ForumGarden

If Runamucklicans have their way nonbelievers will need to go out of the state to marry.

Oklahoma is banning atheists from getting married - Americas - World - The Independent

A bill that would restrict the right to marry to people of faith and require all marriage licenses to be approved by a member of clergy was approved by the Oklahoma state House on Tuuesday.

House Bill 1125, which would effectively ban all secular marriages in the state, was passed by a Republican majority and will now go to the state Senate for consideration.

"Marriage was not instituted by government. It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage," said one of the bill's Republican supporters Rep. Dennis Johnson, though marriage is a legal contract.

They are actually after the gays, it would seem. I suppose if you are a gay atheist, it would be the double smack across the cheek.

It seems this bill isn't fuelled by a desire to segregate atheists however but is a thinly-veiled attack on gay marriage. By restricting the issuing of marriage licenses to the clergy and not judges and court clerks, the bill would make it harder for same-sex marriages to take place.

I can already see the hole in THAT logic.

One of my Oklahoma cousins is a preacher at a church primarily attended by Gay Christians.

He would be more than happy to sign those licenses.

LarsMac;1476659 wrote: I can already see the hole in THAT logic.

One of my Oklahoma cousins is a preacher at a church primarily attended by Gay Christians.

He would be more than happy to sign those licenses.I hope he can withstand an old fashioned shootout and possible bombing.

Is there a central register of births, deaths and marriage in America and who is it that runs it ?

Bruv;1476663 wrote: Is there a central register of births, deaths and marriage in America and who is it that runs it ?


Nope, each State keeps its own data, collected from registrars in each county.

I'll bet the National somethingorother has it all too in some drawer somewhere. Patriot Act - remember?

LarsMac;1476664 wrote: Nope, each State keeps its own data, collected from registrars in each county.


Are the State and the County registrars connected to the church ?

I thought the Constitution separates Church and state

Bruv;1476666 wrote: Are the State and the County registrars connected to the church ?

I thought the Constitution separates Church and state


No, completely separate.

However, ministers are licensed to perform marriage ceremonies, as are Judges and Justice of the Peace.

And they can fill out the form that certifies you have been married.

This new law would change the process in Oklahoma, to require that a minister signs the documents. No more Justice of the Peace ceremonies.

Somehow, I think this will not get past the federal courts as constitutionally valid.

I'm a certified minister of a nondenominational church, thus I can perform marriage ceremonies and sign the documents, and I have done so. I'm sure there are people such as myself in Oklahoma and I wonder how they will fare.

You have a lot of nutters in America haven't you ?

Bruv;1476677 wrote: You have a lot of nutters in America haven't you ?


Oh, yes, we do.

We even seem to import them.

So silly, all of it. If atheists and gays want a civil marriage then why not? If “the church want to deny them church weddings then why not? Where in it is the debate?

LarsMac;1476679 wrote: .... We even seem to import them.
Why? Do you need them more than we do?

High Threshold;1476711 wrote: So silly, all of it. If atheists and gays want a civil marriage then why not? If “the church want to deny them church weddings then why not? Where in it is the debate?


They can, now. But if you read the link in OP, you will see that the state wishes to require a Minister to authorize all marriage licenses. Hence, only church going people could apply for a license.

A not entirely well thought out plan, it seems.

LarsMac;1476714 wrote: They can, now. But if you read the link in OP, you will see that the state wishes to require a Minister to authorize all marriage licenses. Hence, only church going people could apply for a license.

A not entirely well thought out plan, it seems.
So they want to introduce a law requiring civil weddings to be clergy approved? I don't need to say what I'm thinking, do I. I don't think such a law can be rectified anyway.

High Threshold;1476717 wrote: So they want to introduce a law requiring civil weddings to be clergy approved? I don't need to say what I'm thinking, do I. I don't think such a law can be rectified anyway.


Ah, nope. I Think most of us are on the same page, here.

LarsMac;1476718 wrote: Ah, nope. I Think most of us are on the same page, here.


But not from the same hymn sheet ?

Bruv;1476723 wrote: But not from the same hymn sheet ?
... and the Lord sayeth, "Let there be pun!"

Bruv;1476666 wrote: Are the State and the County registrars connected to the church ?

I thought the Constitution separates Church and state
It reminds me of that old B&W film (Cary Grant?) where he proves the Government is in contravention of the rules of Government & Religion to remain seperate, by pointing out the words "In God We Trust" on the currency & in the courtrooms.

The Christian Taliban in action . Ugh .

Latest on this perceived controversy,

Oklahoma bill abolishes state marriage licenses

An Oklahoma bill that passed one legislative chamber this week rewrites the state’s marriage-licensing process, and asks clergy and notaries to sign off on new marriage papers.


The Oklahoma House of Representatives voted Tuesday to change state law to require couples to get a marriage certificate from an authorized member of the clergy after a formal ceremony. Couples who do not wish to have a religious ceremony may get a notarized common-law marriage affidavit.

Clerks would record these documents but no longer would issue marriage licenses. Judges who wish to officiate at a marriage ceremony may do so, but would not be required to do so.


Washington Times

I don't see a problem there.

"I don't see a problem there."

You don't, TD? "Couples who do not wish to have a religious ceremony may get a notarized common-law marriage affidavit." Common-law is not the same, & not equal to marriage. When this goes to the Supreme Court, and it will, this law will be thrown out. A state can't force a religious ceremony for a "real" marriage. Common law is not recognized in every state. Marriage is.

AnneBoleyn;1492055 wrote: "I don't see a problem there."

You don't, TD? "Couples who do not wish to have a religious ceremony may get a notarized common-law marriage affidavit." Common-law is not the same, & not equal to marriage.


Apparently in Oklahoma it is. What he problem as long as the newly united get all the same legal and tax considerations?

AnneBoleyn;1492055 wrote: When this goes to the Supreme Court, and it will, this law will be thrown out. A state can't force a religious ceremony for a "real" marriage. Common law is not recognized in every state. Marriage is.


"Homosexual marriage" definition: oxymoron

Ever since this nonsense of "homosexual marriage" became and issue it was apparent to me is the best resolution is for the state to get out of the marriage business.

The progressive left has done enough damage to the concept of marriage.

What should we now call the union of a couple?

This all stems from the Federal and State legal systems refusing, some years back, to make provisions for a "Civil Union" for the purpose of people who were not intending to legally marry, but to live together and share their lives and resources, and wanted to have the same kind of tax considerations, and rights to inheritance and such as married couples. The IRS in particular insisted that only married couples could qualify for the financial consideration given Married folk.

There were, of course other influences, as well. Laws governing people in co-habitation with unrelated people. Sexual relations outside of marriage. that sort of outdated BS, that should have been dealt with long ago.

This forced the people to pursue the marriage route.

Now look at the mess they've made.

I agree with the Dog. The State should get out of the marriage business, which is based upon old Nineteenth Century rules.

The universe is changing, and we either adapt or die.

But, yes, at this point in human evolution,

TD: "What should we now call the union of a couple?"

A marriage. Homosexuals marrying have nothing to do with same-sex marriage. It doesn't hurt you in the least. As for Oklahoma, as soon as there is a court battle, their new silly law will be thrown out, after wins, losses & appeals. It will not be found constitutional, because it is invasive.

TD: "The progressive left has done enough damage to the concept of marriage."

Nope. Damage occurred when straight people began running to the divorce court, then to the marriage hall, then back to the divorce court, and so on and so on & scooby dooby dooby. Statistics show evangelical Xians as having the most divorces & marriages & re-marriages.

Too many evangelicals could be bad for your marriage - Corner of Church and State

tude dog;1492050 wrote: Latest on this perceived controversy,

Oklahoma bill abolishes state marriage licenses





Washington Times

I don't see a problem there.


Who gets to decide what an authorised member of the clergy is? Which denomination and what happens if the couple are of different religions.

Why do you see nothing wrong with the religious interfering in everyday life but complain when theb state acts to protect individual rights

In America it seems you only need to become an ordained Minister, for free, and are then legally entitled to perform your own marriage ceremonies.

https://theamm.org/

AnneBoleyn;1492168 wrote: TD: "What should we now call the union of a couple?"

A marriage. Homosexuals marrying have nothing to do with same-sex marriage.


Huh? Just what are we talking about then?

AnneBoleyn;1492168 wrote: It doesn't hurt you in the least.


Not much. Just annoyed at the illogic of it all.

AnneBoleyn;1492168 wrote: As for Oklahoma, as soon as there is a court battle, their new silly law will be thrown out, after wins, losses & appeals. It will not be found constitutional, because it is invasive.


Hey, at least Oklahoma is giving homosexuals a path to the pains of marriage.

Talk about invasive. When I got married had to take a blood test and wait three days.

AnneBoleyn;1492168 wrote: TD: "The progressive left has done enough damage to the concept of marriage."

Nope. Damage occurred when straight people began running to the divorce court, then to the marriage hall, then back to the divorce court, and so on and so on & scooby dooby dooby. Statistics show evangelical Xians as having the most divorces & marriages & re-marriages.


Well, I welcome homosexuals to the real world.

Too many evangelicals could be bad for your marriage - Corner of Church and State[/QUOTE]

gmc;1492170 wrote: Who gets to decide what an authorised member of the clergy is? Which denomination and what happens if the couple are of different religions.


I don't know Oklahoma law, but I suspect it is much like California law in that pretty much anybody can be licensed to be a minister. Our poster friend Asho! has performed marriages.

Then again you forget clergy and notaries

When I need a notary, I go to a bank.

gmc;1492170 wrote: Why do you see nothing wrong with the religious interfering in everyday life but complain when theb state acts to protect individual rights


Uh mostly because I don't know what you are talking about.

tude dog;1492183 wrote:

Uh mostly because I don't know what you are talking about.


Your civil rights are protected under laws promulgated by the state starting with the constitution and the power of the state comes from the people. When you have local authorities or institutions attacking your right to self determination you have resort to the state for protection. You can marry who you like this law means (at least it is my understanding of it) you have to get the permission of the clergy or a notary. What happens if the clergy or notary does not approve of the marriage? Be it a same sex one, different faiths or even a mixed race one. This isn't - it seems to me taking the state out of it it's allowing parochial authorities to intefere in matters that is none of their business and of which they don't approve of. You've already had cases where registrars have refused to carry out same sex marriage why is it OK for them to try and impose their beliefs on non believers but not for someone to stand for their right to marry who they will. Never mind same sex marriage if it was mixed race or mixed religion marriage would it be OK for them to be denied the right to marry. Anti-miscegenation laws have their origind in religious doctrine as well

All marriage is is a legal contract between two people that was introduced not for religious reasons but when property was involved it established ownership of said property and who was goimg to be the inheritors. That's why we also talk about bastards as being illegitimate - they were non people in law at one time not just in the eyes of the church they had no rights or claim to the fathers property come to that not so long ago te mother didn't either..

I must admit I don't quite get this either. How come Homosexuals getting married has nothing to do with Same-Sex Marriage. It seems to be everything to do with it to me. In fact, I thought that was the whole point of it. After all, why would a Straight man want to marry a Straight man?

So much for "smaller government " and "limited government " which right-wing Americans are always demanding . Unbelievable .

right wing americans donl;t seem to have a problem with an interfering big government so long as they are the ones doing the interfering.