OK-End of civil marriage

[blkmusclmachine]

Marriage licenses would be a thing of the past in Oklahoma under a bill filed by state Rep. Todd Russ (R).

The Cordell Republican says he wants to protect clerks from having to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Under this plan, a religious official would have to sign off on a couple’s marriage certificate, and that would then be filed with the county clerk. Marriages would no longer be performed by judges.

“Marriages are not supposed to be a government thing,” he said Wednesday. Russ, an Assemblies of God pastor, is upset with rulings that support same-sex marriage.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/01/oklahoma-gop-lawmaker-introduces-bill.html#disqus_thread



It's all about hating on gay Americans.

And pushing a Christian dominionist theology.


IMHO

[Hassin Bin Sober]

1. Here's a question. If the church becomes the agent of the state, will it have to comply...

... with anti discrimination laws?

It would be so delightful if it blew up in their faces. Lol.

[Ms. Toad]

42. With respect to marriage, it already is.

The typical marriage law requires an officiant authorized by the state to solemnize a marriage. Religious officials are one of several agents of the state authorized to solemnize marriages.

Oklahoma is no exception (although their list of people outside of religious officials who can solemnize marriages is smaller than most):

A. All marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age.

But no, that doesn't subject them to anti-discrimination laws because marriage in a church is a religious affair. The agency is limited to ensuring that the legal formalities are complied with. Imposing anti-discrimination laws on churches in their religious affairs would violate the first amendment free exercise clause.

AND - the proposed law would violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. Even if they pass it, it will be smacked down very quickly.

[jeff47]

65. Depends on what is required to be an officiant.

If virtually anyone can get the license to be an officiant, then they may be able to hide behind the same fig leaf that judges give them - a non-religious way to marry people.

[Ms. Toad]

69. Not sure what you're saying.

My response was that religious officials already are officiants- this law doesn't change the relationship between the religious officiant and the state - so the same constitutional exclusion from interference in religious affairs would apply going forward as apply now.

In OK, currently the list includes only judges and religious officials. What the new law would do is remove judges from the list so only religious officials can preside.

[jeff47]

71. And I'm saying if they added an easy-to-get non-religious officiant license

that would probably be sufficient to not cause a first amendment problem. Say, if the license was available to any adult who pays a small licensing fee. Vaguely like how a state hands out notary licenses.

[Ms. Toad]

72. That already exists -

Which is why your comment confused me. The whole point of the bill is to remove all officiants other than religious ones - and remove all state licensing as well. All of the normal licensing functions would be handled by the religious officiant. Their goal is to remove state employees from having to serve all couples regardless of gender.

So the bill removes clerks from the license issuing business (marriage will no longer require a state issued license) & removes judges from the performing marriages business. The only thing a state actor would need to do would be to accept documents from either a religious officiant, or a couple who is registering a common law marriage.

[silverweb]

2. Idiot.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]That won't stop gay marriages. It'll just guarantee that business at gay-friendly churches will be booming.

[Yo_Mama]

37. He knows that - it's the county clerks that he is worried about.

Plenty of religious denominations do gay marriages.

[silverweb]

66. I understand that.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]His idea will be shot down anyway. Progress will not be stopped.

[Yo_Mama]

68. Yeah, it doesn't make sense. n/t

[JDPriestly]

3. Lots of religions will perform same-sex marriages. Unitarians for one.

[pipi_k]

50. Yep

I went to a lesbian wedding at a Unitarian church years before same sex marriage became legal here in Mass.

[LeftyMom]

4. The Assemblies of God was founded a century ago and was integrated and had women pastors on day 1.

Socially they've gone from radical-for-their-time to being a church where John Ashcroft feels at home.

I don't know if that means anything, but it's interesting. So many churches are getting dragged into the twentieth century* kicking and screaming, and this guy's is dragging themselves from the twentieth into the nineteenth.

*yes, that's deliberate

[marym625]

5. I wish they would just give it.

So sick of the wilful discrimination and hate.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Makes no sense. That is already a reality in my county.

When I got married, I had to get an authorized religious figure to sign off on the license.

[beam me up scottie]

7. That is beyond disgusting.

Because no marriage is valid unless sanctioned by their god.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. Yup! I could even use my G-d!

No Jews here...well, there are a few, but none are rabbis, and most of the Jews here are "Jews for Jesus" so....not Jews. We had planned just to have a JOP do it, but noooooooooo, we had to find someone who was ordained. Thankfully, there was a minister who agreed to it. Oh, the license cost $50, we could have got it for $5 if we attended religious counseling for at least 4 sessions. After almost 13 years together, we didn't see the need. WE already know how to help each other find G-d!

[beam me up scottie]

13. LMFAO!

Forced to either submit to "religious" counseling or pay more money.

Quite a racket, isn't it?

Reminds me of my high school bf's catholic wedding.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. It is a great way to make money.

I'd start my own 'church' but I am way too lazy!

WE did it our way. Cost us $200 bucks to hire a minister. Dressed up the dogs in dresses, except Voodoo, cuz he is a dude with a 'tude. Our friends, two witnesses, came over, one brought her Chihuahua dressed in a tux. Since it was just us, I placed family and friends' photos on the breakfast room table. Lit a unity candle, exchanged rings I found around the house, and kissed; then signed with a feather (actually a pen with a feather attached...a pagan thing). We had snacks, drank some champagne, and after everyone left, fell asleep on the sofa. Wild, huh?! LOL!

G-d, we are boring!

[beam me up scottie]

19. Sounds like the perfect wedding.

Way better than the ones I've attended. No stress, no jealous friends or two-faced relatives - you know, the ones who pay you compliments like "I just adore that necklace, dahling, did you get it at the lawn sale down the street?".

Congratulations, my friend.

[Jamastiene]

28. Not boring, really.

Sometimes, quiet time cuddled up with someone we love can be more exciting than any roller coaster, cruise, trip to exotic places, or bungee jumping in existence.

[davidpdx]

33. You hit the nail on the head

I'd start my own 'church' but I am way too lazy!

It would encourage people to start their own churches and it would suddenly become a free-enterprise system. Now that would really fucking piss Republicans off. Oh the irony! I have heard of people getting licenses to become ministers online. The only way they could stop it is to require someone have a degree in religious studies or something related and I don't think that would pass the smell test if challenged in court.

The only downside to this that I could think of would be the possibility of fraud. Like most anything some people are out to scam others.

[Jamastiene]

27. You owe me a new keyboard!

That last sentence you typed. I love it!

[merrily]

9. Congrats on your marriage, but how is that requirement not a violation of freedom of religion, which

the SCOTUS has held includes the right to be freed FROM religion, and/or the Establishment Clause? We are not a theocracy.

[Jamastiene]

29. Trust me.

The Bible Belt IS a theocracy. They will do whatever they can get away with here. It is something you have to experience to believe. Most people cannot even fathom it, until they see and hear it with their own eyes and ears. They get by with a lot of crap down here when it comes to shoving Christianity (the hellfire and brimstone version only too) down people's throats whether we want it or not.

[Ms. Toad]

45. It is a violation.

Part of the test is that the primary effect of a law can neither advance or inhibit religion. This one would advance religion.

[Ms. Toad]

44. That's a violation of the first amendment.

They can allow religious officiants to be one of a list of individuals permitted to solemnize marriages - but they can't require a marriage be a religious affair. Among other things, a law can neither advance nor inhibit religion - a law requiring a religious figure to access state rights advances religion.

[treestar]

59. Taking that to court, it would have to be found unconstitutional

How do they even decide who is "authorized" without violating the First Amendment?

[merrily]

8. I thought it was gays, not RW whackos, who were supposed to undermine marriage?

Yet, this whacko wants not to make it more difficult to enter into, especially for atheists. How is this not a violation of the First Amendment?

[Behind the Aegis]

11. I am not sure, to be honest. It threw us for a loop.

Our marriage is about as traditional as it gets sans children; we went with fuzzy "children".

ETA: Crap, this was meant for your other post! LOL! Thanks for the well wishes.

[merrily]

12. I got it was meant for my reply to you. It fits both my posts anyway.

Of course I wish you well. Aside from the fact that we are both human beings and both DUers, so why wouldn't I wish you well personally, you are one of my favorite posters to run into, esp. when I am posting in the wee hours (EST).

[Behind the Aegis]

17. What a nice reply!

There are a few of us night-owls. I am CST, just an hour behind y'all. We have been together for almost 13 years, so it wasn't a huge adjustment. LOL!

[merrily]

18. Thanks. And I never sugar coat, either. If I say something and there is no sarcasm emote,

you can be sure I mean it--at least at the second I said or wrote it, anyway, LOL! The next second, I may regret it, but only if it was ugly.

[beam me up scottie]

14. If you want hooman kids I'm available for adoption.

You guys are wonderful parents.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. You cook and clean?

These bon-bons don't eat themselves!

We do love our furry babies.

[beam me up scottie]

20. No, but I'm cute and loyal.

[silvershadow]

21. Negative. That would place churches in charge of part of civil government.

Churches can choose which types of marriages are valid in their faith. Governments cannot discriminate. Government recognition of civil marriage has absolutely zero to do with any faith. Which is what has this bozo spinning.

[sakabatou]

22. Question: Does a civil marriage have the same benefits as a formal marriage?

If not, why?

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. A civil marriage is a formal marriage, in the USA

It's religious marriages that are the informal ones.

[ChosenUnWisely]

24. Yes all legal marriages are equally valid as long as

the state has issued a marriage license and the officiant has been approved by the state to conduct a marriage.

In other words depending upon the state a marriage performed by the pope is equally as valid as one performed by Bubba the notary public who also owns the bait shop.

Yes in some states a notary public can perform marriages.

[sakabatou]

67. Got it.

[ChosenUnWisely]

25. Just more proof that the religious in America have no interest in living in a secular society

F-em, F-em all!

The religious in America are a threat to freedom if one is religious and one says asshats like that do not represent me, sorry yes they do, as far as I am concerned all of them are the same until the so-called 'good' ones do something about the so-called bad ones.

[DetlefK]

26. You can finally have your satanist marriage!!!

[quaker bill]

30. The correct answer

Two people simply attest that they are married by filling out and getting a form notarized. They file it with the clerk in the public record. We (all of us) believe them simply because they have said so. If they want a preacher to sign as well, there is an optional blank for that.

The people who should be "in charge" of marriage is the couple getting married. They can have any sort of ceremony they like, or none if they prefer. They can have anyone they like as a witness or officiator if they like, or none if they prefer. Being of age, filling out the form and filing it is all that is necessary, everything else is optional and up to the couple. Filing the form would be all that is necessary to obtain all rights and privileges that appertain to marriage. The same process applies to all couples regardless of gender mix.

The problem here is the requirement for an "officiator" approved by the state. Eliminate that requirement and you are done.

[peacebird]

31. And so athiests, agnostics, and those who are spiritual but not aligned to a religion cannot marry?

[Bettie]

36. We got married in a courthouse

Over 25 years ago....and I still have religious people tell me periodically that we aren't "really" married.

What a stupid law.

Of course, I'm betting that the guy who wrote it will want to amend it to only allow religious figures of his own personal stamp to sign off once he figures out that there are ways to get around his "only right wing Christians can marry" ideals.

[Adrahil]

46. I was married at the court house too.

I had one religious nut tell me "you're not really married."

I just told him I didn't need an imaginary sky-deity to sanction a legal relationship. In our hearts, we were married long before we got the guvmint to recognize it.

He just about had an apoplectic seizure.

[Bettie]

52. One of our right wing relatives

still reminds us that we're 'living in sin' and that our children are 'bastards as far as the lord is concerned'.

We avoid this particular relative as much as possible.

But it is fun to watch them turn all red and angry when faced with something outside their world view.

Husband now tells me not to poke the crazy ones, but sometimes, I can't resist.

[Adrahil]

53. I'd have a hard time resisting too....

... I'd be very tempted to say something like "oh, there's a bastard involved here, but it's not any of my kids...."

[kcr]

38. Yep. And that's exactly why I cringe whenever anyone says government has no business in marriage.

This shows exactly why it does.

[jmowreader]

32. And HOW quickly would this be declared unconstitutional?

[Ms. Toad]

47. Pretty much instantaneously.

ETA - it may actually survive:

The common law provision is actually an interesting twist & may allow it to survive (and make common law marriages easier to prove, since there would be a formal registration process.

There are actually two routes to civil marriage:
Religious & Common law.

anyone (including religious folks) can avoid religious entanglement by registering their common law marriage with the state.

(Oklahoma still recognizes common law marriage - this would just make it the formal non-religious route to state recognition of marriage.)

[MohRokTah]

34. Unconstitutional

Any law that so entangles the state with religion is blatantly unconstitutional on its face.

[brooklynite]

35. Paging the Church of Satan...

...one suspects they'd sign off on a lot of marriages Mr. Russ wouldn't approve of.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Clearly we need another one of those polls to find out how oppressed religious people feel.

'How hostile IS America toward people of faith? A. Extremely B. Astonishingly or C. Incredibly.

I love those polls.

[el_bryanto]

40. Here's a copy of the proposed amendment

Here it is.

This seems to be the relevant section.

Section 7. A. All Except as provided in subsection E of this
section marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed
or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent
persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in
this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the
Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination
who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he
or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least
eighteen (18) years of age.

If you don't want to get married by a preacher, you can apparently get a common law marriage as others have noted. At any rate it definitely seems like a bad law. But then again nobody knows what the Supreme Court is going to do; maybe this person is hoping there's a big enough loophole for him to get through.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

41. The author of the law says the reason for it is to 'protect' clerks from 'having to issue' licsences

to same sex couples....the openly stated reason for the law is to discriminate against others. Vile bullshit.

[el_bryanto]

43. I agree. nt

[Adrahil]

48. I agree... Clerks are employees of the county/state.

There personal beliefs don't come in to it.

It's simple, if your personal ethics don't allow you to perform the job, you are unfit for that job.

What's next... judges who refuse to sentence wife-beaters because they believe the Bible mandates physical punishment of the wife by the husband?

[Bluenorthwest]

61. actually, refusal to prosecute men who beat their wives because the Bible allows it was the common

practice for most of history. So if they do that it will be 'again' not really 'next'.

[Adrahil]

62. Sadly true. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

49. That is actually an interesting twist.

It might actually make the law legal - since it does provide an avenue to access state benefits without requiring you to have a religious ceremony.

(The applicable provision is Section E - which describes registration of common law marriage)

The couple could have whatever ceremony they feel like and just register their marriage via the common law affidavit.

Common law marriages are just as valid and binding as statutory marriages, and have to be recognized everywhere (at least in the US.)

[el_bryanto]

55. The counter loophole is what is the legal definition of a common law marriage in Oklahoma

What are you required to show? The procedure in the bill seems straightforward enough, but I'm not sure that there aren't additional qualifications you'd be required to jump through.

Bryant

[Ms. Toad]

56. Not much, actually -

The challenge in the past is that common law marriages were hard to prove, since it became a he-said, she-said when the couple split up, one died and the other tried to claim the estate, applications for spousal social security, etc. A real hassle in other words if one member of the couple ever later disputed that there was a marriage.

This just provides a formal registration process (which would eliminate the disputes).

The requirements are:

both parties to the alleged common-law marriage must have the legal capacity to enter into the marriage (they must be of sufficient age and not married to anyone else)

there must be an actual and mutual agreement between the parties to enter into a permanent and exclusive marriage (this must be a current agreement; being engaged or agreeing to get married at some point in the future doesn’t count.)

there must be cohabitation as man and wife or consummation of the marriage, and

the parties must hold themselves out to the community as husband and wife.

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/oklahoma/common_law_marriage_in_oklahoma
(I haven't verified this against case law in Oklahoma - but it is the typical set of requirements)

[el_bryanto]

57. Will two men or two women be allowed legally to hold themselves out to the community

as married in Oklahoma? That's the counter loophole - even the language you quote has the potential to shut it down when a clerk says "Husband and wife - that implies a man and a woman. Sorry."

I'm not saying you are wrong; I don't know enough to be sure. But it is Oklahoma, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some way to block it.

Bryant

[Ms. Toad]

60. I don't recall the status of Oklahoma -

but if Oklahoma is within a Circuit Court that mandates recognition of same gender marriage, then yes. (Once marriage discrimination is declared illegal, in statutes husband and wife would be interchangeable so long as the reference was not gender specific for a constitutionally valid reason - the only one I can think of off the top of my head is that gender based combat restrictions have been found to be constitutional. Common law is even clearer, because husband and wife are not part of a statute - but applied by the court. Until very recently, marriages were mixed gender. Any court complying with the new constitutional interpretation would read them as interchangeable.

You can't do an end run around the constitution by relying on language in statutes based on principles that have been declared unconstitutional.

As to common law marriages - wherever Common Law marriage is recognized, it has always been open to anyone legally permitted to marry. (Which is why same gender couples have not - until recently - been able to take advantage of common law marriages even when they hold themselves out to be married.

Which actually raises an interesting personal question I hadn't thought of. My same gender marriage predates the abolition of new common law marriage in Ohio ~1990 - but previously established ones survive. When marriage discrimination is finally declared unconstitutional by the court, I wonder if I can claim even earlier legally married status? I was assuming that the limit was my Canadian marriage in 2004 (recognized by the Federal Government as the start of my marriage). Our common law marriage, but for the unconstitutional prohibition on its recognition - dates to 1981.

[ret5hd]

51. ...to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least...

eighteen (18) years of age.

hmmm...seems like this explicitly keeps muslim, pagan, suffi, FSM, etc clerics from performing marriages.

Don't see how that would be constitutional.

[el_bryanto]

54. You may be right - there is a section later on dealing with faiths that have no ordained clergy

but it specifically references Christian Faiths and "the spiritual assembly of the Baha'is."

Bryant

[treestar]

58. Gee, the poor clerks

If they can't handle the job, maybe they should find another. I bet there are a few who don't like "having" to issue licenses to interracial couples too.

[ladyVet]

63. My opinion is, if a clerk feels they are unable to perform the duties of their office,

then they need to turn in their two weeks' notice and find another job. Any Register of Deeds who feels they can't obey the law and issue marriage licenses to gay couples should be removed from office.

Same thing with those pharmacists who don't want to dispense legally prescribed drugs like birth control. Do it, or find another line of work that doesn't offend your beliefs.

[MineralMan]

64. If I were an LGBT person, I'd have left Oklahoma long, long ago.

It is a state that is extraordinarily unfriendly. That said, this proposed law is unconstitutional on its face.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

70. I tried to register a common-law straight marriage in Texas and was refused.

Many years ago, in Bexar County, because I refused to change my name.

I asked the clerk several times "Show me in the Texas Family Code where it says I have to change my name."
Of course there was no such provision. The old bastard tore up three forms before he quit.
He never answered my question. So my future husband and I were refused.

We went to a lawyer and he said, "The guy committed a misdemeanor by not carrying out the duties of his office. Get a license and go to the J.P." which we did. Idiots.

Marriage is a civil contract. It can be officiated by a judge or a religious official. Or if you are in a common-law state, you can register a Declaration of Common-Law Marriage. Contrary to popular belief, you don't wake up one morning after six months of shacking up
and are married. That is not what the law says.