Gay Marriage

Oklahoma Legislator Hates Gay Marriage Enough to Get the State Out of Marriage!

|

Social progress comes from weird places some times. Like a Libertarian's Twitter feed points to this case emanating from Oklahoma like crude oil bubbling up through the ground. State Rep. Todd Russ, a Republican, tells the Daily Oklahoman,

He wants to protect court clerks from having to issue licenses to same-sex couples. He doesn't want these workers put in the position of having to condone or facilitate same-sex marriage….

Under his plan, a religious official would sign a couple's marriage certificate, which would then be filed with the clerk. Marriages would no longer be performed by judges. If a couple did not have a religious official to preside over their wedding, they could file an affidavit of common law marriage.

Another legislator, also a Republican, has introduced legislation exempting religious officials from having to "solemnize or recognize any marriage that violates the official's conscience or religious beliefs."

Gay marriage became legal in Oklahoma last November, due to a court ruling (and in spite of the fact that a 2004 constitutional amendment favored overwhelmingly by voters defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Read more here.

In an ideal world, or even just a better world, the state wouldn't be involved in marriage and it wouldn't dole out tax and other benefits based on a person's relationship status. Until that time comes, all individuals and marriages should be treated equally under the law. But who would have guessed that an ordained Assemblies of God minister like Rep. Todd Russ—rather than some freewheeling crusader against bourgeois institutions—would be leading the way to getting the state out of holy matrimony?

Advertisement

NEXT: WATCH: Ending the Classroom Factory Model: How Technology Will Personalize Education

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But who would have guessed that an ordained Assemblies of God minister like Rep. Todd Russ?rather than some freewheeling crusader against bourgeois institutions?would be leading the way to getting the state out of holy matrimony?

    That writing has been on the wall for some time now, actually.

  2. I’m not sure I’d exactly classify that as “getting the state out of marriage”.

    Also, it was my understanding that judges aren’t required to perform marriage ceremonies already, and many don’t. But I guess that probably depends on the state.

    1. No, it’s not getting the state out of marriage at all, it’s simply making the existing process more complicated and clearly designed with animus against the homos in mind.

    2. I agree. I’m guessing that all the auto-invoked state-designed contracts still exist when you get married- and kick in when you get divorced.

    3. The only way to get the state out of marriage would be to forbid state-provided courts from ruling on whether someone was married.

      1. Or, just deregulate marriage, stop issuing marriage licenses and allow married folks to make their own contracts regarding child care, spousal support and the like.

  3. Stopped clock. Blind squirrel.

  4. Good news, I guess. If it goes anywhere.

    I’m still puzzled, myself, by when marriage stopped meaning “man and woman” and started meaning “any two people”, and according to who, and how I am supposed to tell when the meanings of words changes enough that something perfectly Constitutional on Monday becomes an EP violation on Tuesday.

    Still, if this demonstration of what it really looks like to live under a Total State opens a few more eyes, that’s a silver lining, I guess.

    1. The meanings of words change all the time. That’s language for you.

      1. Yes they do.

        That is why I favor something like “original understanding (not intent)” when it comes to constitution or laws.

        1. I guess original meaning is what Im going for, not understanding.

        2. That is why I favor something like “original understanding (not intent)” when it comes to constitution or laws.

          Under this theory of interpretation, Congress could today pass a 27th amendment containing the exact same text as the 14th amendment, and it would be possible for a judge to argue that a law violated one but not the other.

          1. Something like that already happens. A state constitution can include a verbatim copy of a provision of the U.S. Constitution, but a court can and often does hold that they mean different things.

            1. When I rewrite the Constitution, I’m going to add appendices. Definitions of every word and intent.

              Yeah, lawyers will still try to change the appendices, but it might slow them down.

              1. You’ll need definitions for your definitions.

              2. When I rewrite the Constitution, I’m going to add appendices. Definitions of every word and intent.

                That’s kind of what the federalist papers were. A set of documents never before read by any democrat.

                1. They shoulda incorporated them into the document. Madison should have been able to predict that progressives would disregard them unless they were. 😉

              3. You mean a “definitions” section, like legislation commonly has.

      2. There’s even a term for it.

        1. That literally (2) makes my head explode.

        2. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations, which can be added, removed, or altered over time

          By whom and how?
          Isn’t that the issue?
          2% of the population is trying to change the meaning of a word, that has benefited society for millennia, in a way that attaches no such benefit, and the majority is just expected to accept it because “our feelings are hurt and we can’t get goodies we don’t deserve”? Or is it, “by getting this we will force you to like how we have distorted nature”?
          Either way, the majority should have the ability to make clear what they want the meaning to be, not black-robed-glorified-lawyers.

      3. The meanings of words change all the time.

        Sure. Hence, my question:

        according to who, and how I am supposed to tell when the meanings of words changes enough that something perfectly Constitutional on Monday becomes an EP violation on Tuesday.

        1. Your betters will inform you after the fact.

        2. Yes, RC, the meaing of words change over time. In 1820 a black person in America was only 2/3 of a person and only that under certain circumstances.

          1. You would rather black slaves had been counted as full persons for census purposes, swelling the census-tabulated populations of slave states and giving more representatives in the house? Or maybe you don’t actually know what the 2/3 compromise was.

          2. Three fifths.

            1. And if you actually read the damn thing, you’ll see it has nothing to do with defining anyone as a fractional person. It says you take this many, add this fraction of that many, add them up.

      4. Half the words in Rhywun’s sentence now mean differen things, since only a half hour ago. Try and guess which ones.

    2. The word “marriage” means the combining of two separate entities (like my marriage today of bowl cut, corduroy pants, and awesomeness). The “man + woman” definition is the newer one.

      1. two separate entities (like my marriage today of (1) bowl cut, (2) corduroy pants, and (3) awesomeness)

        Math is hard, amirite?

      2. No, the etymology clearly shows the meanings went the other way around.

    3. Didn’t marriage use to mean “I get to marry as many women as I can handle and give a decent payment to her father for.”?

      1. Don’t bring that up. This is Murika. We were founded on the Christian religion so we don’t give a flying fuck what all them other heathen religions do. It’s the Christian definition that counts here.

        1. Yeah, in America we believe in the dowry, not the bride price!

        2. Because the ancestors of Christians never practiced polygamy or in bride prices as the old testament clearly shows

      2. Look at that sentence. It’s not a meaning, it’s a statement about something the meaning of which is already assumed.

    4. Ah, RC and robc, still butt-hurt I see. Because I care, here’s a product recommendation for you. (Probably SFW)

    5. Are you puzzled by when marriage became “until whenever we grow apart, find someone better, or get tired of each other, etc. etc.” instead of “til death us do part”?

      The definition of marriage has already drastically changed.

      1. Yeah the easy divorce, anti-male divorce courts and divorce-fueled single parent household blight have done way more to destroy marriage than allowing gays to adopt children as legal couples ever has.
        (That being said why didn’t liberal gay activists just accept civil unions then have gay church priests push for the right to recognize religious gay marriage? That would have made things far easier and pushed the DOMA people on the defensive)

  5. Libertarians aligning their views with racist, ultra-religious sociopaths, just like they always do.

    1. Well, we do support AQ and ISIS.

  6. Acuz Jebus would want you ta hate teh gayz. He sed so in his book.

    But I do like the methods he uses to support his bigotry. Moar bigotry pleaz???

  7. Of course, being a republican, he only gets part way to the right way to handle this.

    He just cant imagine the state not involved at some level.

  8. Under his plan, a religious official would sign a couple’s marriage certificate, which would then be filed with the clerk.

    I have first amendment issue with granting religious officials a power that is not equally available to non-religious members of the public.

    1. Pretty sure it’s already the case in all 50 states that religious officials are granted that power, and that secular marriage officiants are also allowed.

      1. Here is the text:

        https://legiscan.com/OK/text/HB1125/2015

        Not only is it limited to religious officials, it’s limited to specifically Christian and Jewish religious officials. Oh, and the fee for that common law affidavit is 10 times what people who get married in a church have to pay.

        1. it’s limited to specifically Christian and Jewish religious officials

          Not exactly:

          …an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the
          Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination

          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, 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.

          I don’t know how broadly “ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination” has been historically understood in Oklahoma, but it could conceivably include, say, humanist or satanist officiants, for example.

          Oklahoma does appear to be unique in not specifically authorizing any private secular entities from performing ceremonies though. Since the common law affidavit is available, I don’t know that a court would strike the law on 1A grounds, although as you said, the fee is higher. There’s also a disparity depending on having completed pre-marital counseling through a state-approved provider, at the couple’s own (undetermined) expense.

          1. ecclesiastical – of or relating to the Christian church or clergy

            1. There’s a more generic dictionary definition as well, and legal definitions can sometimes vary from the dictionary definition, which is why I said it depends on how that’s been historically understood by Oklahoma law. If used in the less specific meaning – of or relating to the church or the clergy; churchly; clerical; not secular. – the Church of Satan or the Church of Humanism could conceivably qualify.

              Doesn’t really change the nature of the thing, just sayin’.

              1. Pardon my cynicism if I suspect the real goal here is to make it easy for people getting married in a “proper” Christian church while turning it into a Kafkaesque nightmare of red tape for as many other people as possible.

                1. The thing is though, nothing about non-state marriage officiants in the law changed. They basically took away the secular avenue of having a judge or JoP officiate the ceremony and replaced it with a common law filing. Filing the common law affidavit actually sounds quite a bit simpler from a bureaucratic red tape perspective. Drilling people for additional money because they chose that route does seem unfair though. But then, you only get the discount if you shell out for a minister and pre-marital counseling, which probably more than makes up the difference.

  9. 1) This bill is not the same thing as “getting the state out of marriage”. It just removes the state from issuing the licenses. I don’t see how this is necessarily better or worse from a libertarian standpoint, given that these licenses are still being recognized by the state.

    2) “Hates gay marriage” =/= “has principled objections based on a metaphysical viewpoint”. It cheapens the debate to pretend that these are equivalent — religious people know it isn’t true and it convinces no one — especially when libertarians are in agreement with the stance being argue. Hell, this Gawker-esque title could easily be turned on libertarians. “Libertarian software nerds hate poor people”, anyone?

    1. It just removes the state from issuing the licenses.

      Not even that. The license still has to be filed with the clerk, the clerk just doesn’t have to put their john hancock on it.

    2. “Libertarian software nerds hate poor people”, anyone?

      I do hate poor people. I want everyone to be rich.

      1. I don’t think everyone can be rich. No matter how we organize society, somebody is going to have to collect the trash, and they’re not going to be doing it purely for the psychological satisfaction.

          1. If ya gotta be a trash collector, America is the place to do it.

        1. Robots.

          Anyway, the US has no poor. Poverty and hunger have been eliminated, and anyone telling you any different is after something they didn’t earn or is completely ignorant.

          But I take your meaning. The least wealthy will always be used as an excuse to steal from the more wealthy.

  10. I’d love to see government out of marriage.That would mean a overhaul of the tax code also.Not gonna happen.Too many deductions and credits are involved.If you look at the tax code,a family of four making,say,50,000 gets huge tax breaks.

    1. Immigration law as well.

      Because fucking an American makes you better qualified for citizenship than, say, building technology startups, or mowing lawns.

      1. Well,you have to have some standards,derp.

      2. Actually, building technology startups is the easiest way to immigrate:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..r_programs

        Basically anyone with $500,000 can pretty much buy a green card by promising to invest it in a US company.

        1. True, but a lot of scrappy would-be entrepreneurs who aren’t flush with venture capital have to get in line for 10+ years while they wait for a H1B.

          In any case, the whole principle of getting priority queue because of who you’re fucking is insane.

  11. According to the linked article in the Oklahoman,

    “Toby Jenkins, executive director of Oklahomans for Equality…expressed disappointment with the two bills involving same-sex marriage.

    “For 23 years, at least one anti-gay bill has been introduced every session. I was so hoping 2015 would be different.””

    OK, let’s start with Rep. Brumbaugh’s “anti-gay bill.” Remember that a key gay-rights leader *opposes* this bill:

    “No regularly licensed, ordained or authorized official of
    any religious organization shall be required to solemnize or
    recognize any marriage that violates the official’s conscience or
    religious beliefs….

    “”Religious organization” means any church, seminary,
    synagogue, temple, mosque, religious order, religious corporation,
    association or society, whose identity is distinctive in terms of
    common religious creed, beliefs, doctrines, practices or rituals of
    any faith or denomination, including any organization qualifying as
    a church or religious organization under Section 501(c)(3) or 501(d)
    of the United States Internal Revenue Code.”

    http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 INT/hB/HB1007 INT.PDF

    So, Mr. Jenkins, if you’re *against* this bill, you believe that officials of religious organizations *should* be forced to solemnize marriages against their conscience?

    1. Try this link to the bill:

      http://ow.ly/HPDf4

    2. HTML tags, Eddie. All the cool kids are using them.

  12. my neighbor’s ex-wife makes $62 every hour on the computer . She has been out of work for five months but last month her paycheck was $18411 just working on the computer for a few hours. try this site……..
    ?????? http://www.cashbuzz80.com

    1. Does she work by officiating at gay marriages?

  13. Likewise, Mr. Jenkins is outraged that court clerks won’t be forced, on peril of their jobs, to cooperate in a procedure which conflicts not only with their conscience, but with the training and assumptions with which they went into their job in the first place. And they won’t be punished simply for trying to comply with a constitutional amendment approved by the voters of Oklahoma.

    But it doesn’t in any way stop same-sex couples from getting their “marriages” recognized by the state on the same terms as opposite-sex couples’ marriages.

    http://ow.ly/HPFIL

    So Mr. Jenkins’ objection, it seems, is that he won’t be able to force kindly old ladies out of their jobs.

    (and as for the $50.00 fee for common-law marriages, that’s the same fee as for other marriages where the couple failed to complete premarital counseling).

    1. Likewise, Mr. Jenkins is outraged that court clerks won’t be forced, on peril of their jobs, to cooperate in a procedure which conflicts not only with their conscience, but with the training and assumptions with which they went into their job in the first place.

      Yeah, the nerve of people expecting public officials to actually do the job they’ve been paid to do.

      and as for the $50.00 fee for common-law marriages, that’s the same fee as for other marriages where the couple failed to complete premarital counseling

      Why should the irreligious not be allowed to complete secular pre-marriage counseling and then get the same discount as the zombie cult?

      1. “Yeah, the nerve of people expecting public officials to actually do the job they’ve been paid to do.”

        Begging the question – the voters/taxpayers of Oklahoma disagree with you and they *don’t* think court clerks should be giving SSM marriage licenses – it’s federal judges (who don’t represent Oklahoma taxpayers) who chose to expand clerks’ functions to license SSM marriages.

        “Why should the irreligious not be allowed to complete secular pre-marriage counseling” etc.

        Here’s what the marital-counseling law says: “A premarital counseling program shall be conducted by a *health professional* or an official representative of a religious institution….For purposes of this subsection, the term “health professional” means a person licensed or certified by this state to practice psychiatry or psychology; a licensed social worker with experience in marriage counseling; a licensed marital and family therapist; or a licensed professional counselor.”

        http://law.justia.com/codes/ok…../os43.html

        1. Begging the question – the voters/taxpayers of Oklahoma disagree with you and they *don’t* think court clerks should be giving SSM marriage licenses – it’s federal judges (who don’t represent Oklahoma taxpayers) who chose to expand clerks’ functions to license SSM marriages.

          Yep. THANK FUCKING CHRIST, we live in a Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy where the tyrannical majority can vote away the rights of the individual.

          1. Thank Darwin we still have the right in this country to force Christians to bake gay wedding cakes.

          2. “Yep. THANK FUCKING CHRIST, we live in a Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy where the tyrannical majority can vote away the rights of the individual.”

            The bill does not in any way deprive same-sex couples of their “right” state-recognized marriage. it simply specifies that court clerks won’t be purged from office simply for sharing the views of their fellow-citizens.

            So the question comes down to this: Do we want to unnecessarily purge public officials, when same-sex couples can get hitched without any need for approval from these officials?

            1. The bill does not in any way deprive same-sex couples of their “right” state-recognized marriage.

              The OK Constitutional Amendment that was struck down by the SCOTUS certainly did.

              So the question comes down to this: Do we want to unnecessarily purge public officials, when same-sex couples can get hitched without any need for approval from these officials?

              One’s religious beliefs have nothing to do with them performing their job. If the two are in conflict and it’s that important to you, feel free to find another job.

              1. “The OK Constitutional Amendment that was struck down by the SCOTUS certainly did.”

                Too bad the bill and the constitutional amendment are different things.

                “One’s religious beliefs have nothing to do with them performing their job.”

                The bill would see to it that their job did *not* involve violating their beliefs, while still allowing same-sex couples the same right to “marriage” as opposite-sexers.

                So why, when you have a bill actually *abolishing marriage licenses,* without a purge of court clerks, wouldn’t that be preferable to retaining the system of marriage licenses and purging the clerks?

                In any case, if the voters don’t like a court clerk’s religious views, they can vote him/her out of office –

                http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/…..802web.pdf

                1. “So why, when you have a bill actually *abolishing marriage licenses,* without a purge of court clerks, wouldn’t that be preferable to retaining the system of marriage licenses and purging the clerks?”

                  No, because those people must be punished for having such thoughts.

                  You don’t get what this is all about, do you?

          3. I’m so glad you see things that way. Since now the tyrannical majority is made up of people who support gay marriage I (a religious person) can have the confidence that they can’t take away my 1A rights, right?

        2. Yeah, but if an atheist goes through the counseling with the health professional, they still don’t get the discount, because that only applies to church weddings. Common law marriage pay the higher fee whether they get counseling or not.

          Also, while the secular counseling is forced to a fixed, state selected curriculum and the person providing the counseling must be licensed by the state. Meanwhile, the church counseling can be whatever the church wants. They can make a five minute conversation with the pastor count as “counseling”.

          1. You’ve moved the goalposts from your first claim, that “the irreligious” are “not…allowed” to get premarital counseling and avoid the higher fee.

            I showed your mistake, so you’re retreating to a backup position, but even there, an atheist who doesn’t want a state-approved counselor can always go to a Unitarian church.

            1. Why should the irreligious not be allowed to complete secular pre-marriage counseling and then get the same discount as the zombie cult?

              You do understand what the word “and” means, right? If I lay out a two part conditional, and you point out you met the first part, my pointing out you haven’t met the second part is not moving the goalposts.

              1. If they get premarital counseling at a pro-SSM church, they only have to pay the $5 fee.

                1. My issue isn’t the SSM thing, it’s the atheist thing. I shouldn’t have to get counseled at any church.

                  1. You shouldn’t have to get counseled.

              2. Here again, I’m guessing the additional $45 on the check you write to the state of Oklahoma is a lesser sum than the amount you would pay for approved pre-marital counseling, and you also save the booking fee/donation to the officiant.

                A better issue to get worked up about might be why in the actual fuck the state is nudging people into state-approved counseling in the first place. The extra $45 to avoid it and keep your privacy and dignity fairly minor by comparison.

                1. A better issue to get worked up about might be why in the actual fuck the state is nudging people into state-approved counseling in the first place.

                  Maybe because they believe that those who don’t get the counselling are more likely to need the assistance of the courts when they split up. Kind of a pre-payment of future costs.

      2. “…zombie cult…”

        I just don’t understand why people don’t like atheists…

          1. My strawman can beat up your strawman!

            And 2 wrongs make a right, of course.

      3. Yeah, the nerve of people expecting public officials to actually do the job they’ve been paid to do.

        Until the court ruling, these specific duties weren’t part of the job description, which is what the change of law ostensibly is intended to address. If the clerks had signed on for the job with the knowledge of those requirements from the outset it would be different.

        Why should the irreligious not be allowed to complete secular pre-marriage counseling and then get the same discount as the zombie cult?

        The pre-marriage counseling can be secular (and there are specific provisions for the providers of such counseling, including what constitutes a “medical provider”, and a specifically-named “marital education” provider, which I’m sure has no affiliation whatsoever with any politician in the OK state legislature). But due to the change of law, your ceremony would have to be officiated by a religious or at least quasi-religious official to get the discount. As I said above though, the filing fee for common law would most likely end up cheaper by the time you paid for the state-approved marriage counseling and gave a generous, entirely voluntary contribution to the church of the officiant of the ceremony.

  14. But who would have guessed that an ordained Assemblies of God minister like Rep. Todd Russ?rather than some freewheeling crusader against bourgeois institutions?would be leading the way to getting the state out of holy matrimony?

    That’s a pretty predictable outcome of socons losing control over who can get married, actually. Once the “Holy shit, people we don’t like can use state power against us — we better get the state out of (insert current use of force here)” moment occurs, libertarianism becomes a lot easier to get.

    The only surprise is that it is coming as quickly as this.

    1. He’ll change his mind again after a Unitarian minister signs off on Bruce and Lance’s marriage.

      1. Let’s bookmark this prediction, so that when it comes true, you can say, “I told you so!”

        1. I wish I’d bookmarked my post a couple years back predicting that socons would end up bringing about the libertarian position on marriage after the courts took away their candy. It’s out there somewhere.

          1. The bill you reference doesn’t remove the state from marriage. It *does* allow court clerks with traditional views (views backed up by a majority of Oklahomans) to keep their jobs.

            1. I know, I already pointed that out earlier myself. I was just being a smartass. I did though, in all seriousness, predict several years ago that religious conservatives would abandon state licensing once gay marriage was instituted by the courts. And although this bill doesn’t go quite that far, I still think that will become a popular position among socons going forward.

              1. I don’t care how they arrived at this point. I’ll take the support on this one issue of removing the state from our lives. I think as the progs keep pushing their nonsense they SoCons will have no choice but to align with libertarians for their own self preservation. They will hate it but they will have no choice.

                1. The idea that you can’t have the state involved in marriage is dumb.
                  Unless you want to have a “libertarian court and police force” to enforce divorce decrees, child support/care directives, spousal support orders etc.
                  No matter how iron clad a contract, there needs to be a way to get one party, who says “nope”, to do what is in the agreement.
                  But, wouldn’t that be just a different kind of “state” – Oh, yeah, it would be done “better”.
                  I could have sworn I’ve heard that argument before.

          2. According to Tonio, no one will ever support that, you and I predicting it are crazy outliers.

        2. So you really believe this is about faith and conscience and not about special, preferential treatment for religion? For the “right kind” of religion, I should add.

          Seriously, the God Squad is just pissed that they only get to pass muster on civil law 98% of the time these days.

          1. Your prediction was “He’ll change his mind again after a Unitarian minister signs off on Bruce and Lance’s marriage.”

            Change his mind about what, may I ask?

            He *never* thought that SSM was legitimate.

            1. This is his vain hope that no religious minister would ever approve of SSM. Thus a law making religious officiants required, in his mind, effectively bans SSM. Once he finds out that isn’t true he’ll “discover” that this is a bad idea and move on to some other tactic.

              1. That’s not actually what the law says or does though. The change in the law would actually do away with any requirement to have an officiant.

                1. Under his plan, a religious official would sign a couple’s marriage certificate, which would then be filed with the clerk. Marriages would no longer be performed by judges. If a couple did not have a religious official to preside over their wedding, they could file an affidavit of common law marriage.

                  Religious officials, then.

                  1. Read the portion you quoted again, for comprehension this time.

                    The change in law does nothing except replace the role of a judge or JoP as a marriage officiant with an affidavit that can be filed by anyone. It arguably makes it easier to get married if you don’t want a religious ceremony – instead of having to appear before a judge and have him issue you a license, all you have to do is fill out the paperwork, go to a notary, and mail it to the court clerk.

              2. A quick Google search confirms that there are Unitarian and UCC churches in Oklahoma city – I’m not even from OK and I could find this out in seconds! We’re assuming this legislature could’t figure it out?

                Under the bill, if a same-sex couple wants to save $45 by skipping the common-law marriage procedure, they can get their premarital counseling and wedding ceremony at a Unitarian or UCC church for just 5 bucks.

                Oppression!

                1. Under the bill, if a same-sex couple wants to save $45 by skipping the common-law marriage procedure, they can get their premarital counseling and wedding ceremony at a Unitarian or UCC church for just 5 bucks.

                  More likely they would pay at least a nominal “contribution” in exchange for the officiant’s time in addition to any costs for the counseling, and lose out on hours of their time jumping through state-mandated hoops in order to save $45 for the sake of equality, when they could have accomplished the same thing in 10 minutes at any bank or UPS Store.

                  The counseling discount is abjectly retarded and unfair, but the financial “burden” here is a stupid way to make the argument – it’s a wash at best.

                  1. OK, fair enough, but the counseling discount existed before this bill and will continue to exist even if the bill is defeated.

    2. Quickly? I started suggesting it to them 25 years ago.

  15. One might think that, if gay activists believed their own “how does my marriage affect YOU?!?” rhetoric, they would *support* laws affirming the First Amendment rights of ministers and religious institutions, and allowing clerks with traditional views – shared by a majority of their fellow-citizens – to keep their jobs.

    We have seen, though, that marriages *do* affect other people – so far, they’ve been persecuting bakers, T-shirt makers, tour-company operators, and even wedding chapels (including the New Jersey chapel run by a church).

    Now, by opposing these two bills, which don’t affect their right to have the state recognize their relationships, Jenkins and his ilk are showing that they don’t simply want “dignity” or “equal rights,” but also the right to oppress ministers and religious organizations, and to purge conscientious public servants.

    1. We have seen, though, that marriages *do* affect other people – so far, they’ve been persecuting bakers, T-shirt makers, tour-company operators, and even wedding chapels (including the New Jersey chapel run by a church).

      Is there a single libertarian here who supports this Eddie? Or anywhere, for that matter?

      And your solution, is what? Do you want eliminate protected classes/groups in general OR do you just want to go back to discriminating against gays like the bible says you should?

      Additionally, your premise is false:

      We have seen, though, that marriages *do* affect other people

      Gay marriage DOESN’T affect other people. Stupid ass laws creating protected classes affect other people.

      1. “Gay marriage DOESN’T affect other people. Stupid ass laws creating protected classes affect other people.”

        Then your quarrel isn’t with me, but with the SSM movement and with the Jenkinses of the world, who *do* want their marriages to affect other people.

        I’m going to keep pointing out the real-world consequences of the policies advocated by the SSM movement.

        I’m simply pointing out the real-world consequences of policies supported by some libertarians.

        1. My quarrel is with anybody who wants to create/support law that gives one group more rights than another.

          AND

          My quarrel is with anybody trying to use the fact that SOME people are attempting to establish another protected class as a fucking excuse to continue to discriminate against gays. MEANING YOU, EDDIE!

          You are attempting to conflate two separate issues so you can legally continue to be the bigot, that Jesus tells you to be. (Disclaimer: No I don’t think Jesus wants people to be bigots…but I do think Eddie thinks Jesus wants people to be bigots.)

          1. Note too that the complaints about the law in this thread have mostly been that it discriminates against atheists rather than that it discriminates against gays.

          2. “You are attempting to conflate two separate issues”

            Not difficult, when the SSM movement already did it for me.

            1. So answer the question Eddie. I’ll repeat it:

              Do you want eliminate protected classes/groups in general OR do you just want to go back to discriminating against gays like the bible says you should?

              1. Planted axiom: Only superstitious, bitter Bible-thumpers support the standard, two-sex definition of marriage.

                It’s natural law, “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” which IMHO creates the sex-binary definition. The Bible doesn’t create the definition.

                1. I know you reject the concept of “Nature’s God,” but there are some guys in wigs (including many theological liberals) who would disagree with you.

                  1. I mean, Thomas Jefferson was a unitarian, some call him a Deist, and secularists find him dreamy, and *even he* believed in a God of nature and put the idea in the Declaration of Independence.

                    1. Fuck you. TJ was about as religious as Ben Franklin was. Which is to say they claimed a belief in God to suit their political purposes.

                      If he meant God (as in sky daddy) he’d have simply said “God” instead of “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” or “Creator”.

                      It was put there to appease the likes of you without him having to look like a moron by admitting he believes in the supernatural.

                      There are laws of nature, but, THERE IS NO LAW IN NATURE THAT PRECLUDES HOMOSEXUALITY. Many species do it.

                2. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!

                  Do you want to eliminate protected classes/groups in general OR do you just want to go back to discriminating against gays like the bible says you should?

                  Everyone here knows what your answer is. But you can’t even admit it to yourself. Your true desire in all of this is to have the ability to go on discriminating against gays as your sick, twisted, fucked up religion always has.

                  Free choice, my ass!

                  1. Gosh, *someone* got out of the wrong side of bed this morning!

                    Let’s divide your question into its component parts:

                    “Do you want to eliminate protected classes/groups in general”

                    No.

                    Now let’s discuss which groups should or should not have protected status. Try and keep swearing to a minimum.

                    “do you just want to go back to discriminating against gays like the bible says you should?”

                    Like I said, the Bible didn’t invent the sex-binary definition of marriage, any more than it invented honoring one’s father and mother. (For bonus points, though, tweak me about polygamy)

                    1. While I don’t like your insults, I notice that you don’t discriminate – you are quite willing to insult Thomas Jefferson, calling him a liar.

                      Now, secular types are faced with a dilemma re Jefferson. Jefferson wrote all sorts of things rejecting orthodox Christianity, and variants of it like Calvinism. He vigorously defended religious freedom. He published a bowdlerized Gospels leaving Jesus’ miracles.

                      All of this makes secularists wet their panties, and they simply can’t wrap their minds around that Jefferson, without being an orthodox Christian, could still believe in some form of God. The idea is so offensive that he *must* have been lying about it! Of course, by the same reasoning he could have been lying about religious freedom, rejection of Christian orthodoxy, etc.

                      In a private letter, not a public statement, to his friend John Adams, Jefferson rejected the supposed superstitions of Christianity – but wait, look at the way in which he denounces John Calvin’s views of predestination:

                      “I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, *which I can never be;* or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.” [emphasis added]

                      http://www.beliefnet.com/resou…..ams_1.html

                      oops!

                    2. leaving *out* Jesus’ miracles.

                    3. As a unitarian, Jefferson mocked trinitarian doctrines, saying that they believed in three gods.

                      In denouncing “Athanasian” doctrines (trinitarianism and associated beliefs), Jefferson gave voice to his unitarian beliefs in this way:

                      “I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief…the genuine doctrine of *one only God* is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.”

                      http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/pres…..efl268.php

                      Only one God? That seems to indicate that there *is* a God.

                    4. No answer?

                      Buck-buck-buck ba-CAW!

                    5. do you just want to go back to discriminating against gays like the bible says you should?”

                      Like I said, the Bible didn’t invent the sex-binary definition of marriage, any more than it invented honoring one’s father and mother. (For bonus points, though, tweak me about polygamy)

                      I didn’t ask you where it was invented. I asked you if you want to be able to continue to discriminate against homosexuals under the law.

                      Why do you continue to evade this question? Could it be that it points out the complete and utter hypocrisy of your beliefs?

                      Love thy neighbor.

                      Free will.

                      Do unto others…

                      Let he who is without sin…

                      But fuck the faggots. He didn’t mean the faggots, right Eddie?

                      That’s what you mean, but you can’t quite bring yourself to admit it, can you Eddie? You want to, because you find homosexuality repulsive, but admitting it would violate 1-4 above. How does the “word” of a perfect god allow for so many contradictions within it?

                      You want to be able to discriminate against people because that’s what the Catholic church (and christianity in general) tells you to do. Admitting that homosexuals are people with rights the same as the heteros would be admitting you’ve been wrong, the bible is wrong and if Christ ever said “don’t be gay” (which I doubt) he was wrong.

                      (And I don’t give two shits whether TJ was a deist, an atheist or a fucking Catholic)

                    6. “(And I don’t give two shits whether TJ was a deist, an atheist or a fucking Catholic)”

                      In other words, you were not able to establish your claim that Jefferson lied about his belief in God.

                      That’s the secularist dilemma. Jefferson is a mine of useful quotations when it comes to criticizing the “Religious Right,” but when it comes to the existence of “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” suddenly he becomes irrelevant, and “why are you quoting this fundamentalist nonsense?”

                      “you find homosexuality repulsive”

                      I see you forgot your standard talking points. I thought that every “homphobe” was a closeted gay?

                    7. No, I don’t give a fuck at the current moment. I’m much more interested in why you won’t answer the fucking question.

                      Quit trying to change the subject and answer my goddamned question!

                    8. “I asked you if you want to be able to continue to discriminate against homosexuals under the law.”

                      Since you define “discriminate” to include “refuse state recognition to same-sex relationships,” I’ve already explained on numerous occasions that I support that form of so-called “discrimination.”

                      If you weren’t paying attention, it’s on you, and no occasion to curse.

                      But I suspect that you’re not just mad at me, you’re mad a whole lot of other religious people and I’m serving as kind of a stand-in for those other people?

                    9. And didn’t you know that “homosexual” is an offensive term? You should curb your bigoted impulses.

                      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03……html?_r=1

                    10. From the article:

                      “The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or Glaad, has put “homosexual” on its list of offensive terms and in 2006 persuaded The Associated Press, whose stylebook is the widely used by many news organizations, to restrict use of the word.

                      “George P. Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, has looked at the way the term is used by those who try to portray gays and lesbians as deviant. What is most telling about substituting it for gay or lesbian are the images that homosexual tends to activate in the brain, he said.

                      “”Gay doesn’t use the word sex,” he said. “Lesbian doesn’t use the word sex. Homosexual does.”

                      “”It also contains ‘homo,’ which is an old derogatory,” he added. “They want to have that idea there. They want to say this is not normal sex, this is not normal family, it’s going against God.””

                    11. So call it that. You want to repress the rights of homosexuals (make them less than you are) because your evil religion tells you to.

                      Don’t come here and make up bullshit non-sequiturs about how allowing gay marriage will result in another protected class so we better not allow gay marriage.

                      Particularly here, where NOBODY is in favor of the civil rights act or creating protected classes. Letting gays get married and gays becoming a protected class are completely different issues.

                      At least have the conviction of you beliefs, stand up as the bigot that you are and stop pissing down by back and telling me it’s raining.

                    12. Did I guess correctly? Are there other religious people you’re mad at, and you’re taking it out on me?

                    13. I believe that the “recognize our unions” movement and the “I want cake” movement are intrinsically connected.

                      The SSM people believe the same thing.

                      If you disagree, take it up with them!

                    14. “Particularly here, where NOBODY is in favor of the civil rights act or creating protected classes.”

                      Forseeable results are not unintended. Getting on board with the SSM movement has the forseeable result of expanding the protected classes.

                    15. Would you mind answering *my* question?

                      Are there other religious people you’re mad at, and you’re taking it out on me?

                      Because if so, I’m certainly sorry about the people who hurt you.

                      At the same time, I will only defend my own words and actions, not assume the guilt of others’ behavior.

                    16. I’ll take a wild guess and say the answer to my question is “yes.”

                    17. Are there other religious people you’re mad at, and you’re taking it out on me?

                      I’m not mad at any religion or religious people. You can believe whatever nonsense you want. And I’m willing to fight for your right to do so.

                      What I will not tolerate, however, is you infringing on the rights of others and using your fucked up beliefs as an excuse to do so.

                      AND what makes me mad is, Eddie, instead of admitting the reason you want to infringe upon the rights of others is your fucked up religion, you attempt to explain away your bigotry by claiming cause and effect between two completely unrelated issues that just happen to concern the same group.

                      It makes you a liar, Eddie.

                      One can be completely in favor of gay marriage and completely against creating another protected class without any moral conflict whatsoever.

                    18. “I’m not mad at any religion or religious people….

                      “AND what makes me mad is, Eddie…

                      “It makes you a liar, Eddie.”

                      But you’re not mad!

                    19. I didn’t say I wasn’t mad. I said, “I’m not mad at any religion or religious people.”

                      I’m mad at you, your disingenuous bullshit and your willingness to infringe on the rights of others in the name of your god.

                    20. Ah, you’re not mad an any religious person, you’re just mad at me for “infringing] on the rights of others in the name of your god.”

                      See, you try to separate issues which are intrinsically connected – which is my point.

                    21. They aren’t intrinsically connected, asshole.

                      My wife is a Christian, and she doesn’t try forcing her will upon others in the name of her god, as you do.

                      I’m NOT mad at religious people. I’m mad at religious people who attempt to force their will upon others.

                      See the fucking difference?

                    22. Well, not to nitpick, but I thought your claim was that “I’m not mad at *any* religion or religious people.” [emphasis added].

                      And just for fun, let me ask which beliefs I’m “forcing” on others?

                    23. Forseeable [sic] results are not unintended. Getting on board with the SSM movement has the forseeable [sic] result of expanding the protected classes.

                      That is a complete non-sequitur. There is absolutely NO cause and effect relationship between the two.

                      SSM doesn’t cause protected classes.

                    24. Look, I’m sure that, off in the astral plane, these issues can be separated. And if, like many libertarians, you find the astral plane a nice enough place to live, I wouldn’t blame you. You can all try to establish a libertarian regime where the government deregulates marriage without a purge of elected officials, without driving small businesses into bankruptcy, without harassing wedding chapels, etc., etc.

                      But here on the plane of reality, where I, at least, live, I see the interaction of two bad policies – each wrong in itself – and each upholding the other. The government redefines marriage, which is bad in itself, and it also seeks to impose that redefinition on others.

                      And libertarians cheerlead this movement while getting indignant at the suggestion that they’re encouraging the harassment of bakers, T-shirt makers, etc. After all, you don’t *subjectively want* these things to happen, so you must be blameless!

                      So you are basically lying *to yourself.*

                    25. You are completely fucking nuts.

                      Gays get equal protection under the law as per the 14A. Good thing.

                      Idiots forcing free people to bake cakes for them. Bad thing.

                      Completely unrelated. The only thing these two things have in common are that there are gays involved in both.

                      Your argument is EXACTLY the same as:

                      We shouldn’t abolish slavery, because the government will force shop owners to serve black people.

                      You are saying we should inhibit people’s rights because the idiots among them are going to try and inhibit your/our rights.

                      Both sides that would inhibit rights are wrong. That’s the activists demanding that a private shop owner be forced to serve them…

                      AND YOU!

                    26. But remember, you’re “not mad at any religion or religious people.”

                      I agree that the issues are “completely unrelated” at the level of libertarian philosophy, which is why I have no objections to your working out plans to implement your ideas on the astral plane, free from earthly considerations and playing fun games with clever ideas.

                      Sadly, some of us are limited to living in mundane reality, where the SSM movement and the “I want cake” movement are so close together that you can’t fit a piece of onionskin paper between them.

                      But don’t waste your time arguing with *me* – get in touch with the people in the SSM movement and tell them to separate these two “unrelated” causes.

                      Eg, Lambda Legal, which seems to have the strange idea that these “unrelated” causes are somehow connected:

                      http://www.lambdalegal.org/blo…..ees-sequel

                    27. “Your argument is EXACTLY the same as:

                      “We shouldn’t abolish slavery, because the government will force shop owners to serve black people.”

                      EXACTLY the same? So I suppose that the movie *Twelve Years a Slave* is a documentary about how gay people were forced to work in the plantations?

                    28. “Master, I admit I’m turned on by your whips and chains, but do you have to do it *so much*?

                      “And these slave cabins – ick, do you even *have* an interior decorator?

                      “And I bet the cornmeal mush isn’t even organic!”

                    29. And just for fun, let me ask which beliefs I’m “forcing” on others?

                      Oh, how about that gays shouldn’t be able to marry?

                      Are you that incapable of introspection?

                      We’re done Eddie. You’re obviously lack the ability to apply reason, and IMO, you’re an immoral piece of shit.

                    30. Uh, i believe same-sex couples should be free to cohabit, to call their relationship a marriage, and to celebrate whatever solemnities they wish in connection with the relationship.

                      Ah, but you mean i don’t want the govt handing out its Good Housekeeping seal of approval. Well, since *that* is where we disagree, why not say so honestly?

                      if your cause is so holy and righteous, why do you have to sustain that cause by lying?

                3. Notorious just out of curiosity, to you support multiple/polyamorous marriage?

        2. This is a serious concern, just as is the intersection of immigration & welfare policy. Sometimes getting rid of one policy you don’t like gives you more of something else you don’t like. Of course since you, individually, don’t control any of these policies, you could say anything you want. But if you acted like you had some influence, but couldn’t get everything you wanted, maybe you’d want to use that influence to maximize what you could get, even if it meant moving away from your ideal, rather than just trying vainly to get everything.

  16. Under his plan, a religious official would sign a couple’s marriage certificate, which would then be filed with the clerk. Marriages would no longer be performed by judges. If a couple did not have a religious official to preside over their wedding, they could file an affidavit of common law marriage.

    So, marriage certificate still has to be filed with the clerk. That’s still state-sanctioned marriage.

    Also, the affidavit of common law marriage is still very much a state thing, and represents an extra hurdle to some couples, most notably gays and atheists.

    Also, also I’d like to know how a minister becomes qualified to issue the marriage certificate. Can anyone declare himself a minister and start issuing, or does the state qualify them somehow?

    As I stated above, this is not really getting the state out of marriage, but simply erecting more hurdles designed to make things worse for gays and atheists.

    1. Also, the point of the clerk signing the marriage certificate is so the couple can later prove it was actually filed. Now when all the same sex marriage files mysteriously get thrown out, the clerk can just claim they were never filed to begin with and no one can prove otherwise.

      1. The clerk wouldn’t be signing the gay or straight marriage certificates/affidavits, but they would both continue to be filed by the clerk. The affidavits are required to be notarized, which means that a copy would remain on record with the notary by law. Keeping a copy for your own records would be a good idea, as is the case for any such document.

        1. So 10 years later when it turns out your marriage was never actually filed, how do you prove it was because the clerk decided to file 13 you and not that you just forgot to file it?

          1. Because you would still have a notorized copy of the document? If you don’t keep copies of any important document and expect the government to do so for you then you have lost your mind. They “lose” stuff all the time.

            1. That just proves I had it notarized. It doesn’t prove I filed it at the clerk’s office.

              Also, notaries are considered public officials, so there’s no guarantee I’d be able to get the document notarized under this law either. They could just say it’s against their religious convictions to notarize my heathen marriage.

              1. Freedom of association says they should be able to refuse you service but thats a separate point. If you can throw a stone in the state of Oklahoma and NOT hit a notary I would be surprised. They are required for everything that requires a signature in Oklahoma. You can find someone to notarize a ham sandwich if you want. Oklahoma is not this big monolithic anti gay sermonizing congregation. It just has its loons and a smaller population that makes it easier to see the outliers.

                1. Freedom of association says they should be able to refuse you service but thats a separate point.

                  When you pass a law that forces me to avail myself of your services in order to go about my daily business, it’s a bit late to scream freedom of association when you decide you don’t really want to provide that service.

                  If I can’t get a baker to make my cake, I’m perfectly free to make one for myself. I’m not permitted to notarize my own documents.

              2. That just proves I had it notarized. It doesn’t prove I filed it at the clerk’s office.

                See below. Having the notarized document would certainly help. Having a proof of filing or proof of receipt when mailing would pretty much lock it up.

                there’s no guarantee I’d be able to get the document notarized under this law either.

                If you really couldn’t find a single notary employed at every shipping center, bank or real estate office who would be willing to put their stamp on your marriage affidavit, you could always take out a loan for the couple hundred bucks it would cost and become your own notary.

                1. You’re not allowed to notarize your own documents, for obvious fraud reasons.

                  1. If you can’t find a notary to notarize anything in the state of Oklahoma I would be shocked. Everything has to be notarized. Oklahoma has independent tag agencies because the state can’t handle vehicle title transfers. Every tag agent is a notary. There is zero chance you cant find someone to notarize a document for you.

                  2. That was intended more just to demonstrate the absurdity of the suggestion. It’s easy to find a notary, and it’s also easy to make more. I bet if you went into a gay bar in Tulsa and announced an offer of a free drink in addition to the fees for anybody who would become your notary you’d be gay-married in the span of a couple weeks.

                    1. There is a good chance that the bartender in the gay bar is actually a notary. Notaries are everywhere in Oklahoma.

          2. The same way you prove that any other document was filed with the court? You could produce your copy of the notarized document, or you could contact the notary who notarized the document and obtain a copy from them. Obtaining a proof of filing (if the clerks in OK provide them) or mailing your document to the court via registered mail would further bolster your evidence.

            Of course, your entire tin foil hat theory here is dependent on dishonest court clerks, which would presumably pose the same risk under the current law as well.

            1. Not to mention that stormy is a concern troll anyway.

              1. And once again, finding themselves unable to refute my arguments, the socons instead switch to the tactic of accusing me of raising the objections they can’t refute with unclean intentions.

                1. Yeah, PM is a giant socon.

                2. You didn’t make an argument, you concocted a ridiculous conspiracy theory and asked a dumb question that was easily answered. I’m guessing you’ve never actually filed papers with a court before, but the affidavit in this case would work like any other court document, and you would obtain proof of filing and maintain proper records in the same manner. If a vindictive, psychopathic, bigoted court clerk decided to risk their livelihood just to fuck you over, you’d be in pretty much the same boat regardless of the law.

                3. I’m from Oklahoma and there is no chance you can’t find a notary to stamp your document. People in Ok are not some monolithic anti gay congregation. There is literally a notary on every street corner. I’m all for getting the government out of my business including marriage but denying people a right to free association because of something that may happen in some alternate reality is stupid.

    2. Can anyone declare himself a minister and start issuing, or does the state qualify them somehow?

      From my reading of the law from the links above, you have to be officially affiliated in some way with a church or (at least superficially) religious organization. You provide your credential and affiliation on the certificate. How closely anyone really checks is anybody’s guess.

      The common law affidavit doesn’t seem any more difficult to file, although common law filing does cost more (providing you attend pre-marital counseling and have your wedding officiated by a minister of some sort, at your own expense).

      1. For a real word example of how to get “sanctioned” by the state of Oklahoma to perform weddings google an episode of Street Outlaws that features “Daddy Dave” getting married. It took a fake certificate printed off the internet and a couple dollars for his friend to perform the ceremony. It’s ridiculous that you need the state to approve your marriage contract at all but it;s not hard to get certified in OK.

    3. “Also, the affidavit of common law marriage is still very much a state thing, and represents an extra hurdle to some couples, most notably gays and atheists.”

      Why? It gives equal rights to gays and atheists. Atheists only have file non-religious paperwork with the state, just like they do when they file taxes.

      Are you saying atheists don’t believe in the state? Check out your average atheist Web site if you believe that.

  17. OKLAHOMA CITY ? State Rep. Sally Kern has filed three measures aimed at the gay community.
    House Bill 1599 is dubbed the “Preservation and Sovereignty of Marriage Act.” House Bill 1598 is called the “Freedom to Obtain Conversion Therapy Act.” A third measure would allow businesses to refuse to provide services to the gay community, among others.

    1. Kern, R-Oklahoma City, garnered national attention a few years ago when she said the “homosexual agenda” was destroying the nation and poses a bigger threat to the nation than terrorism.

      This person makes laws.

      1. …that are overturned by judges.

        1. Exactly and shows everyone who cares about freedom where the stupid people are.

          1. I’ve got an idea: we should have the government force people to give up their bigoted beliefs. If they won’t change, then keep them from being able to earn a living unless they tell no one their bigoted beliefs and do not act according to those bigoted beliefs. If they try to participate in the democratic process, and somehow manage to pass laws in support of their bigoted beliefs, we should have judges swoop in and nullify said laws. If we need to, we should take their children from them to keep the children from growing up believing bigoted beliefs.

            Once they realize that they are politically powerless, they will change their belief system, or at least not bring them up in polite company. Then we can have utopia.

            1. If this wasn’t what a growing number on the left and some of the “left-libertarians” here actually believed I would laugh at this.

  18. Thank you all, this matter and the comments thereupon have now descended to a level of insanity that has had me chuckling for the past 10 minutes.

    Thank dawkins we all agree that less government solves most of this silliness, cause I sure needed the laugh!

  19. This is what happens when the right to freedom of association was pissed away. Everyone now wants to be in a special group so they can have their special victim rights. Forcing people to go against their moral beliefs is just as wrong as forcing your moral beliefs on others. If 2 or more adults want to make contract determining what to do with their lives then its not the business of the state. The state shouldn’t be favoring one version of a contract over another. A “marriage” is nothing more than a contract.

  20. After reading a lot of comments can I offer up a point of view? The Freedom of religion amendment does keep any religious majority from expecting that the process of justice or codifying law would favor their view point but it also protect any religious minority from being forced to violate their beliefs by being threatened with loss of a personal nature or by having their seat at the legal table taken away. Why is it wrong to seek out ways to protect the right of the religious minority to live based on their faith system without facing the prospect of loss of property, income, or status?

    1. Why is it necessary for the ‘religious’ to be prejudiced in the first place, considering the central tenet of the world’s 13 major religions is the ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ principle?

  21. Great write-up. I included the following comment when sharing this article, “I don’t talk about the Gay Marriage issue much because it’s a flawed choice in my opinion. I’ve said half joking half serious that I’m not against gay marriage, I’m against ALL marriage. The state should not be in the business of regulating love. Private and enforceable contracts between adults should be their own business and an employer’s decision how to recognize them. Oklahoma, a state I’ve spent quite a bit of time in the past year, seems to arrive at this same conclusion (perhaps taking the wrong path to get there, but who cares).”

  22. Heck, prejudiced people have been closing pools and schools and lunch counters for some time now – out of pure animus for the ‘other’ instead of just treating everyone equally – you know, like decent human beings do.

    Prejudice is bad enough on its own, but when it’s religion-induced, it’s both heinous AND detrimental to a civil society.

    Shame on religionists.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.