Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Major Nikon

(36,927 posts)
21. They require a legislative vote and a signature
Sat Jan 25, 2014, 09:02 PM
Jan 2014

Depending on the vote they may not even need a signature. One law could change all relevant statutes.

Debate has been replaced by grandstanding if it ever existed at all.

All of the laws you mentioned are part and parcel to the problem of the government control over who gets those benefits and who doesn't. Controlling marriage simply invites discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation which state and federal statues are infested with. The entire idea of state controlled marriage is outdated and needs to go away. The idea that we should keep laws which serve no useful benefit to society and present a clear detriment is conservative rather than progressive. I could care less with how many hours it would take for congressional staffers to research them. That's the job of legislators and their staff rather than spending their time on back room deals with monied interests that ultimately fuck John Q. Public more often than not. Statutes are all in digital form and a search on the word marriage and it's derrivatives would capture all the areas of concern. It's not as difficult as you make it out to be. It's not that uncommon that laws today span hundreds and even thousands of pages. The only reason it won't get done is because there isn't any large special interest group willing to drum up the political support for the effort. Rather than asking what is the cost of change, we should be asking what is the social cost of not changing.

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Lawmakers Consider Preven...»Reply #21