Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Oklahoma House votes to do away with state marriage licenses

  1. #1

    Oklahoma House votes to do away with state marriage licenses

    OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma would stop issuing marriage licenses under legislation passed Tuesday afternoon by the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

    House Bill 1125, by Rep. Todd Russ, R-Cordell, would instead require those officiating marriage ceremonies to file after-the-fact “certificates of marriage” with court clerks’ offices. Alternatively, couples could file affidavits of common law marriage.

    Russ said his bill is intended to “protect” county court clerks who do not want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
    “This takes them out of the trap,” he said.

    Somewhat ironically, the bill removes from statute language limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Other marriage restrictions would remain unchanged.

    Opponents, most of them Democrats, said the bill would create a scenario in which Republicans will have legalized same-sex marriages even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the lower court rulings the bill seeks to counter.

    Supporters of HB 1125 said it fittingly removes the state from the marriage process. “Marriage was not instituted by government,” said Rep. Dennis Johnson, R-Duncan. “It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage.”

    Johnson did allow, however, that the state does have an interest in preventing such things as incest, polygamy and marriage of minors.

    Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Del City, and Rep. Emily Virgin, D-Norman, suggested that preventing those things might be harder to do under Russ’ proposal because court clerks would no longer be in position to require proof of identity and age.

    The bill passed 67-24, with 10 members not voting, and now goes to the Senate.
    http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capit...35218d5e0.html



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Fail.

    Johnson did allow, however, that the state does have an interest in preventing such things as incest, polygamy and marriage of minors.

    What interest does the state have in outlawing a practice done by Abraham, Jacob, the father of the prophet Samuel, David and Solomon? Why is it better for a man to have 5 babies' mommas, in some cases living in the same house, but if he says "I do" to two of them. So basically, if I'm reading this right, these idiots have legalized same sex marriage, still require a marriage license (it has to be filed after the fact) and have keep the non existent state interest in polygamy?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Fail.

    Johnson did allow, however, that the state does have an interest in preventing such things as incest, polygamy and marriage of minors.

    What interest does the state have in outlawing a practice done by Abraham, Jacob, the father of the prophet Samuel, David and Solomon? Why is it better for a man to have 5 babies' mommas, in some cases living in the same house, but if he says "I do" to two of them. So basically, if I'm reading this right, these idiots have legalized same sex marriage, still require a marriage license (it has to be filed after the fact) and have keep the non existent state interest in polygamy?
    One would have to be a king in order to afford multiple wives :-P
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Fail.

    Johnson did allow, however, that the state does have an interest in preventing such things as incest, polygamy and marriage of minors.

    What interest does the state have in outlawing a practice done by Abraham, Jacob, the father of the prophet Samuel, David and Solomon? Why is it better for a man to have 5 babies' mommas, in some cases living in the same house, but if he says "I do" to two of them. So basically, if I'm reading this right, these idiots have legalized same sex marriage, still require a marriage license (it has to be filed after the fact) and have keep the non existent state interest in polygamy?
    Exactly.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Fail.

    Johnson did allow, however, that the state does have an interest in preventing such things as incest, polygamy and marriage of minors.

    What interest does the state have in outlawing a practice done by Abraham, Jacob, the father of the prophet Samuel, David and Solomon? Why is it better for a man to have 5 babies' mommas, in some cases living in the same house, but if he says "I do" to two of them. So basically, if I'm reading this right, these idiots have legalized same sex marriage, still require a marriage license (it has to be filed after the fact) and have keep the non existent state interest in polygamy?
    You can have multiple wives, if it's one at a time, so that you can pay for the children from each without the benefit of having the children or the ex-wife. That keeps you poorer and busy so as not to have time to think about how government is stealing from you in every way possible. And it prevents the group from advancing in self sufficiency.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns itówithout his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraudóto anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    You can have multiple wives, if it's one at a time, so that you can pay for the children from each without the benefit of having the children or the ex-wife. That keeps you poorer and busy so as not to have time to think about how government is stealing from you in every way possible. And it prevents the group from advancing in self sufficiency.
    I know someone who has a wife and two girlfriends all living in the same house with their kids and he's in prison on unrelated charges so he can't pay for anything and they all work. Don't ask me how he does it.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Fail.

    Johnson did allow, however, that the state does have an interest in preventing such things as incest, polygamy and marriage of minors.

    What interest does the state have in outlawing a practice done by Abraham, Jacob, the father of the prophet Samuel, David and Solomon?
    FILTHY CHRISTIAN!! How dare you spout off in criticism of the infallibly atheistic state! To your Christian hell with you to burn! The state is your mother, your father - your very reason to live! It feeds you; clothes you; teaches you right from wrong; protects you, yet you dare speak in bite of the gracious and kind hand that lifted you from the wretched bowels of your bitch-mother who spat you into this world as a whelp of filth.

    If the state says it, it is thereby true; incontrovertible; infallible!

    Die and burn, filthy Christian swine!

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled propaganda. Have a nice day.


    On a serious note, I agree on the FAIL aspect of this. Firstly, the only thing that has really changed is the issuing authority. What is disgusting in this, beyond the more obvious, is the fact that this little scumbag weasel put this dreck up for the purposes of eliding the liability of state agents. Screw that and screw him... right into the ground, head-first. The valid reason is because marriage is not an arrangement to be licenses. Blithering, corrupt, statist fool.

    Great job once again America - you have put yet another incompetent, ignorant mental midget into office. You have much of which to be proud.

    Are we not capable of getting anything right?

    And the title needs a rework - the state has NOT done away with licensing.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "Itís just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill peopleís fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.


  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    You can have multiple wives, if it's one at a time, so that you can pay for the children from each without the benefit of having the children or the ex-wife. That keeps you poorer and busy so as not to have time to think about how government is stealing from you in every way possible. And it prevents the group from advancing in self sufficiency.
    You can have as many wives as you want, you just cannot license more than one at a time without risk of the always-wrong state getting up your $#@! about it.

    Given that I don't give the least damn about state licensing, they can pound salt up their asses as I smile my smile and go about my happy business.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "Itís just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill peopleís fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.




  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Fail.

    Johnson did allow, however, that the state does have an interest in preventing such things as incest, polygamy and marriage of minors.

    What interest does the state have in outlawing a practice done by Abraham, Jacob, the father of the prophet Samuel, David and Solomon? Why is it better for a man to have 5 babies' mommas, in some cases living in the same house, but if he says "I do" to two of them. So basically, if I'm reading this right, these idiots have legalized same sex marriage, still require a marriage license (it has to be filed after the fact) and have keep the non existent state interest in polygamy?
    Mazel Tov

    Matthew 19:3-9

    3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication*, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
    As this verse points out not everything Moses condoned through the law is part of God's plan ("stone the adulterers to death" believers need to reread that). It stands to reason that other things, like polygamy, are also not part of God's plan. It never says God picked the Jews because they were shining examples of morality. He didn't use the laws he gave them to "change them" or keep them in their perfected state.

    One man. One woman. One flesh. Three people can't be one flesh. Neither can two men or two women.

    I bolded the "in the beginning" part and started the post with "Mazel Tov" to make a point about what is was like in the beginning. In the old days they believed in soul mates (I believe in soul mates). Here's a description of the meaning behind Mazel Tov.

    [wizardwatson: this is the meaning behind "breaking the glass" at a jewish wedding when people say "Mazel Tov!". There's disagreement surrounding the origin but I believe the below account because the word origin is from Mishnaic Hebrew "mazzal", meaning "constellation" or "destiny" which reinforces the soul mate concept]

    http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...-a-Wedding.htm

    Question:

    I understand that the reason I will be breaking a glass with my foot at the end of the wedding ceremony is to commemorate the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago. This was indeed a significant event in Jewish history, but it doesn't seem to have any relevance to me. What does a destroyed building have to do with my wedding?

    Answer:

    The destruction of the Holy Temple has extreme personal relevance. It happened to you. It is true that shattering the glass primarily commemorates the fall of Jerusalem; however, it is also a reminder of another cataclysmic shattering that of your very own temple, your soul.

    Before you were born, you and your soulmate were one, a single soul.

    Then, as your time to enter this world approached, G-d shattered that single soul into two parts, one male and one female. These two half-souls were then born into the world with a mission to try to find each other and reunite.

    At the time, the split seemed tragic and incomprehensible. Why create fragmentation where there was once completion? Why break something just so it could be fixed? And if you were meant to be together, why didn't G-d leave you together?

    It is under the chupah, the wedding canopy, that these questions can be answered. With marriage, two halves are reuniting, never to part again. Not only that, but you can look back at the painful experience of being separated and actually celebrate it. For now it is clear that the separation brought you closer than you would otherwise have been.

    Ironically, it was only by being torn apart and living lives away from each other that were you able to develop as individuals, to mature and grow. Your coming together is something you had to achieve and choose, and therefore it is appreciated deeply. With the joyous reunion at the wedding it becomes clear that your soul was only split in order to reunite and become one on a higher and deeper level.

    And so you break a glass under the chupah and immediately say congratulatory wish of Mazel Tov! Because now, in retrospect, even the splitting of souls is reason to be joyous, for it gave your connection the possibility for real depth and meaning.

    [more at link]
    So I reject the notion that because the superstars of the Old Testament were institutionalized philanderers that God must not have a problem with it. God's plan has never changed. If God were forced to correct all of a man's faults before he would interact with him then the bible would just have Him and Jesus in it.


    * I've posted before that Leo Tolstoy has poked a hole in "except it be for fornication" clause in Jesus' words above. Analyzing the original Greek he deduced that there were grammar problems in the translation and that the original textual meaning was "in addition to the sin of fornication". So his conclusion was that Jesus' meant you would be an adulterer AND a fornicator. I agree with that interpretation and it doesn't even make sense otherwise. It sounds like Jesus is saying no divorce even though Moses authorized it for adultery, but then says it's still ok if they are fornicators. The inference as to "why" whoever doctored this text did it is that they were trying to put in a divorce loophole when Jesus clearly outlawed it.

  12. #10
    The bill doesn't relate to the title of this thread. However, it is an interesting bill. If county court clerks are going to be doing sell work, does that mean their hours will be cut?
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  13. #11
    The bill is very confusing, and, as I'm sure most of you probably already thought, many people across the state are confused in regard to this legislation. In fact, many of us aren't even sure the representative fully understands this bill.

    If we look at it, the bill suggests the state would be retreating from marriage, and leaving the licensing power with the churches, solely.
    Problem is, it appears that it will do that, but only up front. So, the license won't be required to get married to start, but the license will have to be provided regardless afterwards to the state, they just won't issue it... So, in theory, gays and lesbians can still get married, assuming they can find a minister to marry them (which, there are...).

    I don't think I understand it passed that.
    Welcome to the R3VOLUTION!

  14. #12
    Well that's your interpretation. A more sensible one is that in the Old Testament having multiple wives was not considered adultery. And note I'm not saying having multiple wives was God's original plan. Sacrificing animals wasn't His original plan. Neither was eating meat. Neither was death or pain in childbirth or wars or clothing. But polygamy wasn't criminalized under the law of Moses. It's beyond the pale to claim that death by stoning proved that polygamy wasn't allowed. If that was the case the David, Solomon and the father of Samuel should have all been stoned.

    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    Mazel Tov



    As this verse points out not everything Moses condoned through the law is part of God's plan ("stone the adulterers to death" believers need to reread that). It stands to reason that other things, like polygamy, are also not part of God's plan. It never says God picked the Jews because they were shining examples of morality. He didn't use the laws he gave them to "change them" or keep them in their perfected state.

    One man. One woman. One flesh. Three people can't be one flesh. Neither can two men or two women.

    I bolded the "in the beginning" part and started the post with "Mazel Tov" to make a point about what is was like in the beginning. In the old days they believed in soul mates (I believe in soul mates). Here's a description of the meaning behind Mazel Tov.



    So I reject the notion that because the superstars of the Old Testament were institutionalized philanderers that God must not have a problem with it. God's plan has never changed. If God were forced to correct all of a man's faults before he would interact with him then the bible would just have Him and Jesus in it.


    * I've posted before that Leo Tolstoy has poked a hole in "except it be for fornication" clause in Jesus' words above. Analyzing the original Greek he deduced that there were grammar problems in the translation and that the original textual meaning was "in addition to the sin of fornication". So his conclusion was that Jesus' meant you would be an adulterer AND a fornicator. I agree with that interpretation and it doesn't even make sense otherwise. It sounds like Jesus is saying no divorce even though Moses authorized it for adultery, but then says it's still ok if they are fornicators. The inference as to "why" whoever doctored this text did it is that they were trying to put in a divorce loophole when Jesus clearly outlawed it.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Okie RP fan View Post
    The bill is very confusing, and, as I'm sure most of you probably already thought, many people across the state are confused in regard to this legislation. In fact, many of us aren't even sure the representative fully understands this bill.

    If we look at it, the bill suggests the state would be retreating from marriage, and leaving the licensing power with the churches, solely.
    Problem is, it appears that it will do that, but only up front. So, the license won't be required to get married to start, but the license will have to be provided regardless afterwards to the state, they just won't issue it... So, in theory, gays and lesbians can still get married, assuming they can find a minister to marry them (which, there are...).

    I don't think I understand it passed that.
    Yeah. The bill is confusing. You can get married without a license but you still need to provide one after the fact? Need to read the bill. This interesting bit went past me the first time.

    Johnson did allow, however, that the state does have an interest in preventing such things as incest, polygamy and marriage of minors.

    Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Del City, and Rep. Emily Virgin, D-Norman, suggested that preventing those things might be harder to do under Russ’ proposal because court clerks would no longer be in position to require proof of identity and age.


    Here's the crazy part. You can be arrested and tried for polygamy in most (all?) states even if you don't get a state license. If the state can prove that you stood up before a pastor and purported to get married to two women at once or married to a second when you are already married, you can be convicted of polygamy. So I guess that's how such stupid laws can still be enforced. This further drives home the point that I've said countless times which is that gay marriage really isn't illegal, it's just not recognized. So Oklahoma, by providing an alternative way to recognize gay marriage, opens the door for it completely while leaving the door shut for an illegal practice that never should have been illegal in the first place.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Okie RP fan View Post
    The bill is very confusing, and, as I'm sure most of you probably already thought, many people across the state are confused in regard to this legislation. In fact, many of us aren't even sure the representative fully understands this bill.

    If we look at it, the bill suggests the state would be retreating from marriage, and leaving the licensing power with the churches, solely.
    Problem is, it appears that it will do that, but only up front. So, the license won't be required to get married to start, but the license will have to be provided regardless afterwards to the state, they just won't issue it... So, in theory, gays and lesbians can still get married, assuming they can find a minister to marry them (which, there are...).

    I don't think I understand it passed that.
    I thought the bill would just slightly lessen the work loads for county clerks by not having them do the quick ceremony anymore? A lot of people don't have ceremonies, anyway, especially for their 2nd and 3rd marriages.

    I'm confused.
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  17. #15
    As usual, the Libs/Dems/Gays are spinning and twisting to serve their agenda/meme -

    Oklahoma Bill Would Legalize Gay Marriage. This Apparently Bothers Democrats and Gays. (CORRECTED)

    http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/11/ok...ze-gay-marriag



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-06-2015, 08:05 AM
  2. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 06-28-2015, 01:16 PM
  3. Oklahoma State Rep files bill to end Marriage Licensure in Oklahoma
    By GunnyFreedom in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-22-2015, 10:42 PM
  4. question about marriage licenses
    By kojirodensetsu in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-12-2012, 12:07 PM
  5. Legislation: Oklahoma House Votes 83-13 to Restore States' Rights
    By FrankRep in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 02-20-2009, 05:27 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •