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 ...
Nine states have common law marriage, for it to be legal, it has to be legal, so what is the difference? In the rest of America
As far as not wanting the state to recognize your marriage, that was available 500 years ago, 200 years ago, in 1950, and today.
No one makes you seek out legal recognition for your relationship, so what are you people all talking about?
That may be so, but marriage was handled by the church during the greater part of the period after 500 A.D.
America doesn’t have a government church.
It was not unusual for a government religion to make marriage law.
It is still the law, imposed on the subjects and in fact is quite common in the middle East and other parts of the world I assume.
If you want Christian marriage law to endure in America, then you have to vote for it, because if you just say “religion”, or “church”, there are gay churches, Muslim churches, Muslim churches, Satan churches, and any kind of world church and future cult or religion that anyone wants.
Besides, you ignore reality, which laws will apply at the federal level, for federal agencies and the military?
Just as in all societies, marriage has always had to be a matter of law in America. If you don't care if it is legal, then don't make it legal, what is so hard to understand about that?
As far as religion, Islam?, gay churches? Are you guys arguing for polygamy and gay marriage and for the military and federal government to now recognize polygamy?
I have a creepy feeling that this law will have some bad unintended consequences. Also does the clerk HAVE to accept that piece of paper from Adam and Steve?
Legal repercussions of marriage derive from contractual obligations. The link between two human beings is a matter of love and commitment pledged before God.
These are different things, and should be treated as different things. It’s that simple. If you’re married, you should have to specify under what faith, church, our spiritual tradition you are married. It shouldn’t be some generalized government permission slip. It’s identical to calling yourself a citizen. No one is a free floating citizen - every citizen is a citizen of some country, and they are all different relationships and obligations. Same with marriage. If a Hindu priest married two Christians, would they consider themselves married? No. So the religious basis MUST be specified for the word marriage to take place. Not doing so literally allows the government to take the place of the authority of God - which is exactly what it has done, and why there is a “marriage” problem today.
So you are trying to create and impose a new concept of marriage in America, that we have never had and would never have created, silly stuff in other words.
The ending of freedom in America, where if a woman marries a Muslim, then by God then she and his other wives are all locked into Muslim marriage law.
If two atheists marry in some satantic church and one finds Christ, she and the disposition of her children and goods is still legally bound to what the Satanic cult’s marriage laws are.
Why? because that would be your marriage law.
Quit playing bizarre games, there is no defined “religion”, or state “religion” in America, and in fact no one is obligated to belong to a church to get married.
****If you don’t want your marriage to be legal, then why don’t you just skip that part if you want to?****
Yep, those are examples of how horrid it could get
Getting married in a Church is not "new."
Civil union contractual obligations are not new, either. Divorce and tax laws are based on the latter, and have nothing to do with the former.
I talk about marriage in a Church, and you think it means polygamy and satanism? WHAT?! And that marriage in a Church is illegal? WHAT?!
I have NO idea what you are even taking about, and quite frankly I'm not interested in why you think a Church marriage is an illegal perversion. Take your bizarre fantasies of law and religion somewhere else, because they have nothing to do with American history, law and traditions, and certainly nothing to do with Christianity.
And the Anglican Church was regarded as part of the State.
As James Madison said:
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law.
The Church of England was implicitly part of the Government. That is the legacy of English common law from which our nation emerged.
What do you think a marriage license IS? Do you think the word "marriage" has different meanings under the government code? What is a bizarre game is that you're arguing that this fundamental truth doesn't exist.
Well said. This is indeed all about sodomy practicing drama queens.
I’m sorry. I just re-read your message and realized you said the same thing.
You are trying to slap a patch on the surface of the problem without addressing the underlying problem.
Our nation emerged by dumping the King - who was implicitly the head of the Church of England. Thus when we dumped the King, we dumped the link between the common law and the church, too. In doing so it can be argued that we also thereby specifically dissociated marriage from government.
I don't think that law would be allowed to apply to governmental officials, meaning people who issue marriage licenses.
I suspect they think the Federal courts are going to force gay marriage. That's what I think too.
Government acknowledgement of marriage is not the same as the government claiming the power and authority to marry people.
There is a HUGE difference.
That is what you don't understand.
Because they could. The whole point of predation is to focus on a straggler and take it down. They saw the trend and decided they needed to turn the herd. Indiana just happened to be it.
I think not. Rather, the underlying problem is the government claiming the authority to marry people. Government can acknowledge the existence of a marriage. But it cannot create one - it does not have that power.
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.