Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. It assumes gays are non-believers. From that we can interpret that the idiots who wrote and passed the bill have no clue that faith and differing orientations are not connected. Meanwhile, what is the litmus test? If a man and a woman said they were not believers, I doubt they would be denied a marriage license. States can make all the laws they want, but they must be constitutional. This one fails on separation of church and state and on equal protection under the law. With this and the OU frat chant Oklahoma is not looking too good right now.
I don't see it quite like that. It wouldn't matter whether gays are Christians or not - quite a few are - but there are some religious who on scriptural grounds will not regard same sex couples as a proper marriage. We see that some will refuse to issue a license as this is breaking God's laws (as they see it) I can understand their scruples, but I am of the same view - you either overcome your scruples (1)or you find another job. You do not demand exemption from your job description, never mind the law, on religious grounds.
And that is my beef (apart from a concern about civil rights): it is all part of the 'To hell with man -made law' agenda.
(1) formerly I did work for the scientologists - because that was my job. I may disbelieve their religion and even disapprove of them, but I had no business saying that they were not entitled to the same rights as anyone else. and I doubt I could have got another job anyway i
I have to admit. I am not thinking clearly. I am so focused on governors, over all, having more power than the fedz my vision is blurred. Right now my vision blurred in USA' politicking. I see fedz and 10% of the population telling everybody else what to do. I see people forcing charity on others past what is reasonable. I see people forcing a few bad cops as representing all of the police while covering up criminal behavior with the word "unarmed" to decide they were innocent.
let the state decide for itself what they want as long as most people's rights don't get violated for no reason. A few homolezie can move, the rest of us can't. I can't move to a place that thinks the police help people that can't help themselves. These guy and galz can move to california.
That solution doesn't feel good to me. It makes me pancreases quivers. But we get to chose the innocent people that get hurt. When my vision clears I will see that Picking the majority to suffer is the best group.
Arach, why shouldnt the govenors have more power than the feds? Am I misunderstanding your point? This is the United States of America, not the Federal Republic of the United States. The premise in the name even is that the states are the central authority. The Federal government was intended to wield only those powers that could not be administered by the states.
In this case, marriage contracts are easily handled by the states and should be the purview of the state. That Oklahoma is abdicating their obligation is bad enough, but to hand legal oversight to a non legal oriented "group" is unthinkable. If the state wanted to abandon their obligation in this way, it should have at least organized a private enterprise with elected or appointed officials and deeded the regulatory authority to that board. This is how many jurisdictions handle their utility services. I guess it could manage a specific contract domain.
I dont see this as a violation of church and state as someone mentioned. There is no advocacy for any specific religion, christian or otherwise, inherent in this shifting of duty. You can find a nice Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan or any other sect you wish to perform this task. There is no preference displayed in this act.
I have to admit. I am not thinking clearly. I am so focused on governors, over all, having more power than the fedz my vision is blurred. Right now my vision blurred in USA' politicking. I see fedz and 10% of the population telling everybody else what to do. I see people forcing charity on others past what is reasonable. I see people forcing a few bad cops as representing all of the police while covering up criminal behavior with the word "unarmed" to decide they were innocent.
let the state decide for itself what they want as long as most people's rights don't get violated for no reason. A few homolezie can move, the rest of us can't. I can't move to a place that thinks the police help people that can't help themselves. These guy and galz can move to california.
That solution doesn't feel good to me. It makes me pancreases quivers. But we get to chose the innocent people that get hurt. When my vision clears I will see that Picking the majority to suffer is the best group.
Don't sweat it It's just as confusing here, with the Immigration business (very nasty ) being the most divisive and was projecting our very own Dubhya, a certain Mr Farrage, into a position of more attention that he merits.
The police and government (never mind top bosses, we knew they were crooks) have taken a few knocks and we are beginning to suspect that anyone capable of getting to the top of the heap should on no account be allowed to stay there. But it's probably decveptive and most of them are straight enough, but high profile dirty laundry spillages always attract attention while the honest majority quietly doing their jobs and fiddling their expenses are often overlooked.
Wow. You can't make this stuff up. Looks like an article from The Onion.
Marriage is a legal contract mediated by the state. The state has always been in the marriage business. That is true the world over, except in theocracies. Wonder why that is? Might have to do with separation of church and state.
In point of fact churches are NOT and never have been in the marriage business. They are in the wedding business to be sure, and particular ceremonies and rituals have always been up to each couple. But to partake of the civil benefits of marriage, a state-issued license is still necessary. Otherwise marriage is an unenforceable private living arrangement without the tax benefits, binding inheritance defaults, etc.
IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) but I understand this. Apparently the people of Oklahoma do not though. Whatever. If enacted, this law will be disassembled by the ACLU forthwith. Self-limiting problem.
I don't think it'll be enacted though because even in Oklahoma they know when they have gotten all the mileage they can out of pandering to the base, and what will cost them a bundle of money only to lose to challengers in the end.
Why is it that every time some news story comes out that makes the USA sound like a knuckle-dragging third world theocracy, it invariably comes out of Alabama or Oklahoma?
I swear, we should have just let them secede.
On the bright side, this obsession with other people's sexuality is not a sustainable political platform, and what we're seeing is in my opinion the death throes of a backwards worldview that's desperately trying to hang on to some semblance of political power. The fundamentalist zealots will always be there, but they're quickly being marginalized out of the mainstream political discussion -- which is a welcome development.
I understand it better now, thanks. I would think most people would want their marriages recorded whether they are civil or religious ceremonies. Imagine how this might play out when some of these folks seek a divorce or need to demonstrate the legitimacy of children, as some inevitably will. Depending on who conducted the ceremony and whether or not a marriage was reported that could cause real problems down the road.
On the bright side, this obsession with other people's sexuality is not a sustainable political platform, and what we're seeing is in my opinion the death throes of a backwards worldview that's desperately trying to hang on to some semblance of political power. The fundamentalist zealots will always be there, but they're quickly being marginalized out of the mainstream political discussion -- which is a welcome development.
You speak truly.
Over the last few years I have come to see the stridency of the extreme right not as some kind of resurgence, but as death throes. They realized that their days of hegemony are numbered, and they are in full panic mode. Nothing they do at this point can prevent the inevitable; I'm not sure they can even much forestall it.
I understand it better now, thanks. I would think most people would want their marriages recorded whether they are civil or religious ceremonies. Imagine how this might play out when some of these folks seek a divorce or need to demonstrate the legitimacy of children, as some inevitably will. Depending on who conducted the ceremony and whether or not a marriage was reported that could cause real problems down the road.
Excellent points. The people who proposed and voted for this legislation thus far are really pretty myopic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i
It's just as confusing here, with the Immigration business (very nasty 
) being the most divisive and was projecting our very own Dubhya, a certain Mr Farrage, into a position of more attention that he merits. 
