General Discussion

sir pball

(5,340 posts)

4. It probably is how they feel, but still runs afoul of the legal issues.

Sat Jan 25, 2014, 01:24 PM

Jan 2014

I suspect they just might like to have it that way - no baby within ten or eleven months of a wedding, with no help from anybody other than Gawd, and the marriage is annulled. Probably with fines and penalties. Maybe let it slide after one or two babies as a "reward".

But ultimately, it's still discriminatory in some way and therefore won't hold up in court. They're going with what is fast becoming the only legal way to prevent ZOMGGAYMARRIAGE, i.e. no marriage whatsoever. It's refreshingly honest, at least.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma [View all] MrScorpio Jan 2014 OP

Better yet, if their honest belief is that SheilaT Jan 2014 #1

It probably is how they feel, but still runs afoul of the legal issues. sir pball Jan 2014 #4

Absolutely. SheilaT Jan 2014 #10

Something else could be added to that list. theHandpuppet Jan 2014 #12

Yay! That would prohibit me from marriage. Chan790 Jan 2014 #20

I don't understand what they're trying to do TlalocW Jan 2014 #2

they can't prevent churches from performing religious marriage ceremonies unblock Jan 2014 #3

Would that dissolve all existing marriages in the State too? sir pball Jan 2014 #5

no, but it would eliminate state benefits and such. unblock Jan 2014 #6

It probably would. sir pball Jan 2014 #9

New state motto: "Oklahoma, the Batshit Crazy State" Comrade Grumpy Jan 2014 #7

Stupid must be in the Oklahoma water. MoonRiver Jan 2014 #8

They should try this in as many states as possible. nyquil_man Jan 2014 #11

Turner's reading the Virginia segregationists' old playbook: struggle4progress Jan 2014 #13

Not a bad idea Major Nikon Jan 2014 #14

+1 NobodyHere Jan 2014 #16

Not a bad idea unless you're at all progressive kcr Jan 2014 #24

Many people have tried to make this argument, few of them have really thought it through Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #15

The tax code is modified continuously by every legislative session in every state in the union Major Nikon Jan 2014 #17

Rewriting laws requires a lot more than using a search and replace Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #18

They require a legislative vote and a signature Major Nikon Jan 2014 #21

You quite simply have no clue what you are talking about Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #23

Neither do you evidently Major Nikon Jan 2014 #25

So if what you are proposing does not end all marriages what does it do? Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #26

You don't seem to be able to recognize the difference between private and governmental entities Major Nikon Jan 2014 #28

So you are essentially advocating for privatizing marriage Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #29

It already is private Major Nikon Jan 2014 #30

Marriage law is not private, marriages require a state issued marriage license under current law. Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #31

The key word here is law and not marriage Major Nikon Jan 2014 #33

Well if the law were changed as you suggest it should be you would see it is not quite so simple Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #34

As I said before Major Nikon Jan 2014 #35

Link me to a Noam Chomsky piece in which he calls for the privatization of marriage Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #36

That wasn't my claim Major Nikon Jan 2014 #39

Your citations are completely irrelevent to the issue at hand Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #43

Well what do you know, I found a quote from Chomsky about marriage Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #49

That's not what he's saying nor is it what I'm saying Major Nikon Jan 2014 #52

For your info here are Chomsky's views on privatization Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #38

Chomsky is talking about the means of production Major Nikon Jan 2014 #40

He was talking about privatization Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #41

I've already provided his quote Major Nikon Jan 2014 #42

You provided a quote which had nothing to do with the issue at hand Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #44

As if it wasn't clear enough I already explained to you why I mentioned Chomsky Major Nikon Jan 2014 #46

You mentioned Chomsky in a way that completely misrepresents him Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #47

You were speaking out against "privatization" of marriage Major Nikon Jan 2014 #48

Marriage licenses are a public service, your own words prove that Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #50

A license is an authorization Major Nikon Jan 2014 #51

I do understand it, and I think you are totally wrong Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #54

A license is not a contract Major Nikon Jan 2014 #55

Did you seriously just compare getting a dog to getting married? Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #56

Do you really have to be this disingenuous? Major Nikon Jan 2014 #57

A license replaces the need for a contract Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #59

You are describing the need for a contract Major Nikon Jan 2014 #60

You are the one who brought up incest Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #61

Actually your state is the one that brought it up Major Nikon Jan 2014 #62

No they do not have the authority to deny a license for "all sorts of reasons" Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #63

I don't agree Major Nikon Jan 2014 #64

The state can not deny marriage rights to left handed people Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #65

You shouldn't conflate authority and laws Major Nikon Jan 2014 #66

I think most people reading this thread will see who is intellectually bankrupt, and it is not me Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #67

You're not married, are you? There are health and financial issues also to consider. WinkyDink Jan 2014 #19

I am Major Nikon Jan 2014 #22

Oklahoma's new state motto: Better Dead Than Wed Fumesucker Jan 2014 #27

I bet businesses in the wedding business might Ilsa Jan 2014 #32

I've always thought that civil unions ought to legitimize partnerships. Laffy Kat Jan 2014 #37

++ FarCenter Jan 2014 #45

Hospital visitation rights, ZombieHorde Jan 2014 #53

Well that would be one way to reduce avebury Jan 2014 #58