Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oklahoma lawmaker's 'clergy only' policy for marriage licenses aimed at stopping same-sex unions
AL.com ^ | 01/26/2015 | Leada Gore

Posted on 01/26/2015 9:22:05 AM PST by GIdget2004

While the battle over same-sex marriage in Alabama is heating up, it has already reached a boiling point in Oklahoma. And the fight there could very well signal what's ahead here.

Oklahoma legislator Rep. Todd Russ - an Assemblies of God minister- has filed a bill requiring that only "an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination" be allowed to sign marriage certificates.

County judges would be prohibited from performing weddings and no clerks could issue marriage licenses.

No religious officiant? You're out of luck, though you can file an affidavit of common law marriage which, by the way, isn't always recognized in Oklahoma. And what if you choose not to have a religious ceremony at all? Too bad, you're still forced to find a clergy member to sign your certificate.

The Republican lawmakers' explanation is simple: "Oklahoma voted overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage, and yet the Supreme Court stuck it down our throats," he told the Daily Oklahoman.

Same-sex marriage became legal in Oklahoma in October. In 2004, however, Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

That's the same sort of amendment that's in place in Alabama. It's also the same type of amendment that's been tossed out by a growing number of judges.

Other lawmakers in Oklahoma are trying different tactics. One would bar state and local employees from recognizing or granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples under penalty of losing their jobs. Another would allow businesses to refuse to serve LGBT residents.

(Excerpt) Read more at al.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Alabama; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

1 posted on 01/26/2015 9:22:05 AM PST by GIdget2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

This is how it was in England hundreds of years ago before all this crap-
Marriages were performed ONLY in churches and the records were sent to the civil registrar to be recorded.

Marriage Records
“Marriage entries recorded the date and place of marriage.
Information included the ages of the two parties, their residences, marital status, occupations, fathers, and even their fathers’ occupations. Civil copies of marriage entries are duplicates of original church entries. Thus, since it was the duty of the minister to forward
copies of all of the marriages he performed, the vast majority have been recorded at the civil level, even in the early years of civil registration.
However, always be sure to check the original church record since there are often discrepancies between the civil and ecclesiastical copies of the same record. Clerical errors happen! We blogged about this recently.”
http://www.progenealogists.com/greatbritain/englishcivilregistration.htm


2 posted on 01/26/2015 9:27:19 AM PST by bunkerhill7 (re (`("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Even if the law is passed and signed won’t last one second in the courts. It is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.


3 posted on 01/26/2015 9:30:21 AM PST by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

The idea here is anything secular becomes a civil union and cannot be defined as marriage without clergy.


4 posted on 01/26/2015 9:35:01 AM PST by George from New England (escaped CT in 2006, now living north of Tampa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

This government has violated the Bill of Rights hourly and the courts are okay with it


5 posted on 01/26/2015 9:35:46 AM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

A simple search engine search for ‘become an ordained minister’ will show how easy it is to comply with such a law.


6 posted on 01/26/2015 9:38:33 AM PST by posterchild (It takes a politician to declare a settled science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Unfortunately, there is no way this would be upheld by the courts under the “Freedom from Religion” clause of the Bill of Rights.

It is one of those hidden clauses that was discovered by the Supreme Court many years ago. It is right before the “emanations from penumbra” provision of the Constitution.


7 posted on 01/26/2015 9:39:20 AM PST by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

This is America, we have gay churches, Mosques, Satan worshiping clergy, Mormons, Unitarians, clergy means whatever any American wants it to mean.

This is just another way to make polygamy and gay marriage legal.


8 posted on 01/26/2015 9:40:22 AM PST by ansel12 (Civilization, Crusade against the Mohammedan Death Cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
The Bible is clear in its stance on Homosexuality (sodomy) and Homosexual marriage. Throughout the Bible Homosexual behavior and practice is forbidden as a sin against God Himself (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9-10) and breaks the everlasting covenant that God established with man in Genesis 2 & 9, where God told man to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and then to be fruitful and multiply on the earth. This condemnation extends all the way to the New Testament where Homosexual practice is expressly forbidden.

Jesus said in Luke 17 that the last days before his return would be like the days of Lot (Sodom), where homosexuality and pederasty were practiced. Like Sodom, where men broke the everlasting covenant with God by legislating homosexuality and pederasty, the prophet Isaiah predicted 2500 years ago that the entire world would be like this in the last days and would bring judgment on the world...

Isaiah 24:1 Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

2 And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him.

3 The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the LORD hath spoken this word.

4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish.

5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

9 posted on 01/26/2015 9:41:47 AM PST by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else need s said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: posterchild
A simple search engine search for ‘become an ordained minister’ will show how easy it is to comply with such a law.

Either that or go to your local PC(USA) parish. They'll be happy to sign your gay marriage certificate.

10 posted on 01/26/2015 9:43:47 AM PST by MAexile (Bats left, votes rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

Ah, but England had (and in theory still has) an established Church.

That was also how it was in the Roman Empire from sometime in the 9th century when the Roman state decided that civil marriages were redundant, onward — before then, a Christian marriage was a Roman civil marriage undertaken with the blessing of the local bishop, followed by reception of the Holy Eucharist at the same Liturgy by the newly civily married couple. There was no Christian marriage ceremony. (Yes, there was still a Roman Empire then, its capital was at Constantinople. Historians since Gibbon have been lying and calling it “the Byazantine Empire” because they want to dispossess the later Christian phase of its Romanitas so they can claim Rome for secularism). This is why the marriage service is the most recently composed of all Orthodox Christian services (unless you count akathists and canons to saints whose glorification was proclaimed since then as “new services”. I don’t, I regard them as additions to small compline or variations on a paraklesis or molieben.)

Of course, all Oklahoma will do with this is to oblige homosexuals to have Unitarian-Universalist or Wiccan ceremonies, and to have the law eventually struck down on behalf of atheists who want a way of marrying without involvement of a clergyman of any sort.


11 posted on 01/26/2015 9:49:43 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

The best way around this mess would be for the state to get out of the marriage business entirely. The associated statutes about sex, children, taxes, etc., would need some modification, but would survive.

Already there was an IRS designation, Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters (POSSLQ), to handle single or joint filing of taxes.

Importantly, this would return the definition of marriage to churches *as far as their domination was concerned*, since there would be no limitation on who could carry out a legal marriage (as in two adult humans with no duress). But at the same time, churches would be under no obligation to accept marriages performed by anyone else as genuine.

In practice, little would change, because government has no legitimate involvement in marriage, as such, just behavior.


12 posted on 01/26/2015 9:50:46 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
Of course, all Oklahoma will do with this is to oblige homosexuals to have Unitarian-Universalist or Wiccan ceremonies, and to have the law eventually struck down on behalf of atheists who want a way of marrying without involvement of a clergyman of any sort.

I have been trying to tell this to people all along, especially the libertarians who use it as cover that we just make marriage religious.

It is a ridiculous idea on all levels, so ridiculous, that it is just phony nonsense.

13 posted on 01/26/2015 9:55:13 AM PST by ansel12 (Civilization, Crusade against the Mohammedan Death Cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

This is stupid and won’t do anything to fix the problem. Here in the U.S., we have religious liberty, so anyone can be “clergy”, and therefore, anyone could sign your marriage certificate.

There are churches that will literally ordain anyone who asks them (Universal Life Church, for one). After that, all you need to do is register with your state and you are legally equivalent to a priest or reverend of a mainstream denomination with years of training.


14 posted on 01/26/2015 9:55:40 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
And what constitutes "ordained or authorized?" By whom? In the end, the government will have to license ministers, so this only adds to the problem of farce weddings.

No, the answer is to separate marriage into its secular and sacred dimensions, and to let the state administer the first while religious institutions administer the latter. Call the formal "civil marriages" if you must, but recognize that any religion is free to reject a mere civil union as a marriage for religious purposes.

15 posted on 01/26/2015 9:58:41 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Solid move by Oklahoma. Let’s hope the bill is enacted


16 posted on 01/26/2015 10:17:49 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
No, the answer is to separate marriage into its secular and sacred dimensions, and to let the state administer the first while religious institutions administer the latter. Call the formal "civil marriages" if you must, but recognize that any religion is free to reject a mere civil union as a marriage for religious purposes.

When I was teaching in Turkey, I frequently passed a city building where marriages took place. Marriages were a purely civil matter, with registration with the city government being the only requirement. I asked my department chairman about religious weddings. He said that after the civil wedding, the couple could ask an Imam to come to their house and bless the marriage, but that wasn't required.

I do think some kind of civil registration is needed, because there must be records of who is already married, who is married to whom, who will be responsible for the care of children, who will inherit property, etc. Marriage is not a purely private affair. There are lots of ways in which society is involved in marriage, and that must be accounted for.

17 posted on 01/26/2015 10:23:01 AM PST by JoeFromSidney (Book RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY, available from Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

If I’m not mistaken, our forefathers not only left England to have religious freedom, but also fought a bit of a war with the British so we could have our own way of life.


18 posted on 01/26/2015 10:53:42 AM PST by arbitrary.squid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
I've read that Amendment a few times.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see where it says, "States shall provide civil marriages."

19 posted on 01/26/2015 11:05:11 AM PST by cizinec (Liberty is the only political "party" that deserves our loyalty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
No, the answer is to separate marriage into its secular and sacred dimensions

And the secular ones are called "partnerships." There are plenty of laws concerning the formation and dissolution of partnerships. I don't care if it has 20 people.

The state can neither make nor dissolve a marriage. The state does not have that capacity, regardless of the number of laws we pass. We can pass a law saying the Earth is flat, the universe is 2 Kilometers by 2 Kilometers, we're drinking free bubble up and eating our rainbow stew. That doesn't make it so. Popular opinion, even when put to a vote, does not govern the universe.

20 posted on 01/26/2015 11:12:06 AM PST by cizinec (Liberty is the only political "party" that deserves our loyalty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson