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 ...
What a twisted dishonest post, you just made it all up.
That entire post is just a bald faced lie and false portrayal of what I posted.
You think that Thomas Jefferson’s marriage was a game?
Your whole bizarre radical, and illogical and irrational take on marriage in America which would make anything that Islam or gay churches, or satanic churches, or any religious cult wants, and forbid marriage to people who are atheists, is twisted and absurd.
Why won’t you answer the logical questions that point out how absurd your ideas are?
How about this question, if you don’t care if your marriage is legal, then why bother with making it so, why don’t you just skip that?
I would say that this interpretation goes too far. We ejected aspects of common law which were in conflict with our founding principles, but we retained by inertia much of English society and it's methodology.
I think having the Church of England as part of the government gave marriages within it official government sanction. I think states eventually moved to restore this government sanction by creating marriage licenses. I think society wanted it back.
You *ARE* trying to slap a patch on the problem by side stepping the Gaystapo attack. They will simply move on to another issue of contention when what needs to happen is for them to be defeated and marginalized.
Getting the State out of marriage will just hand them another victory. They need to be told "no."
Government does have the authority to marry people and to pass marriage law, and in America has been doing that since day one.
It doesn’t “create” marriages, it can perform them though, not everyone has a religion or a church, or wants a religious ceremony.
Law defines what legal marriage is, Islam doesn’t, gay churches don’t, satanic cults don’t, individuals don’t, that is why Muslims can’t legally have polygamous marriages here for example, and why gay churches couldn’t perform legal marriages until recently.
In your fantasy world, anything goes, as long as it calls itself “religion”, and then once someone is married under a certain religion, they are trapped under that religion’s laws, for good, your solution is a nightmare of horrors and religious slavery and inconceivable to Americans and civilized people, but the Muslims would love it.
The issue is the fact that children have a natural right to be raised by their natural parents. The State had a duty to promote this institution, since the raising of children is a foundation of society. This requires a definition of marriage.
Marriage is both a natural and religious instruction. On the natural level, it is the lifetime commitment between a man and woman for the begetting and raising of children
The earliest federal marriage laws where the feds needed to know if someone’s marriage was legal or not, were passed in 1780. 1794, 1798, and 1802.
Even the feds have involvement in marriage for the military, immigration, federal employment, foreign policy, etc.
States need to have laws regarding marriage as do all levels of government, even city government has to be able to make a decision on whether they are to recognize a relationship as legal marriage.
No, my friend, you are absolutely wrong. Government can make laws that declare marriage whatever it wants, but marriage is defined by two people pledging their lives together before God. The government can scream they are illegal, it can jail them and kill them and you can post slander against them and it means absolutely nothing at all - zero.
Because marriage is made by GOD ALONE. And that is BEYOND government - and the US Constitution acknowledges that relationship.
YOU are the one who is seeing the statist, collectivist command, control and authority of the government over marriage. YOU are the one who would shred the 1st Amendment and have all religions cleared and approved by the government to be "legal." YOURS is the dream of the globalists, the corporatists and the homosexual activists who would change laws as they please and then - as is happening right now - declare religious observance "illegal."
How can you take that position when Christians are being sued, broken and threatened with jail RIGHT NOW in American BECAUSE their religious beliefs HAVE BEEN DECLARED ILLEGAL? Are you blind?!
And yet you demand marriage be subject to declarations of legality? You invoke satanism, polygamy, and Muslims, but that's not what's happening here - CHRISTIANS are being declared illegal FOR PRACTICING THEIR FAITH. So what happens when their "legal" Christian marriage is declared illegal? WHAT THEN?
Study natural law and negative rights - HARD. Until you UNDERSTAND them.
I disagree for the reasons in my post #88.
It doesn't matter what society wants - the AUTHORITY to conduct marriage came from the Church of England, not the government. The King combined both, but the authority was still with the Church because marriage is a pledge before God. When the government split from the Church, the authority to conduct marriage split with it. I know what it claims, but as long as God is a part of marriage, government has no legitimate authority over it. The most government can do is acknowledge a civil contractual union for bureaucratic and administrative purposes. But that is not marriage before God.
"Law defines what legal marriage is, Islam doesn't, gay churches don’t, satanic cults don’t, individuals don’t, that is why Muslims can’t legally have polygamous marriages here for example, and why gay churches couldn't perform legal marriages until recently."
Islamic polygamy marriage is currently illegal in America, as are plenty of various "religious" and cult definitions of marriage, and you want to make them all available, and in effect, end any definition of marriage in America.
Christian marriage is not illegal in America, but some religion's marriages are. Why do you want them all to become accepted?
Why are you playing this fantasy game anyway, is this your approach to destroying marriage by ending our conservative fight to protect it? That is a common trick of libertarians, to divert the conversation from our political marriage fight, to some fantasies of suddenly completely erase marriage law entirely, which isn't anywhere in the universe of reality, or even desirability.
You are a libertarian aren't you.
So all this bizarre and contradictory talk of God and religion is your way of getting us off of the conservative battle to preserve marriage, and in fact is a fight against protecting normal marriage and conservatism.
LOL, you troll.
Not only are you libertarian, but you are also a Ron Paul devotee.
No wonder you are playing that libertarian trick of ending marriage “in the name of God” that is what you guys do, to advance your lefty politics here at FR.
Why don’t you just argue it from your libertarian anti-God, anti-Social conservative perspective?
“The leftists will be applauding Oklahoma, the first step toward their dream of destroying it.”
If that is the case, why haven’t the states that are completely leftist controlled just do this long ago?
Freegards
Not at all. If you'd wipe the spittle from your mouth and stop slinging bumpersticker insults and THINK for a moment, you'd see that I never, ever said that government should not acknowledge civil unions.
Just not marriages.
And yes, that means anyone can declare themselves married - by their definition - for any reason. BUT, that definition - as I said several times, if you remember - would be linked to the source of their marriage. IF you remember, I pointed out that a Christian couple maried by a Hindu proest would not consider themselves married. They would only consider themselves married if they were married in a Christian church under the Christian traditions and rites. BUT - a Hindu couple would feel the same way if they weren't married according to the Hindu tradition.
So which type of marriage would you legalize? Would HIndus be married in America, or not? An if that's too extreme how about Catholics versus Protestants - which would be married legally, and which not? Remember, both believe the other's marriage as illegitimate at the Hindu one, by definition - because if they were married in the other's church, they would NOT believe they were legitimately married. And how about Mormons - are they legally married? Are they legal Christians? Do they have legal beliefs?
So which "marriage" would your government legalize? You see, you don't have to invoke your scare tactics, your polygamy and Muslims and homosexuals, etc. You just do that to hide the deeper issue - once government gets into the God business, where does it stop? What are the limits? Who decides on someone's relationship with God?
Do you know why people of any time register their marriages with the government? Tax status, that's why. dependency benefits, that's why. Administrative issues easily and equally handled by acknowledgement of civil unions.
But, you cry, if government doesn't have the power to control marriage, anyone can claim to be married to anyone or anything! There will be no laws at all, dogs and cats will live together? Chaos!
LOL, nonsense. Like I said, which is legitimate - Catholics, Protestants, or Hindus? NONE of them will accept marriage in the other's traditions, so which one does your all-powerful government legalize? One of them? All of them? By what criteria?
THAT IS WHAT THE GAYS ARE EXPLOITING.
But in doing so, they are exposing a fallacy - a mistake. A place government has planted it's big hairy butt where it has no right to be - marriage. Marriage doesn't exist alone. A person is married IN THEIR FAITH. Do you really think it matters to a couple married in the Catholic faith that someone, somewhere, has declared themselves marrried to their dog? Of course not. What does that have to do with Catholicism? Same for Protestants, Hindus and anyone else.
But administrative civil unions? COntractual relationships aof interdependency and and debt liability? relationships that obey all the civil laws on the books and don't claim other legal systems like sharia? Thenfine - what's wrong with that? It's a government registration process that follows the law, and does NOT impinge on religious RIGHTS - or even get anywhere near claiming to do so. And this, in fact, IS what a "marriage license" really IS, in FACT. All I'm saying is that WE CALL IT WHAT IT IS - and not call it a "marriage license," because IT'S NOT.
You are arguing against freedom of religion - point blank. The founders of this country would be horrified with you. You say they had the government marry them - they would say they were married before God and filed notice of that union WITH the government for administrative purpose, and that the government HAD NO POWER to unite them in marriage BEFORE GOD. They just dedicated their LIVES to this difference - natural rights versus government granted privilege. You thnk they wouldn't know the difference in their own right to be married before God? You think when they wrote the 1st Amendment it as a GAME?
What you are arguing and defending with slander and abuse towards me is disgraceful. You attack the very foundations of your own country, straight on. When I call you confused I am being kind, because your position is truly indefensible. That you would dare call a Christian church wedding ILLEGAL until it was registered and paid for with some bureaucrat makes me vomit.
Family court is a different matter mainly because it really has nothing to do with marriage. Custodial disputes and juvenile criminal proceedings take place regardless of whether the parents are married, cohabitating, alive, dead, etc.
But there are some legal benefits you can’t get (namely “not qualified for”) if you’re not legally recognized as married.
Marriage as a legal institution was effectively destroyed once no-fault divorce became legal all over the place. Now we’re just making the destruction official.
Keep in mind that a marriage license only exists in a culture with a written language, so there are plenty of perfectly valid marriages all over the world that have no “legal” recognition.
Once a government recognizes gay marriage it has no legal or moral authority to outlaw polygamy. Every legal argument that is raised in support of "gay marriage" will also apply to polygamy.
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.