Posted on 04/03/2015 4:27:24 AM PDT by concernedcitizen76
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at tulsaworld.com ...
But will it protect pizza shop owners that don't want to cater sodomite "weddings"?
http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza
the common people will have to protect businesses on their own, in their own way
Marriage is now going to become a truly religious institution, and governments eventually will not even recognize it anyway. Within a few decades I'll bet most states will have no more interest in recognizing a "marriage" than they would give out a certificate for a bar mitzvah.
Guess you don’t need a blood test anymore?
Up until the 19th century, only a few states, e.g., Massachusetts, issued marriage licenses. For most of Western history, the institution of the state was not involved in marriage.
I believe you are 100% correct.
I think this is a move in the right direction. The state shouldn’t be in the marriage business...
That is true because there was a state church that handled marriage. For example, in England until the 19th century the Anglican Church handled marriage so even a Non-Conformists had to be married by the Church of England then get married in their own church. In many countries today with a Napoleonic Law Code there is a civil marriage ceremony then if you want you have the religious ceremony.
As Apollo Creed said of Rocky: ‘whatever gets him in the ring.’
In this case, the objective is to get the Gaystapo OUT of the ring, by eliminating bureaucracy and paper shuffling as a proxy (in their minds) for wider social acceptance. They truly believe that a state-issued license (on which the word ‘love’ never appears) puts them on equal footing with real marriage.
The same principle applies to public school activities, dances, sports teams, etc. If it’s public, then leftists and militant gays will find a way to ruin it via legal attacks. The problem, of course, is that leftists are always attempting to make (or redefine) things as public even when they’re not - as the Indiana controversy demonstrates.
I believe gay marriage supporters opposed this because it leaves them without a fight.
Excellent. The state has no business licensing the interpersonal relationships of consenting adults.
L
Great start. I’ve long advocated to get the State OUT of the marriage (as in holy matrimony) business.
The Civil Unions should be treated by the State as a contracts.
does this mean there is no state interest in divorce either?
One of the benefits of marriage is a spouse cannot be forced to testify in criminal court against the other. Should that be eliminated? Should social security benefits be non-transferable?
Which is exactly why the state should have no interest in "marriage" in the first place.
You have an entire sector of the legal profession -- divorce attorneys -- who are dedicated to all of those cases where a so-called "contract" is broken by one of the two people who signed it. This in and of itself is irrefutable evidence that the state has no business getting involved in marriage. If real estate contracts were broken with this kind of regularity, you could never buy or sell property in your state. You can't even imagine a bizarre situation where you buy a home from someone, only to have that person come back ten years later and sue you because he didn't like the deal.
Throw that protection out the window in a society that doesn't have a clue what marriage is supposed to be. In fact, that protection becomes a loophole to be used by criminals once a state recognizes: (1) same-sex "marriage," and (2) polygamy (it's only a matter of time before this happens). One these two are in place, you'll have an entire organized crime family getting "married" to shield the entire operation.
Should social security benefits be non-transferable?
Taxpayer-funded benefits doled out by the state should never be a consideration in any definition of a religious institution.
‘Zackly.
Without the coercive power of the state they are helpless against societal disapproval.
Moreover, the LGBT crowd are always mentioned as such as if they are in lockstep solidarity. They are not, except in made-for-teevee-protests and political pandering. As more than one person has mentioned here or elsewhere over the years, most people aren’t as bothered about lesbians. Gay men may have a hormone imbalance contributing to or causing their condition but they still have testosterone which causes them to act aggressively, if effeminately at times. Boil down this conflict and accurately identify the players and the plot and you find that the battle, as usual, is about sodomy. Gay men are ashamed of the unnatural practice and of the societal disapproval that will never vanish. The shame turns to rage and the rage turns to taking ‘revenge’ for their own actions! Nonsensical but there it is.
This rage manifests itself in the legal challenges, the militancy and the pseudointellectual columns, magazines, etc. that all attempt to put a normal face on the abnormal.
When they realized that they could take and use otherwise sleepy county clerks’ offices as the instrument of their triumph, they rejoiced as any coward driven mad by societal disapproval would.
This just changes the target. They will move their attacks to the church. The war will continue.
In the 24 hours we had legal gay marriage here in Michigan. 3 county clerks opened their offices on a Saturday for the sole purpose of handing out marriage licenses.
They wouldn’t have been able to pull that purely political stunt if we eliminated licenses.
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.