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 don't care. Let the state decide for itself. We have a 17 trillion dollar debt and pedophiles running around getting 2nd and 3rd victims. Not to mention the gazillion mothers that almost have heart attacks when they lose sight of a kid for 3 seconds. and a blind liberal wants me to care that marriage is for a man and women only?
In general, Governors should have more power than the fedz in their home state. ok, now its the liberal's turn to take this idea and caompletely butcher it.
I am afraid A/A's argument does not convince. Important matters, test cases, legal precedents or indeed the repeated attempts to breach the laws so as to wangle a bit of discrimination on the statute books, require attention, even if paedophiles are still running loose.
The "Why are you fining me for jumping a red light - haven't you got any murders to solve?" ploy cuts no ice with me. I can stretch a point with churches being given the right to limit marriages to same sex - though I am aware that their precious religious scruples wouldn't count for squat if they tried to refuse interracial marriage on the same bases - because that is 'private' territory, as it were. though not as private as the home, and even the home is subject to law. So, sooner or later, Churches are going to have to get in line.
But clerks of courts are in a public area and the alarm bell is going off as when Muslim checkout staff want to be exempted from handling bacon; or a registrar will not marry same sex couple. Get a different job; don't demand the job description be adapted just to suit you. And that is why the Amish can either put the regulation light on their traps or stay off the public road.
These people will have to be told what the law is, and if they refuse to obey it, not only will they be looking for another job, they will be lucky if they are not up in court themselves.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-17-2015 at 09:36 AM..
I don't care. Let the state decide for itself. We have a 17 trillion dollar debt and pedophiles running around getting 2nd and 3rd victims. Not to mention the gazillion mothers that almost have heart attacks when they lose sight of a kid for 3 seconds. and a blind liberal wants me to care that marriage is for a man and women only?
In general, Governors should have more power than the fedz in their home state. ok, now its the liberal's turn to take this idea and caompletely butcher it.
What is this about "blind liberals?" It's a Constitutional issue more than anything, as it violates the concept of separation of church and state. It's also an ethical dilemma. Are the sides falling along party lines? Sure. But to attempt to further politicize this by bringing ideology into it smacks of a narrow-minded agenda in which you are merely taking what you see as an opportunity to bash liberals.
How trite.
As disinclined as I am to have the state being too deep into personal affairs, including marriage, marriage is a legal contract, and to restrict it based on sexuality or religious belief is codified discrimination. If you're okay with codified discrimination, be prepared for when they really come for you next, and start restricting your other rights based on your religious beliefs or lack thereof. This is a slippery slope indeed.
If you're worried about pedophiles, note that because this measure removes secular marriage licenses entirely, technically it opens up the possibility of marriage between a 30-year-old and a 14-year-old because clerks would no longer be required to request proof of age:
So be careful what you wish for. And remember, this is how it starts. First discriminate against the easy targets, the people who are a small minority, like homosexuals and atheists. Then go for a larger minority, like believers who are not specifically Christian. And so on, until only white Christians of a certain class can marry.
I don't care. Let the state decide for itself. We have a 17 trillion dollar debt and pedophiles running around getting 2nd and 3rd victims. Not to mention the gazillion mothers that almost have heart attacks when they lose sight of a kid for 3 seconds. and a blind liberal wants me to care that marriage is for a man and women only?
In general, Governors should have more power than the fedz in their home state. ok, now its the liberal's turn to take this idea and caompletely butcher it.
$17 trillion dollar debt? What could that possibly have to do with the Constitutionality of laws? Do you think judges have to pry themselves away from balancing the federal budget to rule on cases? (hint - the judiciary doesn't handle the budget) What do pedophiles have to do with the Constitutionality of a law that restricts marriage? Nothing. What do over-protective mothers have to do with this? Nothing.
Why are you so desperately trying to shift attention away from this issue by citing all manner of issues that have absolutely no relevancy to this one?
Governors do have more power in their states than the federal government. But federal application of the Constitution is supreme in our system. You do know that, right?
PS - I'm amused that you sneeringly dismiss concern over Constitution rights as some 'liberal' idea.
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.
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.
Let me see if I can clarify this:
The intent of the legislation is to do away with marriage licenses issued by the state entirely, so clerks who didn't accept gay marriage wouldn't have to process license applications by gay people.
Per the second article I linked in this thread:
Quote:
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.
So this means it would be up to the clergy people who performed the ceremony--meaning the ceremony would have to be a religious one--to file a certificate of marriage with the state.
By wiping out secular licenses and leaving certification of marriage up to clergy in religious organizations, they probably figured there would be no gay marriage. That is where your comment about stupid assumptions comes in, because there are plenty of gay people who belong to liberal religious organizations with clergy who will perform the ceremony for them. Otherwise, gay people could file for civil unions with the state, but not marriage.
The swipe at atheists is almost a side effect, because what atheist is going to go to a clergy person in a religious organization and go through a religious ceremony? Unitarian-Universalists are about the only ones who could fit that description if they happen to be atheists, like my ex-husband and I were. Other atheists would be out of luck unless they wanted to be hypocrites and go have a religious ceremony performed by a clergy person just to get a certificate of marriage filed with the state. Or they could become UUs, but that is still forcing them to join a religious organization and they shouldn't have to do that.
In other words, you don't have a marriage unless a clergy person says you do and files for a certificate on your behalf, and that is what is discriminatory toward atheists. We shouldn't have to ask a church person for that. We should be free to get a marriage license and have a justice of the peace perform a ceremony right there in the court house if we wish. That is a civil right, end of story.
So this means it would be up to the clergy people who performed the ceremony--meaning the ceremony would have to be a religious one--to file a certificate of marriage with the state.
Of course the bill specifies minister of the Gospel or rabbi in some places but is less specific in others - typically sloppy work by people with an agenda. Sounds like that will invite scrutiny from the federal courts, especially when some activist state employee decides a Muslim couple's application for a marriage license is against the law. Like most anti-SSM tactics, this will likely backfire on them. If they would have left well enough alone no one would bother, but now that they're making a fuss over it federal courts are going to invalidate large parts of the law as written.
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.
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.
