Religion
Related: About this forumOklahoma House passes bill restricting marriage to people of faith
House Bill 1125, sponsored by Republican State Representative Todd Russ, is a radical measure that would end secular marriage licenses in the state. In addition, the bill would bar all judges and other secular officials from performing marriages in Oklahoma.
Russ claims the radical legislation is motivated by his desire to protect court clerks from having to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Russ says he doesnt want these workers put in the position of having to condone or facilitate same-sex marriage.
Under the legislation, atheists and others not wanting to be married by a religious official could file an affidavit through the court clerks office claiming a common-law marriage.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/03/oklahoma-house-passes-bill-restricting-marriage-to-people-of-faith/
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)riversedge
(70,182 posts)7 years?? not equal to an official marriage certificate in the eyes of the law--takes too long. Unless something has changed with time required by states. ???
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)and there's not time span requirement. Here's a cut and paste of what I found:
the fact that the couple has lived together for a period of time (cohabitation)
joint income tax returns
joint financial accounts or credit cards
jointly-held assets or debts (a home, car, mortgage, or other loans)
life insurance policies and retirement or pension plans that list the common-law spouse as a beneficiary
using the other common-law spouses last name
medical records which list the common-law spouse as next of kin
testimony from third parties regarding how the couple introduced each other in the community and at social gatherings
cards, presents or other evidence of celebrations marking the anniversary of the common-law marriage
notes or other writings that include language such as husband or wife, and
family photos showing the couple wearing wedding banks.
Most states don't recognize "common-law marriage" and the requirements vary a lot from state to state.
More to the point, it's not going to be very long before a couple who wants to get married without sanction of clergy challenges this law.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Doyou have to pass any test for a marriage license? Or can anyone over... 15? Get married to whoever they want, (of the oppisite gender and Christian)?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)What I posted was some of the things Oklahomans could use to prove a common-law marriage, at a time when they wanted to divorce. Most people don't understand that it's not just some automatic legalization of the relationship after some specific period of time. Usually they think seven years.
I keep on knowing couples who lived together for a long time, often decades, never married, and then were shocked, totally shocked when one died and the surviving partner had no legal right to anything, especially if the deceased had children who simply wanted to take over whatever property, money, and valuables there were. People will airily say, "Oh, we don't need a piece of paper." Guess what? You really do.
The LGBT community has long understood that denying them the legal right to marry was denying them a lot of basic rights, and fortunately most states are now allowing them to marry.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Gotcha. Although with this law won't all marriages be considered non legally binding?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)I'm not in Oklahoma and I'm honestly not following this very closely.
I hope the good people of Oklahoma unelect all these idiots.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)atreides1
(16,070 posts)Are the idiots!!!
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)and there are any number of states, most of which are south of the Mason-Dixon line, I will never move to. I honestly don't understand why people stay in a place or in a religion that denies various categories of people basic human rights, or proclaims one group to be inferior to another. But that's just me.
riversedge
(70,182 posts)together those docs.
and yes--the courts will be involved if this stupid passes.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)"common law marriages" opens up a nightmarish legal can of worms for anyone who gets that designation. Aside from the fact that, at least in this century "common-law marriage" is viewed as a far inferior relationship to legal "marriage". It's a mean-spirited, discriminatory tactic that IMO will not withstand any constitutional challenge.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)In other countries, such as the Netherlands, legally binding marriages are performed by the state. The couple obtains the necessary license and by affirming with their signature that they enter a legally binding marriage. If they wish to have a religious ceremony that is up to them and the various church requirements and has no legal standing. A marriage is a legal binding agreement that is solely subject to the laws of the state it has no place being officiated by religious ministers.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Make it soley a legal matter and make any religious aspect a choice that a couple can make.
Everyone should have exactly the same rights under the law. Whatever they think or believe about god's involvement should be individually chosen.
riversedge
(70,182 posts)riversedge
(70,182 posts)I fear this is what is happening in OK!
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,169 posts)They have to reclaim their religion? I guess they do if they want to actually follow Jesus who stood up for the poor, who said "Give unto Ceasar..." implying the separation of church and state. Entertainment? Uh....you can't just "take over" entertaining people. Either they are or are not entertained.
Anyways this looks like a poster for Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale".
sinkingfeeling
(51,444 posts)people........or you could wise up and get the hell out of Oklahoma!
okasha
(11,573 posts)in favor of equal marriage will put paid to this. Meanwhile, a suit should be filed the instant this prima fascie violation of the First Amendment comes into effect.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and against religion, in the meantime, same-sex marriages will be subject to restrictions they should not have to tolerate, as will marriages between atheists. All because of religious bigotry.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"to move past theoretical questions about the existence of God and onto more practical pursuits like how to fight for justice."
Apparently she's content to just sit still and hope for the best. (Pray?)
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Send in the Marines.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Just horrific!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)a legislative body goes and does something as stupid as this.
Did they not receive a single civics lesson in their schools?
And how in the world did they come to the massively erroneous conclusion that gay people don't have a religious affiliation?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)posted by the same person advocating just that?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I learned that here last night.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Thats ok Warren. I don't take things as personally as I used to here. I understand it is a form of entertainment and to just accept that.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)always looking for that alert worthy post, aren't you?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)and I had to bring him this morning to the hospital.
I didn't see the huge thing that your friend posted until I got home from the hospital this afternoon. there was a pm from a friend commenting in his post and I took him off ignore to see it. He said wjat he said and that is fine with me.
I didn't want his post hidden and i was glad the jury saw he got a bit angry and was letting off steam.
Your other friend I said in the thread I hope a jury does not alert on my account.
No sir I don't look to catch you or your friends in a post that could get hidden.
If you constantly get hidden posts that is your fault. One can debate a hidden post or two but if you constantly get them you should ask yourself why and what should I do to correct it.
okasha
(11,573 posts)as opposed to imagining it--post a link. You don't do coy well.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)are you and Justin suffering from short term memory loss?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I meant it as a good natured tug at you guys but in context of the thread it was taken to mean something I had no desire to say about atheists.
okasha
(11,573 posts)You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, though. Or you could just be making shit up, given that cbayer said nothing remotely close to what you've attributed to her.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)"It's time for atheists to stop debating God's existence and decide what to do about it ".
cool story bro.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)but please do have yet another upset.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)i would never call someone a gender that they don't identify as.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Let me guess, you've never heard the expression "cool story bro" before, amirite?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)but you are desperately trying to create one. Anything except discuss the op or its stark contrast with yesterday's celebrated "why don't atheists stop talking about religion" thread, right? It is fucking embarrassing to have reality interject itself this way. Best to create a diversion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I have no idea either but I would never call a woman bro, especially a woman who identifies as a lesbian.
And if you haven't noticed I apologized for my part in that thread.
I really thought you of all people understood the sensitivity.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)sexuality and gender are separate things and the internet meme "cool story bro" has nothing to do with either, it simply means that somebody has just uttered something that is total bullshit. But what do you think is more important, Oklahoma passing a law that requires a recognized religious official to perform a marriage, or your current upset over the use of the meme "cool story bro" to some ridiculous bullshit somebody said on the internet?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Clearly talking to you is a waste of my time.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Oklahoma House passes bill restricting marriage to people of faith.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yet you can't admit you made a mistake by calling her a bro.
I never use that expression with a woman.
okasha
(11,573 posts)"Bro" is short for "brother.". It originated in the African American community as an address from one black male to another. It doesn't matter whether it's an "internet meme" or not. Your use of it is offensive on both gender and racial levels.
Kind of like my saying to you, " Not even, bitch.". Capiche?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It's usage is neither racial not sexual nor gender specific. "Cool story bro" is an Internet meme for "that is total bullshit", and has nothing to do with race gender sexual orientation ethnicity religion or hair color.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)How about a lesbian? Do you not understand how that can be very insukting?
okasha
(11,573 posts)According to the Urban Dictionary, you don't even have the meaning of the "meme" right.
Put down the shovel, Warren. You're making yourself look....amusing.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)nary, to grab a social context that a regular English dictionary doesn't contain.
Very convenient.
The teller of cool stories; the coolest storyteller.
"Cool story, bro."
by Counter Sanity August 07, 2012
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There is no gender specific version to my knowledge.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's 'your story is bullshit'.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I sould never call a woman bro.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's an internet meme. It's used all over the damn place, without regard to gender, worldwide.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Just because something is used often doesn't mean someone can not be offended.
as a gay man if someone called me a sister I would be offended. He as a lrsbian woman is not pleased to be cslled bro.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)In this case, no.
It means a variety of things from 'I don't believe you' to 'your story is boring, stupid, or irrelevant', etc, but at no point have I ever seen anyone use it as 'you are male' or 'you are my brother, literally'. Never.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He should be more careful who he calls bro.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'll fully grant that no one can tell another person how to feel about something that was said to them, but one can certainly clarify how it was obviously meant when it was said.
In this case, I'm at a loss to suggest a suitably sarcastic alternative.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am not sure I can come up withsnother meme for it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If the funny was packaged as simply calling a female, male, then I would agree with you. "bro", in this case, is like punctuation. It's not the payload.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It ix up to the person.
okasha
(11,573 posts)That's a fairly obvious solution.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not really recognizable as the established meme though, but if it bothers you, I will be sure to adapt any future comments to suit.
okasha
(11,573 posts)have managed to abandon "established names" when they were recognized as offensive:
"N*****" in the woodpile."
"Indian giver"
"Jew him down"
"Frito bandito"
Et cetera.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Do you really think that meme carries the same level of attack connotation, the same baggage, in the post that applied it to you?
All four of your examples are undeniably bigoted in ANY context. Does the 'cool story' meme share that same space?
If it had been leveled at you specifically for the intent of attacking your gender/identity, I would fully agree, because while many comments are acceptable generally, they can undeniably be put in a context that is a direct, personal, intentionally hurtful attack.
I honestly don't believe Warren would do something like that to you. I don't know anyone here that would stoop to that, no matter how acerbic the disagreement at hand might be. No matter how much past disagreement baggage there might be between any two posters.
If I thought for one second that he had, that would have an immediate impact on my contact with him.
okasha
(11,573 posts)We have emoticons to convey sarcasm online where tone of voice would carry it in conversation. .No problem.
Add "bro," and unless you know the addressee is a man, you've assumed that male is the default gender. That's why "mankind" has pretty much been replaced by "humankind" in all but very conservative usage. In that sense, "bro" is disrespectful of any woman.
As for "bro" as a form of address to a lesbian, let me offer you a parallel. You would instantly recognize "sissy" as an insult to a gay man because it says in effect, "You are not really a man,". "Bro" addressed to a lesbian says, "You're not really a woman.". Both expressions come trailing baggage from patently bigoted expressions such as "Which one of you is the woman/man in your relationship?"
On your third paragraph--let's just say we differ.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I've had those terms applied to me, directly, however.. I do come from a position of immense privilege so I can't really form a credible objection to how offensive or inoffensive it is. So.
I go to great lengths, especially in this venue, but in life in general, never to assume any gender-related categorization. You may have noticed that I use "his/her" or no gender at all when referring to posters I do not know. I would never for one second have thought of it in the context of that meme, in that post. It never occurred to me that it could be meant in the context it was objected to.
okasha
(11,573 posts)and that you're very careful about it.
phil89
(1,043 posts)You've been proven wrong, multiple times, quit while you're behind. I'd hate to hear your diatribe if someone said "hey guys!" to a group which included a female.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Btw nothing has been proven ecept okasha was offended by being called a bro.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Beyond that, you're not doing so well. Cbayer posted the article; she didn't write it. There's a difference. Nor did the article suggest that atheists shut up. It did suggest that the God exists/doesn't exist argument has been run into the ground (it has) and that a better use of everyone's time is to address social justice issues together (it would.)
As Justin has pointed out, I'm not a "bro.". Your assumption that male is the default gender is sexist and offensive.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Interesting.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Irrelevant attempted diversion.
Not even.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)That my evidence was not even close, total bullshit, a condition frequently described on the internets with the expression " cool story bro".
okasha
(11,573 posts)Please have someone explain to you that the writer of the article and the poster of the article are two different people.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The meme translates to "I don't believe you", not "You're male".
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=cool+story+bro&qpvt=cool+story+bro&qpvt=cool+story+bro&FORM=IGRE#a
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and arguing for its necessity and legitimacy are the ones who act most surprised every time it pushes for new levels of immoral control over people's lives?
Beartracks
(12,806 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)As a matter of fact, there is a significant degree of atheism among libertarians.
Unintended consequences
. sometimes you have to love them.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Maybe it is time to have all marriage license issued by the federal government. It is ridiculous for a state to be able to deny people federal benefits, using religion as an excuse. They are just going to keep going after gay and atheist people.
Panich52
(5,829 posts)Or their own state constitution: Article II "Bill of Rights"
Political Power - Purpose of Government - Alteration or Reformation
All political power is inherent in the people; and government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and to promote their general welfare; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it: Provided, such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
Text of Section 15:
Bills of Attainder - Ex post Facto Laws - Obligation of Contracts - Forfeitures
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed. No conviction shall work a corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate: Provided, that this provision shall not prohibit the imposition of pecuniary penalties.
Text of Section 33:
Effect of Enumeration of Rights
The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people.
oops (ironic inclusion in "bill of rights"
"Marriage" Defined - Marriage Between Persons of Same Gender Not Valid or Recognized
A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
B. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage.
C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Except Art II, Sec 35 was struck down as unconstitutional, repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
The Oklahoma Definition of Marriage Amendment, also known as State Question 711, was on the November 2, 2004 ballot in Oklahoma as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved, but was later overturned by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.[1][2][3]
Aftermath
Federal appeals court ruling
On June 25, 2014, a three member panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down bans on gay marriage in the states of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. This was the first ruling made by a federal appeals court on this issue, which sets a historic precedent that voter-approved bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of same-sex couples to equal protection and due process.[4]
While the decision was based off of a case originating in Utah, Oklahoma submitted its own case for review by the Court of Appeals.[5] On July 18, 2014, the court directly struck down the Oklahoma ban in that case.[6]
Stay of decision
Implementation of both decisions affecting Oklahoma were immediately stayed pending anticipated appeals to either the full appeals panel or the United States Supreme Court.[7][6]
United States Supreme Court
On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case, thus allowing the ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court to stand and legalizing same-sex marriage in Oklahoma.[8]
Repubs do find interesting ways to try and skirt constitutionality and civil rights...
all info from ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/Article_II,_Oklahoma_Constitution
http://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Definition_of_Marriage,_State_Question_711_(2004)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)except of course that theocracy is a real possibility.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Results from MANOS and the General Social Surveys reveal that the general American population holds nearly identical levels of fundamentalist beliefs as Muslims, if not slightly more. Just over 57 percent of the general American population believes that right and wrong in U.S. law should be based on Gods laws, compared to 49.3 percent of U.S.-born Muslims and 45.6 of foreign-born Muslims. About a third of each group believes that society should not be the one to determine right and wrong in U.S. law. Such numbers reveal that the general American population is more fundamentalist than the average European, and that Muslim Americans are less fundamentalist than European Muslims, according to the Koopmans study.
If the US becomes a theocracy, a possibility that I hope is remote, I hope that will convince my wife to move back with me to my home town. Assuming of course that Stephen Harper does not succeed in creating his own little theocracy.
Quite bizarre that a country founder by agnostics, free thinkers, atheists and assorted Enlightenment influenced people could be seen by the uneducated as a Christian nation.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)When they ban divorce, THEN they might seem serious. Otherwise, they are just chest beating and trying to out-Christian each other as is typical of those fundy types. They do that crap where I live. Push comes to shove, they do it to get more business for whatever business they are running and to play the old "mine is better than yours" game. They literally rub elbows with the extremists who run my home county to get more business. I am sick of them. If they really want to appear the least bit serious about the "sanctity of marriage," they'll ban divorce. Divorce is the number one cause of marriage breakups.
Try telling them that, though. They'll start beating their chests about homo-secks-shu-ality again. They are full of shit and just posturing.
demwing
(16,916 posts)right?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I can't wait for the first Muslim or Hindu couple to try getting married there, and we'll see how broadly Oklahoma defines "religious official"
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Finding these people to run?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Wonder what those OK nimrods would say about that?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Oklahoma can not stop it completely.
valerief
(53,235 posts)still_one
(92,116 posts)People in Oaklahoma really happy with this?
vkkv
(3,384 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)US Supreme Court, 1967 (Loving v Virginia)
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)who will be on the hook for a huge number of lawsuits against this, if it comes to be law.
Beartracks
(12,806 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Wish I could say I'm surprised.
But I'm thinking they worded the bill incorrectly. Don't they only want Christians to marry? I mean, this bill leaves the possibility that Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. can get married.
Can't have that. We're a Christian Nation, for cryin' out loud!
lark
(23,083 posts)Really, they are totally in favor of most of the provisions. Stoning a young woman who has unmarried sex yet not touching the man, the tealiban would love that and really do it now in words if not using the actual rocks.
Do these assholes even know we have a costitution? This is unconstitutional on the face of it, establishing the christians as the only people allowed to actually be married?
OMG, how can so many have totally lost their minds? I'd love to see Scalia try to defend this one, the pompous ass.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)religious bullshit down the throats of everyone else?
douggg
(239 posts)and conversely, the power to deny a faith/religion as legitimate.
Many Catholics/Protestants consider the other to be false Christians. (Or Mormons as a cult)
Just think of the mischief that could be done every decade or so if the legislative makeup changed to a different religious majority.
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)Which is what it costs for two people to fly to Vegas and back.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)The Oklahoma bill defines which religious officials can preside at a marriage ceremony to include:
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.
and
Marriages between persons belonging to the society called Friends, or Quakers, the spiritual assembly of the Baha'is, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or other assemblies which have no ordained minister, may be solemnized by the persons and in the manner prescribed by and practiced in any such society, church, or assembly.
It seems that Oklahoma Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and those of other faiths cannot marry in their faiths.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Thanks for that.
catrose
(5,065 posts)who will bless a same-sex marriage?
He'd be so disappointed.
longship
(40,416 posts)Don't these people have even a basic understanding of the US Constitution?
Apparently not.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)They just don't think that fancy-book-learnin'-commie-librul document should apply to them.
Another way to put it: They're attempting to overthrow the federal government and establish theocracy.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)penndragon69
(788 posts)Since same sex marriage is becoming the law of the land,
they needed a new group to discriminate against.
Their new target.....ATHEISTS !
But they are still OK with you marrying your COW !
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This is going to so backfire on them.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Blatant, desperate, unconstitutional. ~ pinto
Okla. House OKs bill shifting issuance of marriage licenses from state to clergy
OKLAHOMA CITY The Oklahoma state House has approved legislation that shifts the issuance of marriage licenses from the state to members of the clergy.
House members voted 67-24 for the measure Tuesday and sent it to the Senate for consideration.
The measure (HB 1125) by Republican Rep. Todd Russ of Cordell would replace a state-issued marriage license with a clergy-issued marriage certificate.
Russ says it gets government out of the business of licensing marriage. Opponents say it is a reaction by lawmakers who disagree with a federal judges decision to overturn the states ban on same-sex marriage.
Russ says the state neither allows nor disallows same-sex marriage under the bill. But opponents, including Democratic Rep. Emily Virgin of Norman, say state government needs to be involved in the process.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/03/okla-house-oks-bill-shifting-issuance-of-marriage-licenses-from-state-to-clergy/
okasha
(11,573 posts)has congregations in Wichita and Oklahoma City.