Gay Marriage Scares Oklahoma Rep So Much He Proposes Banning All Marriages

[RickBean]

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/26/gay-marriage-scares-oklahoma-rep-proposes-banning-marriages.html

A Republican lawmaker is floating the idea of making marriage illegal in the state of Oklahoma.
Is this just attempt of man to let people understand that gay-marriages are absurd and shouldn't be equal to traditional marriages?
Or maybe he's just another GOP fanatic?
it's very absurd, but it's really nice decision, because there is too much disputes about marriages and if they all will be banned, there will be no topics to discuss. Simple logic!

 

[Atomic Playboy]

This is the schoolyard equivalent of being told you need to share your toys and deciding to throw them all in the trash and run home crying about how unfair life is. They shouldn't get to have it; it's MINE!

 

[Retro Rob]

This is the schoolyard equivalent of being told you need to share your toys and deciding to throw them all in the trash and run home crying about how unfair life is. They shouldn't get to have it; it's MINE!

Actually, this is an idea that liberals have proposed on some level: "the state needs to stay out of marrige if it isn't gonna recognize gay marriage" or "we all should only have 'Civil Unions".

Yeah, they don't take their ball and go home either...they want to piss on the whole game.

 

[glenn1]

Civil unions for all is actually the perfect solution. A "marriage" has long been recognized as a religious ceremony so let's leave it that way. We did this long ago with babies by creating a "birth certificate" to distinguish it from the older common method of using "Baptism Certificates" to document a new arrival. The union of two people should be the same way with civil unions confirming the same rights, privileges, and obligations of "marriages" currently recognized by the state today.

 

[ElFenix]

texas already banned all marriage.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Civil unions for all is actually the perfect solution. A "marriage" has long been recognized as a religious ceremony so let's leave it that way. We did this long ago with babies by creating a "birth certificate" to distinguish it from the older common method of using "Baptism Certificates" to document a new arrival. The union of two people should be the same way with civil unions confirming the same rights, privileges, and obligations of "marriages" currently recognized by the state today.

I agree completely. Also, we should call these civil unions "marriages" because that's the language that we already use everywhere else in law and everyday speech. Nobody, and I'm including people who already have legal "civil unions," introduces their partner as their "legally recognized civilly unified domestic life partner;" they say "partner" or "spouse" or "husband" or "wife." They call themselves "married," whether or not the ceremony happened in a church and whether or not it has official legal sanction. There is absolutely no need to kowtow to certain religious groups who don't currently recognize gay marriage when we're talking about the legal right of marriage, something which this country has recognized since its inception. "You can have all the rights, you just can't use the word" is a nonsensical argument, especially considering that there are a growing number of Christian sects which currently recognize and perform gay marriage. What, the Baptists are suddenly "more Christian" than the Episcopalians?

 

[IronWing]

Civil unions for all is actually the perfect solution. A "marriage" has long been recognized as a religious ceremony so let's leave it that way. We did this long ago with babies by creating a "birth certificate" to distinguish it from the older common method of using "Baptism Certificates" to document a new arrival. The union of two people should be the same way with civil unions confirming the same rights, privileges, and obligations of "marriages" currently recognized by the state today.

^^This.

texas already banned all marriage.

Another great country song rendered obsolete. All my exes live in Texas...

 

[Strk]

What we need to do is go back to traditional marriage where things were arranged and daughters came with large dowries! Screw this love nonsense!

 

[K1052]

I am shocked this came out of Oklahoma. Shocked I tell you.

 

[alzan]

Actually, this is an idea that liberals have proposed on some level: "the state needs to stay out of marrige if it isn't gonna recognize gay marriage" or "we all should only have 'Civil Unions".

Yeah, they don't take their ball and go home either...they want to piss on the whole game.

"The state staying out of marriage" isn't exactly saying that all marriages should be banned; I could be wrong about the circumstances but I think that wording was used in discussion of the issuance of marriage licences in general (the idea being that as long as you have the money, the ID's and two people above the age of consent the state could not deny the issuance of the marriage licence). Neither is "we all should only have Civil Unions"

That isn't saying there aren't ignorant people on all sides of the issue who are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, I just don't think your example is an accurate analogy.

I think there would be a tremendous outcry if marriages were changed to civil unions; I would guess mostly from theists

 

[mikeymikec]

Some of the points of view on this thread remind me of a mind-numbingly stupid conversation I once had with a couple of people whose point of view on gay marriage I summarised back to them and they agreed that I had articulated their perspective correctly:

So, you're OK with gay people getting "whatevered", and this procedure has all the same legal and societal recognition as two hetero people do when they get married, as long as gay people don't call theirs "marriage".

 

[MrPickins]

Some of the points of view on this thread remind me of a mind-numbingly stupid conversation I once had with a couple of people whose point of view on gay marriage I summarised back to them and they agreed that I had articulated their perspective correctly:

So, you're OK with gay people getting "whatevered", and this procedure has all the same legal and societal recognition as two hetero people do when they get married, as long as gay people don't call theirs "marriage".

Separate but equal... :hmm:

 

[SMOGZINN]

I agree completely. Also, we should call these civil unions "marriages" because that's the language that we already use everywhere else in law and everyday speech. Nobody, and I'm including people who already have legal "civil unions," introduces their partner as their "legally recognized civilly unified domestic life partner;" they say "partner" or "spouse" or "husband" or "wife." They call themselves "married," whether or not the ceremony happened in a church and whether or not it has official legal sanction. There is absolutely no need to kowtow to certain religious groups who don't currently recognize gay marriage when we're talking about the legal right of marriage, something which this country has recognized since its inception. "You can have all the rights, you just can't use the word" is a nonsensical argument, especially considering that there are a growing number of Christian sects which currently recognize and perform gay marriage. What, the Baptists are suddenly "more Christian" than the Episcopalians?

Iagree completly, you get +1 internets from me.

 

[Genx87]

Hey I can get behind a movement like this even if the one who proposed did so based on stupidity. Getting the govt out of marriage would allow people to marry whomever they wanted.

 

[Brainonska511]

Hey I can get behind a movement like this even if the one who proposed did so based on stupidity. Getting the govt out of marriage would allow people to marry whomever they wanted.

And what about all the legal rights that come from being married? How would those be handled?

 

[SMOGZINN]

And what about all the legal rights that come from being married? How would those be handled?

I used to be all for getting government out of marriage until I seriously considered this question. Once I thought about it for a while I realized that we would quickly be back in the same place we are now, but instead of one thing that needs fixing we would have 50, as each legal right that marriage gives now would just be spun off into it's own law that would each have their own set of restrictions.

'If you are a man and a woman and have lived under the same roof for more then 3 years you can be considered to be the defacto next of kin'

Tax breaks for sexually active couples capable of natural childbirth that have choosen to file their taxes as 'jointly'.

and on and on. It would quickly become a nightmare to keep figure out who has what right.

 

[Genx87]

And what about all the legal rights that come from being married? How would those be handled?

I'd think contract law can cover a lot of what people want. I think most want the ability to make life or death decisions and survivor benefits. See no reason why marriage is required to deal with these situations. The benefit of course is no more the state telling who and who cant get married.

 

[MrPickins]

I'd think contract law can cover a lot of what people want. I think most want the ability to make life or death decisions and survivor benefits. See no reason why marriage is required to deal with these situations. The benefit of course is no more the state telling who and who cant get married.

That sounds a lot like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Marriage as a legal institution simplifies a lot of laws that would need to be revisited if it were done away with.

I used to be all for getting government out of marriage until I seriously considered this question. Once I thought about it for a while I realized that we would quickly be back in the same place we are now, but instead of one thing that needs fixing we would have 50, as each legal right that marriage gives now would just be spun off into it's own law that would each have their own set of restrictions.

'If you are a man and a woman and have lived under the same roof for more then 3 years you can be considered to be the defacto next of kin'

Tax breaks for sexually active couples capable of natural childbirth that have choosen to file their taxes as 'jointly'.

and on and on. It would quickly become a nightmare to keep figure out who has what right.

Exactly.

 

[Genx87]

That sounds a lot like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Marriage as a legal institution simplifies a lot of laws that would need to be revisited if it were done away with.



Exactly.

Why do I need a law when creating a document granting my partner the right to make a life or death decision? The issue is creating a law when it isn't needed that got us in this position in the first place. In all reality a lot of what marriage covers doesn't need a law to cover it. A contract between people is all that is needed.

 

[werepossum]

I agree completely. Also, we should call these civil unions "marriages" because that's the language that we already use everywhere else in law and everyday speech. Nobody, and I'm including people who already have legal "civil unions," introduces their partner as their "legally recognized civilly unified domestic life partner;" they say "partner" or "spouse" or "husband" or "wife." They call themselves "married," whether or not the ceremony happened in a church and whether or not it has official legal sanction. There is absolutely no need to kowtow to certain religious groups who don't currently recognize gay marriage when we're talking about the legal right of marriage, something which this country has recognized since its inception. "You can have all the rights, you just can't use the word" is a nonsensical argument, especially considering that there are a growing number of Christian sects which currently recognize and perform gay marriage. What, the Baptists are suddenly "more Christian" than the Episcopalians?

+1

Hell, +1000.

Personally I'm wondering when people proposing to ban all marriage to stop gay marriage will figure out that there are gay people and start proposing to ban all people, thus killing two largely ephemeral birds with one very stupid stone.

 

[BoberFett]

Marriage as a legal institution simplifies a lot of laws that would need to be revisited if it were done away with.

If that were true, there'd be no need for divorce attorneys.

A person should be able to assign rights to anyone they choose. All of those things that are complained about being denied to certain classes (homosexuals) are things that one should be able to provide anybody, married or not. Why should a person have to marry their best friend in order to give them hospital visitation rights? You see it all the time, older women whose husbands have died become inseparable friends. Should they have to get married in order to provide each other with the benefits that come with human relationships?

Those legal problems that marriage supposedly solves already exist. People should have wills and living wills to handle the distribution of their estates, care of minor children, or any matter where power of attorney might be required. Instead we have this thing called "marriage" where you have to ask permission from the state to give one big bundle of rights to one and only one other government approved person, and then when that "marriage" dissolves both parties can spend a lot of time and money cleaning up the mess from that "simplified" arrangement.

Ask yourself, why does their need to be a license acquired BEFORE you get married? Why can't you just go to your local government license center and fill out a form saying that Person X has these rights. Tick all the checkboxes that apply, take the form to the counter, pay your $35 processing fee, and be on your way.

State sanctioned marriage IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN a function of exclusion. Excluding gays. Excluding interracial marriages. Excluding slave marriages. Excluding the marriage of nobility to paupers. Why are people surprised that it's still exclusionary? Scrap the whole bloody system and let anyone have any ceremony they choose, and assign rights in whatever fashion they want in a legally supported system.

 

[nickqt]

Actually, this is an idea that liberals have proposed on some level: "the state needs to stay out of marrige if it isn't gonna recognize gay marriage" or "we all should only have 'Civil Unions".

Yeah, they don't take their ball and go home either...they want to piss on the whole game.

Have any names to attribute to those quotes, or are you just napalming the hell out of some carefully-constructed strawmen?

 

[glenn1]

I agree completely. Also, we should call these civil unions "marriages" because that's the language that we already use everywhere else in law and everyday speech. Nobody, and I'm including people who already have legal "civil unions," introduces their partner as their "legally recognized civilly unified domestic life partner;" they say "partner" or "spouse" or "husband" or "wife." They call themselves "married," whether or not the ceremony happened in a church and whether or not it has official legal sanction. There is absolutely no need to kowtow to certain religious groups who don't currently recognize gay marriage when we're talking about the legal right of marriage, something which this country has recognized since its inception. "You can have all the rights, you just can't use the word" is a nonsensical argument, especially considering that there are a growing number of Christian sects which currently recognize and perform gay marriage. What, the Baptists are suddenly "more Christian" than the Episcopalians?

Fine, limit the term "marriage" to the state-issued version and make churches use a different word. The terminology is not the issue, you're missing my larger point that if it's a legitimate function for the state to codify what constitutes marriage/civil union/whatever, then it shouldn't be sub-contracting the ability to churches to sanction one when the church may have a different definition or requirement before performing them for a petitioner.

We don't allow churches to certify live births. We don't allow churches to administer tests for drivers licenses. We don't allow churches to conduct food safety inspections. Why then do we allow them to conduct "marriage" if it's a state function? Completely remove churches from the process and most of the argument becomes moot. Muslim or Mormon church wanting to conduct a "wedding" for a man to his third (or 30th) wife? Go right ahead, but getting a state-recognized marriage is another thing altogether.

If that were true, there'd be no need for divorce attorneys.

A person should be able to assign rights to anyone they choose. All of those things that are complained about being denied to certain classes (homosexuals) are things that one should be able to provide anybody, married or not. Why should a person have to marry their best friend in order to give them hospital visitation rights? You see it all the time, older women whose husbands have died become inseparable friends. Should they have to get married in order to provide each other with the benefits that come with human relationships?

Those legal problems that marriage supposedly solves already exist. People should have wills and living wills to handle the distribution of their estates, care of minor children, or any matter where power of attorney might be required. Instead we have this thing called "marriage" where you have to ask permission from the state to give one big bundle of rights to one and only one other government approved person, and then when that "marriage" dissolves both parties can spend a lot of time and money cleaning up the mess from that "simplified" arrangement.

Ask yourself, why does their need to be a license acquired BEFORE you get married? Why can't you just go to your local government license center and fill out a form saying that Person X has these rights. Tick all the checkboxes that apply, take the form to the counter, pay your $35 processing fee, and be on your way.

State sanctioned marriage IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN a function of exclusion. Excluding gays. Excluding interracial marriages. Excluding slave marriages. Excluding the marriage of nobility to paupers. Why are people surprised that it's still exclusionary? Scrap the whole bloody system and let anyone have any ceremony they choose, and assign rights in whatever fashion they want in a legally supported system.

I'm fine with allowing a more contract-based model for "marriage" as it makes sense as the compelling state interest involved, not who screws who, how many they screw, or what gender everyone involved happens to be.

 

[sportage]

Aw, we all know rep Mike Turner just wants to marry his brother.
And using this same sex marriage thing as a cover.
How can a gay male, like Mike, marry someone of the same sex AND is also their brother?
Leave it to Mike to figure that one out...

And BTW... Someone please explain to Lindsey Graham the difference of same sex marriage vs Polygamy.
Lindsey, I've heard of being born gay.
I've never heard of someone born a Polygamist.
And to think, voters actually elect these morons. And probably all Polygamist voters.

 

[Matt1970]

Banning all marriage? Now that's something I can get behind.