much attention to this one.

[pcosmar]

I don't think so, I think the Rep is trying to get government out of marriage.



No it s an attempt to keep Gay Marriage Illegal by making all marriage illegal..

It is ridiculous,, but it may lead to getting the some discussion of ending State involvement.

Mostly,, I think it will be a joke that is laughed out of the news.

[jmdrake]

I don't think so, I think the Rep is trying to get government out of marriage.



The ACLU lawyer is the one who's saying he's trying to outlaw marriage.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUaxePL2yg0

True. I think the thread title could be better, but then again you took it from the title of the article. Nowhere does the lawmaker say "We want to keep gay marriage illegal" (actually it isn't illegal. It just isn't recognized). And the lawmaker doesn't say "We want to ban all marriages." The only place where they actually quote him is when he says "[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all". For all we know, Turner is a Ron Paul supporting libertarian. I could see Glenn Bradley introducing the exact same bill. And I could see the lamestream media and the ACLU trying to misrepresent his position as well. I thought RPFers were smarter than to fall for such blatant propaganda? :(

[jmdrake]

No it s an attempt to keep Gay Marriage Illegal by making all marriage illegal..

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]

now, i don't know if this is what they are thinking in oklahoma. it sounds weird stated, preventing all marriage. almost like they want to get rid of the social institution.

It is more like,, "if I can't get my own way I take my ball and go home"

[jmdrake]

I agree.
Once you get force out of the equation, people can get along. remove the state(force) and then there is no problem. no force either way.
each church or association decides who they marry. and everyone can form a marriage contract. freedom of contract. freedom of association.
now, i don't know if this is what they are thinking in oklahoma. it sounds weird stated, preventing all marriage. almost like they want to get rid of the social institution.

The only quote from the representative is:

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

Remember how the media misrepresents what Ron Paul says? Why would anyone thing they would treat this lawmaker from Oklahoma any differently? If it's not in quotes, don't believe the media when they say "So and so said such and such." The media would have you believe Ron Paul supports Al Qaeda and Rand Paul wants babies gassed in Syria.

[pcosmar]

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.

NO, Because of what the guy said about it.
And I have not read this bill (it is not posted),, BUT THE STATED PURPOSE is to keep Gay Marriage illegal.

[invisible]

True. I think the thread title could be better, but then again you took it from the title of the article. Nowhere does the lawmaker say "We want to keep gay marriage illegal" (actually it isn't illegal. It just isn't recognized). And the lawmaker doesn't say "We want to ban all marriages." The only place where they actually quote him is when he says "[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all". For all we know, Turner is a Ron Paul supporting libertarian. I could see Glenn Bradley introducing the exact same bill. And I could see the lamestream media and the ACLU trying to misrepresent his position as well. I thought RPFers were smarter than to fall for such blatant propaganda? :(

And there are quite a few of them in the OK State Legislature. Some have openly endorsed in the past, others seem to be in stealth mode. Not sure about Turner though, I've never checked into him too closely.

IA also had gay marriage forced on them by the courts against the will of the people, but they just rolled over, accepted it, and didn't fight back.

[jmdrake]

It is more like,, "if I can't get my own way I take my ball and go home"

And that's the correct position. I'll take my ball to my church where marriage is done in accordance to my beliefs. You take your ball to your church where marriage is done in accordance to your beliefs. There's now even a megachurch for atheists, so everyone can find a place to get married. I don't subsidize your marriage. You don't subsidize my marriage.

[pcosmar]

The only quote from the representative is:

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

I'm sure they are (willing). But that is not what this bill (as stated) is about. It is an attempt to KEEP Gay Marriage ILLEGAL

[invisible]

NO, Because of what the guy said about it.
And I have not read this bill (it is not posted),, BUT THE STATED PURPOSE is to keep Gay Marriage illegal.

If you know the bill number (I don't, offhand) it can be looked up here:
http://www.oklegislature.gov/AdvancedSearchForm.aspx

[torchbearer]

The only quote from the representative is:

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

Remember how the media misrepresents what Ron Paul says? Why would anyone thing they would treat this lawmaker from Oklahoma any differently? If it's not in quotes, don't believe the media when they say "So and so said such and such." The media would have you believe Ron Paul supports Al Qaeda and Rand Paul wants babies gassed in Syria.

does anyone have a copy of the bill to post in this thread.
that way we can read it?

[jmdrake]

NO, Because of what the guy said about it.
And I have not read this bill (it is not posted),, BUT THE STATED PURPOSE is to keep Gay Marriage illegal.

Well then by all means post a link. And post a quote to what the guy said. Until then all the evidence that's on the table is the article. And frankly I don't give a rip about the purpose of the bill. I only care about the effect. Everyone who actually understands the law knows that gay marriage is not illegal anywhere in the United States. There are no legal sanctions for gays getting married like there are for polygamists getting married or for people marrying close relatives. The definition of something being illegal is that there is a legal sanction for you doing it and not that there is no legal recognition. For example, elderberry extract is not recognized as "medicine" by the FDA. But it's not illegal. (Not yet anyway). On the flip side, marijuana is still illegal, though currently federal law is not being aggressively enforced in states that have legalized it. But if you don't believe me, the next time you are pulled over in most of the 50 states, show the cop some marijuana and some elderberry extract and get back with us on which got you legal sanctions.

[Petar]

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...

[jmdrake]

I'm sure they are (willing). But that is not what this bill (as stated) is about. It is an attempt to KEEP Gay Marriage ILLEGAL

Except that gay marriage is already not "illegal" and hasn't been since sodomy laws were overturned. There is no state in the union where someone can be prosecuted for marrying someone of the same sex. That includes Oklahoma.

[Suzanimal]

I couldn't find the bill so I emailed Rep.Mike Turner for clarification.

[phill4paul]

does anyone have a copy of the bill to post in this thread.
that way we can read it?

From the article it doesn't seem to have been written yet.


He said the idea has the backing of other conservative lawmakers, and could be achieved through a shell bill he filed in the state legislature, intended to adapt to any court rulings on same-sex marriage.

So, much speculation until it is actually filed.

[torchbearer]

From the article it doesn't seem to have been written yet.



So, much speculation until it is actually filed.


this sentence is past tense:
a shell bill he filed in the state
I don't know what a shell bill is, but i wanna see it.
(please don't meme it)

[Petar]

One thing I know for sure is that no one is planning on creating a bill that makes marriage illegal. May as well try to outlaw breathing or something. Give me a frickin' break...

[specsaregood]

I couldn't find the bill so I emailed Rep.Mike Turner for clarification.

Yeah, I did some searching. I don't think his bill is complete yet, just introduced in shell form.
I think this is gonna be it:
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB2466&Tab=0


AS INTRODUCED
An Act relating to marriage; creating the
Preservation of Marriage Act (POMA); providing for noncodification; and providing an effective date.


The OK site has "first reading" listed as 02/03/2014 so I assume it hasn't been completely introduced yet; but rather just scheduled to be introduced.

[invisible]

All legislation for this session is listed here:
http://www.oklegislature.gov/TextOfMeasures.aspx

It's possible the bill hasn't been filed yet.
While you're there, look over what legislation has been introduced by those guys running for Coburn and wankford's seats!

[torchbearer]

noncodification! YES!
that is the way to freedom.

[erowe1]

The word "preventing" in the title is ridiculous. We certainly know which side of this that news station stands on.

[torchbearer]

The word "preventing" in the title is ridiculous. We certainly know which side of this that news station stands on.

now that i've seen the shell bill, i don't see how you get preventing out of noncodification.

[pcosmar]

The word "preventing" in the title is ridiculous. We certainly know which side of this that news station stands on.

I have read several sources in searching for the actual text,, Which no one has.

They all,, (including Faux Snooze) present it's purpose as an attempt to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal,, and in opposition to Equal Protection under the Law.

It may spark debate about getting Government out of the equation.. But that is not the focus.

It is focused on preventing Gay marriage.

[jmdrake]

does anyone have a copy of the bill to post in this thread.
that way we can read it?

For the life of me I can't find it. I tried. His profile page at the Oklahoma state legislature has links for every bill he authored in 2013.

http://www.okhouse.gov/District.aspx?District=82

There's no mention of marriage in any of them. He first took office in 2013 so there's no earlier dates. Maybe this bill was introduced this month and no link to it is up yet? I did find this:

HB 1429 by Turner Receive Email Updates for this Measure (LENS)

Revenue and taxation; exempting qualifying firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies from state sales tax under specified conditions; effective date; emergency.

Nothing to do with marriage, but a good bill from the looks of it.

[jmdrake]

//

[specsaregood]

FWIW: this guy maxed out donations to Romney and his PAC during the last campaign cycle.

[invisible]

I have read several sources in searching for the actual text,, Which no one has.

They all,, (including Faux Snooze) present it's purpose as an attempt to keep Gay marriage Illegal,, and in opposition to Equal Protection under the Law.

I think you're missing the point. Yes, that is EXACTLY the intent: to keep gay marriage from becoming state sanctioned in OK. But whether or not you or anyone else agrees with that (I personally don't really agree with it either, I don't care who marries who, it's none of my business), don't the states have the right to make their own laws, instead of having the federal gov't cram it down their throats?

[pcosmar]

but a good bill from the looks of it.

??
It looks good ?

So does the emperors new robe. ;)

[Petar]

I have read several sources in searching for the actual text,, Which no one has.

They all,, (including Faux Snooze) present it's purpose as an attempt to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal,, and in opposition to Equal Protection under the Law.

It may spark debate about getting Government out of the equation.. But that is not the focus.

It is focused on preventing Gay marriage.

Wow Pete, I guess you really are just one of those people who can't admit when they are wrong... they are trying to remove government from marriage altogether, and all you can do is sit here and make up alternate realities to describe what is happening... suit yourself I guess...

[invisible]

For the life of me I can't find it. I tried. His profile page at the Oklahoma state legislature has links for every bill he authored in 2013.

http://www.okhouse.gov/District.aspx?District=82

There's no mention of marriage in any of them. He first took office in 2013 so there's no earlier dates. Maybe this bill was introduced this month and no link to it is up yet? I did find this:

HB 1429 by Turner Receive Email Updates for this Measure (LENS)

Revenue and taxation; exempting qualifying firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies from state sales tax under specified conditions; effective date; emergency.

Nothing to do with marriage, but a good bill from the looks of it.

It's 2014 now. Try looking in the bills filed for the upcoming session.

[jmdrake]

I have read several sources in searching for the actual text,, Which no one has.

They all,, (including Faux Snooze) present it's purpose as an attempt to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal,, and in opposition to Equal Protection under the Law.

It may spark debate about getting Government out of the equation.. But that is not the focus.

It is focused on preventing Gay marriage.

Give it up Pete! The only text of the bill that anyone has put up says noncodification. In other words, the bill is about not recognizing gay marriage and it seeks to do saw by ending government recognition of other marriages. It doesn't matter a flying fig what said "purpose" of the bill is. As I've already explained, and you have yet to respond to, gay marriage is not currently illegal in Oklahoma or anywhere else. So the effect of this bill, in the unlikely event that it actually passed, would not be to prevent gay marriage or any other marriage. It's really no different than Ron Paul saying "I want Israel to be able to defend itself and not to support Israel's enemies." Does that make Ron Paul a Zionist? Nope. But when he says that he's putting his ideas into language that supporters of Israel can understand and not be offended by.

[phill4paul]

I think you're missing the point. Yes, that is EXACTLY the intent: to keep gay marriage from becoming state sanctioned in OK. But whether or not you or anyone else agrees with that (I personally don't really agree with it either, I don't care who marries who, it's none of my business), don't the states have the right to make their own laws, instead of having the federal gov't cram it down their throats?

Unfortunately, it is a tangled web. There are over 1k statutory provisions in federal law linked to marriage. Marriage defined by the state in which one lives in.

This to me will be the interesting conversation to come of this. If NO marriage is recognized by the state of OK will that mean that no Oklahoman's will receive marriage benefits from the fed?

[erowe1]

I have read several sources in searching for the actual text,, Which no one has.

They all,, (including Faux Snooze) present it's purpose as an attempt to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal,, and in opposition to Equal Protection under the Law.

It may spark debate about getting Government out of the equation.. But that is not the focus.

It is focused on preventing Gay marriage.

That's a good thing. We need to get people who are against gay marriage to see this as their proper response. And this needs to happen before gay marriage becomes the status quo in most states.

[invisible]

Wow Pete, I guess you really are just one of those people who can't admit when they are wrong... they are trying to remove government from marriage altogether, and all you can do is sit here and make up alternate realities to describe what is happening... suit yourself I guess...

He's not making up an alternate reality. He's correctly stating the intent of a bill filed in response to the federal gov't trying to overturn a state's law.

[jmdrake]

??
It looks good ?

So does the emperors new robe. ;)

You've got another copy of the bill? POST IT ALREADY! But I'm glad you brought up the emperors new robe. You've really undermined your own argument. The point of that story is that it didn't matter what the emperor thought the clothes would do but what they actually did do. By the same token, if this bill says its to "keep gay marriage illegal" then it doesn't actually do that because gay marriage isn't actually illegal. What gay marriage is is unrecognized.

[invisible]

Unfortunately, it is a tangled web. There are over 1k statutory provisions in federal law linked to marriage. Marriage defined by the state in which one lives in.

This to me will be the interesting conversation to come of this. If NO marriage is recognized by the state of OK will that mean that no Oklahoman's will receive marriage benefits from the fed?

Exactly! The unintended ramifications of this bill are only just starting to be discussed here. People are starting to go, "hey wait a second, if we do that, then...." This is one worth grabbing the popcorn for!

[jmdrake]

He's not making up an alternate reality. He's correctly stating the intent of a bill filed in response to the federal gov't trying to overturn a state's law.

Yes. But Oklahoma state law does not ban gay marriage. It simply doesn't recognize gay marriage. This bill, if it's going to treat all marriages the same as gay marriage, means that marriage would no longer be recognized in Oklahoma. No more marriage licenses for anyone.

[pcosmar]

I think you're missing the point.

, don't the states have the right to make their own laws,

To a point.

Do states have the right to Raid your home without a warrant?
Can a state outlaw Firearms entirely?
Can a State Move others into your house,, against your wishes?

Can the state forbid redheads from Marring? or having children?

Can a state write a law preventing Non-Christians from practicing their religion?

NO, That is the Correct purpose of the Federal Government,, Preventing Discrimination and Abuse at the State level.

[jmdrake]

Unfortunately, it is a tangled web. There are over 1k statutory provisions in federal law linked to marriage. Marriage defined by the state in which one lives in.

This to me will be the interesting conversation to come of this. If NO marriage is recognized by the state of OK will that mean that no Oklahoman's will receive marriage benefits from the fed?


Exactly! The unintended ramifications of this bill are only just starting to be discussed here. People are starting to go, "hey wait a second, if we do that, then...." This is one worth grabbing the popcorn for!

Exactly! The conversation we need to have is "Why do we need a social security system that doesn't let people give their money to whoever they want? Why do we have an income tax system that sometimes benefits and sometimes punishes people for being married? Why do I have to be married to someone for does that person have to be a pastor or lawyer for them to be able to legally keep my confidence?"

[jmdrake]

To a point.

Do states have the right to Raid your home without a warrant?
Can a state outlaw Firearms entirely?
Can a State Move others into your house,, against your wishes?

Can the state forbid redheads from Marring? or having children?

Can a state write a law preventing Non-Christians from practicing their religion?

NO, That is the Correct purpose of the Federal Government,, Preventing Discrimination and Abuse at the State level.

And in this case a state rep is taking the non-discriminatory position that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

[pcosmar]

You've got another copy of the bill? POST IT ALREADY!
.

No I haven't seen it. And neither have you.

But to you it looks good (having never seen it)

I am only going by it's stated purpose. (prohibition) and that it was presented in opposition to Equal Rights.

and that does not look good to me at all..

[erowe1]

NO, That is the Correct purpose of the Federal Government,, Preventing Discrimination and Abuse at the State level.

I surprised you believe that. I definitely don't. Once we say that a top-down form of government is ethical, I think we undermine everything else that (I think) you and I both stand for.

[pcosmar]

And in this case a state rep is taking the non-discriminatory position that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

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

[pcosmar]

I surprised you believe that. I definitely don't. Once we say that a top-down form of government is ethical, I think we undermine everything else that (I think) you and I both stand for.

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?

[invisible]

To a point.

Do states have the right to Raid your home without a warrant?
Can a state outlaw Firearms entirely?
Can a State Move others into your house,, against your wishes?

Can the state forbid redheads from Marring? or having children?

Can a state write a law preventing Non-Christians from practicing their religion?

NO, That is the Correct purpose of the Federal Government,, Preventing Discrimination and Abuse at the State level.

Oh, I agree. But I don't necessarily feel that this falls into the category of "abuse at the state level", the reason being that marriage laws have been pretty much what they are for some time - look at the history of marriage laws in the US, gay marriage was never been an issue until recently. But OTOH, there was also a time when some states had laws against interracial marriage -this whole gay marriage thing is pretty much a repeat of that same fight over who is allowed to marry who.

edit: Also, if you don't like the laws of one state, you do have the right to move to another. Just like we make the argument that a state can legalize MJ if they want to, that doesn't mean that another state is discriminating if they keep it illegal.

[jmdrake]

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

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.

[erowe1]

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?

I don't believe that there should be any top-down governments at all, where a more distant regime (like the one in DC) imposes its military might on more local ones (like Indiana or Egypt) to make sure they have the kind of government it says they must. This belief of mine doesn't change even when those more local regimes are wrong about something and the more distant one is right. Even if the Iraq War really were about replacing a tyrannical regime with a righteous one, it still would have been wrong.

If you want the federal government to have teeth to make sure the states respect the Bill of Rights, then all I can think of that it should be able to do is just cut them off from the Union, and tell them that they forego the benefits of membership. Of course, the irony of that is that every state in the Union would be made better off by doing that.

[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? :rolleyes: 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? :rolleyes: 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? :rolleyes: 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? :D

[erowe1]

Constitutional protections for what? You believe that there is a constitutional right to have a marriage license? Seriously? :rolleyes: 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]

:rolleyes: 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? :D

http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/aa-Rand-Paul-w-Ron-Paul-cheering-behind-him.jpg

[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%20INT/hB/HB2466%20INT.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]

http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/aa-Rand-Paul-w-Ron-Paul-cheering-behind-him.jpg

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%20INT/hB/HB2466%20INT.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.

[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?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hyutTEBydAg/UVN-pSmJ3aI/AAAAAAAAAE8/ojRPQ0Npb7s/s1600/NotSureIfSerious.jpg

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-lawmakers-consider-preventing-all-marriage-to-keep-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-lawmakers-consider-preventing-all-marriage-to-keep-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/marriage-equality/2014/01/26/watch-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? :confused:

[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.

[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-lawmakers-consider-preventing-all-marriage-to-keep-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. ;)

[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.

[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.........:rolleyes:

[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.

http://www.bluesphereinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/its-a-trap.jpg

[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...

http://420.thrashbarg.net/batman-roller-skates-haters-gonna-hate.jpg

[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.

:rolleyes: 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? :confused:

[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.

[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? :confused:

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/2012/2012/03/14-oklahoma-state-legislators-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.

[phill4paul]

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.

[Brett85]

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?

[jmdrake]

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:

[jmdrake]

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:

[jmdrake]

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

Read where? In the clearly biased and untrue media report? Because the actually shell legislation doesn't say that.

[Tywysog Cymru]

This seems like a great idea.

[jmdrake]

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.

[Feeding the Abscess]

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.

[Feeding the Abscess]

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

[Suzanimal]

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

[Chester Copperpot]

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

[Chester Copperpot]

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