Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://m.news9.com/story.aspx?story=24543033&catId=112032

State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma.

The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it's an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it's what Oklahomans want.
"[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all," Turner said.
Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.

"Would it be realistic for the State of Oklahoma to say, ‘We're not going to do marriage period,'" asked News 9's Michael Konopasek.

"That would definitely be a realistic opportunity, and it's something that would be part of the discussion," Turner answered.

Such a discussion will be made possible by a current shell bill -- something that can be changed at almost any time to react to upcoming rulings on Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban.

"I think that, especially with issues like this, [these lawmakers are] out of touch with most Oklahomans," said Ryan Kiesel, ACLU Oklahoma executive detector.

Kiesel says prohibiting all marriage is new territory. In fact, the ACLU was unable to find an example of where a state has ever tried to ban all marriage. Kiesel believes the entire idea just boils down to politics.

"Moving forward I think we'll see less efforts like this," Kiesel said.

Turner admits his idea makes a lot of people uncomfortable. He also says, "I accept that." Turner plans to wait until the federal appeals process plays out. The fight over Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage will now head to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver

I need to get out of this fething state. Grant me asylum Frazzled!

What an ass-clown.

Oklahoma again?

I gotta say though, it's an interesting solution

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HA

I have said before, Why is marriage such a big deal?

That sounds complitely stupid. If you want to hear my opinion no private organisation should be forced to do something against their principles, example chruches forced to do gay marriages. That enforcement is as silly as forcing a Hindu to eat beef.

Because the state, on both the federal and state level, has created a vested interest in people getting married and has passed numerous laws that benefit only married couples. Paired with the fact that private companies provide numerous benefits to legally married couples it is a pretty big deal when marriage is restricted by the state.

That's why the whole "why should states be in the business of sanctioning marriage to begin with" argument is stupid, because they made it their business when they decided that married people get certain benefits that unmarried people don't.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HA

I have said before, Why is marriage such a big deal?

Because Sex.



And money too.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HA

I have said before, Why is marriage such a big deal?

I think is more of a principal, not a practical problem. Same can be thought on some buddhist not eating meat at all. It is a tradition that people like to keep.

So, the idea is that if gays can get married, the state of Oklahoma will go hands off and step out of handling marriages at all?

...And I am supposed to be NOT OK with this why, exactly? Government should never have had a hand in this, as far as I am concerned.

What this got me thinking is that don't you americans have non religious marriage? Atleast where I come from, Finland you can marry somebody non-religiously. It gives all the benefits of real marriage and no private organisation is forced to act against its will.

 SOFDC wrote:
So, the idea is that if gays can get married, the state of Oklahoma will go hands off and step out of handling marriages at all?

...And I am supposed to be NOT OK with this why, exactly? Government should never have had a hand in this, as far as I am concerned.

Are you in favor of repealing all tax benefits, military survivor benefits to spouses, inheritance laws, etc etc etc?

It's creative. Stupid, but creative. B for effort.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
What this got me thinking is that don't you americans have non religious marriage? Atleast where I come from, Finland you can marry somebody non-religiously. It gives all the benefits of real marriage and no private organisation is forced to act against its will.

We do. You can be married by the state and be legally married. All religious marriages are legal marriages as well (provided they fill out the right documents), and all legal marriages have conferred on them the benefits of marriage the state grants (usually in relation to taxes). Basically, if people wanted to, they can go down to their local government building (I forget which specific building) and get a marriage license, and forego the whole big wedding ceremony thing.

Some Oklahoma politicians seem to be trying to do away with legal marriage altogether, which would mean people could be married religiously but that it wouldn't be recognized by the state for tax purposes and the like.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HA

I have said before, Why is marriage such a big deal?

Because Sex.

Spoiler:

And money too.

Hmm, I should find that article. Just another reason sociology is good

 DogofWar1 wrote:
It's creative. Stupid, but creative. B for effort.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
What this got me thinking is that don't you americans have non religious marriage? Atleast where I come from, Finland you can marry somebody non-religiously. It gives all the benefits of real marriage and no private organisation is forced to act against its will.

We do. You can be married by the state and be legally married. All religious marriages are legal marriages as well (provided they fill out the right documents), and all legal marriages have conferred on them the benefits of marriage the state grants (usually in relation to taxes). Basically, if people wanted to, they can go down to their local government building (I forget which specific building) and get a marriage license, and forego the whole big wedding ceremony thing.

Some Oklahoma politicians seem to be trying to do away with legal marriage altogether, which would mean people could be married religiously but that it wouldn't be recognized by the state for tax purposes and the like.

So are they exactly trying to ban gays the religious or all of the marriages?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HA

I have said before, Why is marriage such a big deal?

Because Sex.

Spoiler:

And money too.

Anyone who has lived in the South can tell you that while this guy is close, he's missing why our divorce rate is so high. Teens don't get married too "early" because they want to bang (I use quotation marks because my parents married when they were 19 and have been happily married for almost 30 years) Usually if they're getting married "early" it's because they already had sex and a baby is on the way. AKA the good ol' "Shotgun wedding". That's when the societal pressures of living in a conservative community come in, namely the fact that parents who don't get married soon after they find out their kid is on the way get a lot of crap from the local community. Many of these shotgun wedding marriages don't last long for various reasons, and then when they break up, both people tend to make more stupid choices and the cycle starts anew. It's not uncommon to meet guys who have divorced 2 or 3 times and have a child with each woman.

That is a major contribution to why our divorce rate is high. In the cities, most of the people are as "liberal" as you would find elsewhere, so divorce tends to happen for all the normal reasons it does elsewhere. It's just that we have that extra source of divorce rates from the country that pushes ours higher.

The whole "wait till marriage" thing is not nearly as established as people around here like to think it is. I would put good money that maybe 1 out of 4 girls at best hang onto this belief after highschool tops, probably less. I've known a few, but they tend to be the exception, not the rule. And they're definitely not the kind of woman that would get married at 20 just so they can finally have sex.

Also, did anyone else find that guy's voice really insufferable? I have no idea why but it annoyed me to no end, I could barely watch the video.

On Topic: Gay marriage is going to be fought tooth and nail by the conservative community up until the very end, and probably for a long while after it passes. I have no idea why, but there are people who are very serious about this. I've had good friends who said essentially "I would never allow it to pass, the very idea that gays could marry would cheapen the meaning of my marriage." Similar uproar happened when homosexual children were allowed to join the boyscouts. These are otherwise perfectly good, kind people, but this topic just eats at them to no end. You really have to see it in person to believe it.

I can only imagine we'll see more and more outrageous attempts to block the passing of gay marriage laws in the future. As more states pass laws allowing it, the opposition will only increase in the states that haven't as states will divide down party lines. This "total marriage ban" is just the start of it.

It's a silly political stunt.

Gay people in Oklahoma will simply go and marry in the next state to get the certificate.

How does he propose to administer all the laws surrounding marriage without recording marriages? Will he abolish every piece of legislation that touches on marriage?

 d-usa wrote:
Are you in favor of repealing all tax benefits,

Yes.

military survivor benefits to spouses,

You can designate whoever you want on the form.

inheritance laws, etc etc etc?

Write a will.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are you in favor of repealing all tax benefits,

Yes.

military survivor benefits to spouses,

You can designate whoever you want on the form.

inheritance laws, etc etc etc?

Write a will.

Writing a will doesn't change estate laws.

If they ever pull off a bone headed move like that they will at least realize exactly what benefits people had when they were married and why it is such a big deal that these benefits are withheld from a select group of people.

And you suck at ignoring people again...

 d-usa wrote:

Writing a will doesn't change estate laws.

If they ever pull off a bone headed move like that they will at least realize exactly what benefits people had when they were married and why it is such a big deal that these benefits are withheld from a select group of people.

And you suck at ignoring people again...

Writing a will doesn't need to change estate laws to work for non-married couples.

And the only marriage benefits I can think of that you can't duplicate through other means are narrow and primarily financial. Since you're in the "everyone should be as poor as me!" camp, I don't know why you'd object to fewer tax breaks.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are you in favor of repealing all tax benefits,

Yes.

military survivor benefits to spouses,

You can designate whoever you want on the form.

inheritance laws, etc etc etc?

Write a will.

I had to show this post just so I could say: I agree entirely.

The state has no business solemnizing marriages. It is a private covenant between two people and their house of worship or secular equivalent. Marriage to a consenting adult is, IMO a human right the state has no authority to either convey or deny.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Writing a will doesn't change estate laws.

If they ever pull off a bone headed move like that they will at least realize exactly what benefits people had when they were married and why it is such a big deal that these benefits are withheld from a select group of people.

And you suck at ignoring people again...

Writing a will doesn't need to change estate laws to work for non-married couples.

And the only marriage benefits I can think of that you can't duplicate through other means are narrow and primarily financial.

So all the people who have learned the hard way that "domestic partnerships" don't just impact you in primarily financial ways are just not smart enough to figure it out?

Since you're in the "everyone should be as poor as me!" camp, I don't know why you'd object to fewer tax breaks.

I see you are still assigning imaginary arguments to people. Keep on shining bright you diamond.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

The state has no business solemnizing marriages. It is a private covenant between two people and their house of worship or secular equivalent. Marriage to a consenting adult is, IMO a human right the state has no authority to either convey or deny.

The state created the need to convey a legal status like marriage to people when they passed legislation that gave benefits to people who were married though.

If there was no benefits, legal or societal, then there wouldn't be a need to regulate it to begin with. It's a bed that the government made themselves really.

I don't dispute that, but I think that bed can (and should!) be unmade.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't dispute that, but I think that bed can (and should!) be unmade.

I would imagine that divorce laws would be the biggest headache to deal with if that were to happen...

"We had to destroy marriage to save it."

 Sienisoturi wrote:
What this got me thinking is that don't you americans have non religious marriage? Atleast where I come from, Finland you can marry somebody non-religiously. It gives all the benefits of real marriage and no private organisation is forced to act against its will.

Where do you get your ideas about America?

Legalizing gay marriage does not mean that ANY private organization is forced to perform the ritual. It means that the state recognizes gay couples who go through with the legal rigamarole. The gay couple can have any willing party perform the wedding. (I actually officiated my sister-in-law's wedding. All I had to do was fill out a form online to get ordained and then fill out some paperwork.) I repeat, legalizing gay marriage does not result in forced gay marriages. There is no organ of state pressed against the head of any minister.

 d-usa wrote:


I need to get out of this fething state. Grant me asylum Frazzled!

Don't do it Frazz! He's prob'ly one them there 'sooner fans

 djphranq wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


I need to get out of this fething state. Grant me asylum Frazzled!

Don't do it Frazz! He's prob'ly one them there 'sooner fans

Them are fighting words

Oklahoma State all the way!

Although my wife graduated from OU...

 d-usa wrote:
I would imagine that divorce laws would be the biggest headache to deal with if that were to happen...

How so? I'm not seeing the complication (I must be missing something). It's just contract law. The fundamental idea isn't different, just two names on some forms dividing assets - how would that change?

That's the most unintentionally insightful* idea I've ever heard come out of OK.


*I don't give a damn what the gays or anyone else does. I just don't believe in marriage.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I would imagine that divorce laws would be the biggest headache to deal with if that were to happen...

How so? I'm not seeing the complication (I must be missing something). It's just contract law. The fundamental idea isn't different, just two names on some forms dividing assets - how would that change?

Well, right now it's the state setting a lot of the rules on divorces (such as waiting periods) and the state deciding on how to divide things and settling custody issues and spousal support and such. If the state is no longer in charge of marriages would the state then be completely removed from divorces as well? Would you suggest a state-mandated minimum "marriage contract" or no mandated protection for spouses at all? Basically "if you didn't do a prenup then you can simply go your separate ways at any point" kind of situation? Who gets the kids in those situations? Those are the kind of things that seem like they could get complicated (not that they are not complicated now).

Also, how do you feel about current marriages. Do all current marriages simple become no longer recognized by the state and we repeal all laws dealing with marriage, or would you favor some sort of grandfather clause on currently recognized unions?

It would also be interesting to see how the private sector would handle this. This probably wouldn't be a legal issue, but let's look at something like health insurance. Currently you can get "you + spouse" health insurance, how do you think the private sector would handle this if there is no longer a set legal definition of spouse? Would they accept anybody that brings a random piece of paper from somebody saying "I married them"? What if they married 5 other people, would they all get coverage under a health insurance plan?

Just some interesting thoughts.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
That sounds complitely stupid. If you want to hear my opinion no private organisation should be forced to do something against their principles, example chruches forced to do gay marriages. That enforcement is as silly as forcing a Hindu to eat beef.

"I'm sorry sir, we can't serve you as you are the wrong colour"...