Oklahoma Bill Would Legalize Gay Marriage. This Apparently Bothers Democrats and Gays. (CORRECTED)

A freak-out over the end of marriage licenses.

Oklahoma House of Representatives

Something remarkably libertarian has just happened in Oklahoma. The state's House of Representatives voted Tuesday to end government licensing of marriages. Doesn't that potentially sound amazing and liberating? The government of Oklahoma is essentially saying, "Y'all work it out yourselves."

Sort of, anyway. Rep. Todd Russ (R-Cordell) introduced House Bill 1125 (pdf) with the intent of getting county court clerks out of the duty to officiate marriage ceremonies. This was because some clerks have religious objections to gay marriage. What Russ did, though, was to make it so that citizens no longer need clerks for their marriages. They will instead file "certificates of marriage" or file affidavits of common law marriage with the clerks after it's all done with. This puts the responsibility for officiating the ceremony on judges or various religious figures. And according to the bill, these certificates will stand as proof of marriage for Oklahoma law:

Any entity requiring proof of identity or marital status shall accept a certified copy of the marriage certificate or affidavit of common law marriage that has been filed with the court clerk. Any reference in the Oklahoma Statutes requiring a marriage license as proof of identity or marital status shall be interpreted to include a marriage certificate or affidavit of common law marriage executed on or after November 1, 2015.

So this isn't some phony "separate but equal" plan to protect marriage from "the gays." Any Oklahoma statute that operates off of marital status or provides benefits or privileges based on marital status will accept either of these non-license certificates. The common law marriage option is for those who don't want to go the "formal ceremony" route. Note that they will get all the same rights and privileges under Oklahoma law.

But sorry, polygamists. The new form for marriage certificates in the bill still only has room for two people. Incestuous marriages would also remain verboten. The new form, though, does not indicate genders or use terms like "bride," "groom," "wife," or "husband." This means that, yes, this apparently conservative, religiously motivated legislation would legalize same-sex marriage recognition.

Which makes the opposition to the legislation from Democrats and gay activists a little strange, and their arguments a bit bonkers. From The Oklahoman:

State Rep. Emily Virgin, D-Norman, argued that if the U.S. Supreme Court should unexpectedly uphold state laws that define marriage as being between a man and a woman, Russ' bill would end up making same-sex marriages legal in Oklahoma.

Um. Yes … and? The problem with that is what, exactly? (Clarification: Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage recognition is a state constitutional amendment so Virgin is likely wrong here. Russ' legislation would not be able to counteract that amendment.)

Gay activist group Freedom Oklahoma is against the legislation, because … I'm not sure:

"This legislation puts all couples who plan to marry in Oklahoma at risk of being denied hundreds of federal legal rights and protections, if it were to become law," said Troy Stevenson, executive director of Freedom Oklahoma. "The federal government and other states will not be required to acknowledge these proposed 'marriage certificates.' This legislation will only result in mass confusion from clerks' offices to courtrooms around the nation — while putting Oklahoma families at risk."

Note the weasel words "at risk of." Why wouldn't the federal government and other states not be required to acknowledge that these marriage certificates are legitimate? What sort of confusion would there be? Each state already has its own marriage certificate process anyway.

The objections to this law from Democrats and supporters of gay marriage recognition don't make any sense to me. It seems clear that the objection is based on the attitudes of those who are promoting the bill and the likelihood that they are not fans of gay marriage. Arturo Garcia at The Raw Story thinks the bill "puts marriage licenses solely in the hands of clergy," to keep it away from gays and atheists, but that's not true. Judges (both serving and retired) would still be able to officiate marriages (even so, I wouldn't assume that even in Oklahoma you couldn't find clergy willing to marry them).

Yet, people are insistent that this law is going to be bad for the gays and I simply cannot grasp why. As Rep. Virgin noted, Russ' legislation literally, purposefully takes gender roles out of marriage certificates in Oklahoma entirely. What is the problem?

Update: I spoke with Russ and he, too, claims to be confused by objections to this legislation. While it is true that the legislation is a direct response to the federal courts striking down Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage recognition and the likelihood that the Supreme Court will uphold those rulings this summer, Russ said his legislation is intended to take the state out of the fight, not to perpetuate the conflict. He said Oklahomans likely wouldn't even notice a difference in the legal status of their relationships under his bill.

"I'm not picking a fight with them," Russ said in reference to opposition to the legislation. "I'm not their judge. I didn't go there."

Correction: So I made a fundamental unforced error in not recognizing that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage recognition is in its state's constitution. This means that Russ's legislation would not (and technically could not) legalize recognition.I should have realized this from the wording of the legislation.

What it does do is create the framework for gay marriage recognition should the Supreme Court strike bans down (which seems extremely likely to happen).

So Russ's legislation is still important for what it does do should the Supreme Court rule and for reducing the role the state would play in all marriage recognition, but not as much as I indicated.

It's still a good law and there's still no good reason for Democrats and gays to oppose it. But it would not legalize same-sex marriage recognition and I was wrong to indicate that it did.

Comments

[John]

Scott,

Their objections make perfect sense. They don't care about marriage. Marriage is to them only valuable as a tool to get the government to force people to accept their lifestyle. This bill doesn't let them sue cake decorators or anyone they think might not like their lifestyle. It therefore is not something they are going to support. This whole thing is about making gays a protected class and able to avail themselves of the public accommodation and discrimination laws. Any proposal that doesn't get them them closer to that goal is a no go. All this proposal would do is settle the issue without achieving that end. So there is no way they will support it.

[Brett L]

Shorter version: Insufficient opportunities for graft and patronage.

[John]

No. insufficient opportunities to use government power to punish their enemies.

[sarcasmic]

Yep.

[Restoras]

Well spotted, John.

[Invisible Finger]

Nailed it.

[WTF]

Exactly.

[Dances-with-Trolls]

Something about revealed preferences here.

[JWatts]

Agreed, that sums it up nicely.

[Puddin' Stick]

Graft and patronage are a way to use government power to reward allies? that goes hand in hand with using government power to punish enemies.

[Hyperion]

The USA is still too rich of a country and too many people still comfortable in the middle class for the left to rely on class warfare alone. That's why they need race warfare, gender warfare, sexual preference warfare, etc.

They can't possibly get enough people hating each other over distribution of wealth alone.

[woodNfish]

To what end? Civil war? Why? How would the left benefit? They wouldn't. The only way they benefit is from some form of totalitarianism.

[HazelMeade]

I disagree.
A) They are naturally suspicious because the proponents of the bill are anti-gay-marriage.
B) They are worried that complete deinstitutionalization of marriage would deprive them of federal tax benefits, right when they start qualifying to get them.

[John]

Neither of those things make any sense, as Scott points out. The federal government is no more or less able to deny benefits here than it would be any other time. Either the feds recognize gay marriage or they don't. If they don't, it being a "regular marriage" won't help. And if they do, it being one of these won't make any difference.

Those objections are ridiculous and the people making them know that. They don't like this plan because it doesn't allow them to sue people that don't accept them. That has always been the goal. Marriage is just the tool for obtaining it.

[HazelMeade]

People believe all sorts of things that don't make sense, John.
Especially if they have been persecuted for a long time and are thus (understandably) paranoid about their opponents motivations.

[John]

Sorry, after the bakery case and the other in Oregon, the gay rights establishment no longer gets the benefit of the doubt. Moreover, go show me where these groups don't want protected status. I bet you they are up front about their desire for such.

[RK PHX]

So, John, you don't believe in following the law when it doesn't suit you, then? Good to know.

[[e-mail]]

A) Their problem.
B) the feds have already allowed all the 1039 benefits of marriage to gay couples, so this is a moot point. Besides, this is only one state. If a couple is that worried they can go to another state and get a *license*. However, the feds, I believe, have already stated that the 1039 would be extended to OK couples if this law were passed.

[Zeb]

The objection still doesn't make a lot of sense. People can still get married. And marriage laws aren't what makes gays a protected class. How would a marriage law have any bearing on whether refusing to bake a cake is illegal discrimination? I don't see how a law like this precludes gays being made a protected class anyway (though it's probably not too likely in OK any time soon).

[John]

Marriage laws do make them a protected class in the sense that all a marriage license does is get the government to force someone to recognize your union. You can't make your employer give insurance benefits to your girlfriend. If they offer spousal benefits, they have to once you have a marriage certificate, no matter what they think of your marriage.

It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on marital status. Once someone has a marriage license, their employer and everyone else has to recognize the union or you can sue them. Also, once you say that gays are entitled to government marriage under the equal protection clause, sexual orientation by implication becomes a protected class. Once that happens, the CRA's exclusion of gays from protection becomes untenable. It would be no different than saying it doesn't apply to Mexicans but does apply to blacks.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Also, once you say that gays are entitled to government marriage under the equal protection clause, sexual orientation by implication becomes a protected class.

And right there, is your false premise.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Making a group a protected class requires a legislative act.

The court can declare current marriage law unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of 14A and strike down the law.

The court may not write law nor compel a legislature to make law.

Your argument is fallacious.

[Col. R C Dean]

The court may not write law nor compel a legislature to make law.

Well, not counting all the courts that have rewritten marriage laws to allow gay marriage licensing.

Making a group a protected class requires a legislative act.

Uh, not necessarily. The courts can, and have, declared certain classes as "suspect" classes, which comes to the same thing. Have a wiki, on me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....sification

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Nonsense.

They can strike down unconstitutional law. That is not the same as writing law.

[PM]

Perhaps you're not familiar with the penal-tax.

[Col. R C Dean]

Frank, they have rewritten marriage law in state after state to require licensing of gay marriages.

Its not always as simple as just striking down a stand-alone provision banning gay marriage licensing, so you have either a de facto rewriting of statutes, or the court ordering the state to do something with the same end result as a new statute.

Here's what the California Supreme Court rules, for example:

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union "between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

Tell me that's not rewriting law, especially since those provisions refer specifically to "man and woman".

[Francisco d'Anconia]

And saying "man and woman" was the part that made it unconstitutional.

Yes. They struck down the part that blatantly defied 14A and discriminated against homosexuals.

That's NOT writing law. It is a check on legislative authority.

[Col. R C Dean]

If all they were doing was striking down bad language, they would have had to get rid of big chunks of the statute, which had "man and woman" in it.

That's not what they did. They de facto amended the statute by requiring to be read in a way that is not the way it is written. Read the bolded language again, which applies specifically to the language they didn't strike.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

YES. In order for the law to be constitutional, it cannot prevent the marriage of same sex couples (which was the intent of the law).

As per 14A.

That's NOT rewriting. It's telling them they can't fucking do what they want to do...as per the Constitution.

[The Unnatural]

Except that under established 14A jurisprudence, these marriage restrictions were not unconstitutional. Bans on the basis of race--which is the go-to comparison of choice in these debates--for example, is a type of discrimination prohibited by the 14A. Not all discrimination is unconstitutional, however, something the Court has been quite clear on.

Sexual orientation was never a protected class, like race or religion were, and therefore rational basis review will almost invariably lead to laws being upheld. For the SSM cases, however, courts applied rational basis and then ignored the long string of case law.

[stan James]

boo hoo btw your children etc will be spittingg on your bigot grave

Bigot - from the german BI Gott (by god)

God has nothing to do with civil law marriage. BTW the marriage license originated in the old south after the civil war. It was, like the poll tax a scam to prevent African Americans from marrying because most were destitute and couldn't pay the fee.

[RK PHX]

"Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union "between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

Tell me that's not rewriting law, especially since those provisions refer specifically to "man and woman"."

Any law...ANY law...can be tested.

Any law...ANY law...has to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

You are so far out in left field with your claims it's truly astounding.

If a law discriminates against one set of people with no apparent government benefit to that discrimination, then it is unconstitutional.

You don't get to force me to act or believe the way you do, or discriminate against me, just because there are more of you.

[retiredfire]

In a case I am very familiar with, a federal judge named an individual, who wouldn't have had protected status based on his ethnicity, as a protected person for the purposes of her ruling instituting quotas.
While this judge also said her rulings supersede the First Amendment, both just go to show how federal judges are, virtually the law and Constitution unto themselves.

[Zeb]

Well, that doesn't seem completely obvious to me. I could be missing something.

Also, if marital status is a protected class, that problem already exists. It isn't a new one created by gay marriage. And if an employer offers spousal benefits, they knew what they were getting into as government already defined who was and was not married. A catholic employer couldn't refuse to give benefits to a previously divorced spouse of an employee, for example. At least in that situation, it seems to me that the best solution would be to get rid of the special tax treatment of health benefits so employers could just give people more money instead so people could spend it however they want instead of on unnecessarily extensive health insurance.

[[e-mail]]

"And marriage laws aren't what makes gays a protected class"

tell that to the legally gay married folks that are not denied the over 1000 rights legally married couples get

[A Libertarian]

How would it do that? It does not reference discrimination.

[George the Tooth]

Scott,

Being gay isn't a "lifestyle".

We don't care if YOU accept us, because YOU aren't the body that administers the secular law under which ALL citizens are promised the equal protections of that law. IOW, the struggle isn't with YOU, it's with the government. Please stay the heck out of the way.

P.S. Selling cakes is NOT a 'religious exercise'.

[Pulseguy]

I'm pretty sure if it were a Democrat proposing this they would be congratulating him on his end run against Teathuglicans.

This was proposed by the wrong side. That is the only issue.

[MikeP]

Wow. What a nice litmus test to separate liberal from statist.

[GroundTruth]

Elegant phrasing, if perhaps a bit too much of an inside use ("statist") for a statist to understand. Still, bravo.

[R C Dean]

The objections to this law from Democrats and supporters of gay marriage recognition don't make any sense to me.

Once you understand they don't want equality under the law, but want the State to force social acceptance, it will make perfect sense.

[sarcasmic]

Yep.

[MikeP]

I assume Scott is taking this surprised tone to sound reasonable in the presence of patently unreasonable people with patently indefensible positions.

But the objections come from the "if it not prohibited, it is mandated" crowd. They are not surprising and make perfect sense.

[Cyto]

You guys are wrong about this. Sure, the rank and file activists want the state to force social acceptance. But the leadership and politicians want an issue that they can use as a cudgel against their political enemies.

In short, they'd rather have the issue for election time. The same reason Democrats refused to support Bush's immigration reforms even though he was offering a much more wide-ranging and liberal set of reforms than Obama is seeking.

[R C Dean]

Sure, the rank and file activists want the state to force social acceptance. But the leadership and politicians want an issue that they can use as a cudgel against their political enemies.

Those aren't even two sides of the same coin. Those are the same thing, with two different groups identified as enemies who must be forced into submission.

[Puddin' Stick]

And the politicians and professional activists want an issue to hang over followers' heads in order to solicit donations?

[GroundTruth]

If you think being a gay Republican puts you in a minority (in either camp), try being a gay libertarian.

[Brett L]

The clergy objection is a non-starter. In America, you are clergy when you say you are, basically. But if you want to fight less with State officials, there are at least two churches who will certify you as clergy for $50.

[Irish]

As a registered minister with the Universal Life Church, I'd just like to say that it was a bit harder than paying $50.00. I also had to fill out a questionnaire.

I think everyone will agree that any relationship that begins with Irish officiating at your wedding will either be a roaring success or will end in some sort of murder suicide pact.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

I assume that Irish Matrimonial Ministries strictly enforces a mandatory open bar policy for all weddings it performs. If so, I fully support any marriage performed under such an obviously enlightened regime.

[Nephilium]

I much preferred my ordination into the Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic, although for the state to recognize my awesome powers, I had to fill out a form and mail it to them with $20.

[lafe.long]

???
Back when I got ordained with the ULC, there was no questionnaire and it was free.
Printed out my certificate and everything.
I didn't spring for the credential package.

[Riesen]

I didn't have to pay anything to become a Dude-ist Priest

[Robert]

Me too. Kirby Hensley long ago eliminated the fee & granted the power of all ULC ministers to ordain others. We believe in that which is right, and in doing that which is right.

A credential was also available gratis, and they'd credential you with a gold card for every 6 others you ordained. Titles such as "bishop", were available from a ULC monastery in San Diego that'd set itself up entrepreneurially to do so, which the ULC generally neither officially honored nor repudiated.

[Robert]

We will not stand between you & your god/God.

[Robert]

Doesn't mean your neighbors won't, though. A ULC chapter HQ that was operating a soup kitchen on the premises in Miami B. was torched. I guess they couldn't find anything in the legal code against a charitable enterprise like that, so they took it into their own hands.

[mad.casual]

will end in some sort of murder suicide pact.

Traditional marriages for all!

[Almanian!]

This law sounds totally awesome. Good on the Okies for getting one right!

And fuck the griefers with Warty's dick. Hard. Well - as if there were any other way...

[Swiss Servator... Switzy!]

And barbed and pointy and, well, harmful.

[Almanian!]

Ah - I see you're....experienced....

*nods knowingly*

[F. Stupidity, Jr.]

And fuck the griefers with Warty's dick.

"Dick" of course, being the most-equivalent human-language word for whatever that thing is.

[Puddin' Stick]

Even in species that practice traumatic insemination, it's still called a penis?

[RJ The Terrible]

I think some of the griefers would enjoy this ...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi....._penis.jpg

[Hyperion]

It's one of the most libertarian things I've seen in a long time. But of course, progressives are going to hate this, to them everything has to be controlled by government and handed out as government sees fit.

It will never pass and if it does, they'll be sued by the feds on some grounds, no matter if those grounds have to be invented.

[PM]

I recall when this was a mere legislative proposal and was first covered here at Reason that about 3/4 of the commentariat was offering the exact same objections, supplemented by additional kvetching that the fee paid by a couple with a ceremony officiated by a clergy member was less than the fee paid by a couple filing a common-law affidavit.

I suppose I'm obliged to eat my hat now btw, since I predicted this would never pass.

[Invisible Finger]

Let me guess... 3/4 of the posts were Tony and Bo.

[Cyto]

Seriously. Separating the religiously loaded term "marriage" and the attendant ceremony from the legal union has always been the libertarian position, as far as I know.

[PM]

I think Tony missed that one, actually. I believe it was Tonio and StormyDragon taking up the slack.

[RBS]

I believe it was Tonio and StormyDragon taking up the slack.

Let me see if I can dig up my shocked face...

[Zeb]

Huh. Always seemed to me as if there was pretty much universal agreement among the libertarians that this was pretty close to the ideal way of dealing with it.

[rudehost]

Agree. I bet there was also consensus that there was no way in hell such a sensible approach would emerge out of Oklahoma. That is almost as unlikely as California doing something that is not manifestly moronic.

[ColonelEngineer]

For the longest time, I've had this silent theory that gay marriage support from the left has very little to do with "being fair, open minded, and tolerant" and there's this mob mentality of "let's stick it to those stupid conservative Christians through their most sacred act because FYTW." And after reading this, I'm convinced there's an ounce of truth to my theory. If I'm understanding this correctly... anyone dully authorized can recognize the union? It doesn't have to be a governing body?

I feel like I've missed something. I am so confused.

[sarcasmic]

"let's stick it to those stupid conservative Christians through their most sacred act because FYTW."

Yep.

[Invisible Finger]

let's stick it to those stupid conservative Christians through their most sacred act because FYTW

It's the schtick of shreek, Tony, and Bo: they are intolerant of social conservatives.

[Episiarch]

Dude, just remember there's a big difference between your gay neighbor who just wants to marry their partner and the activists and people who live off the conflict and drama of all this KULTUR WAR shit.

[Zeb]

Yeah, that's the thing. I'd bet that most gay people who want to get married just want to get married. It is a minority of noisy assholes who want cake.

I'd also point out that it doesn't matter what the motivations of the activists are. Either the policies they support are OK or not.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

It is a minority of noisy assholes who want cake.

And they don't rule the night or travel in packs, amirite?

[GroundTruth]

Most true! Once same-sex intercourse is no longer illegal, the best way to go the rest of the way towards general acceptance seems to be to just live a normal quiet urban / suburban / rural life (as a function of the area). The neighbors are going to be far more upset about the white trash straight couple having fights in the driveway at 2 in the morning than the two guys fussing over a perfect lawn all weekend.

Just sayin....

[Hyperion]

I can see someone in congress proposing a bill that declares anyone married under certain conditions, like the common law marriage that some states adopted.

And I guarantee this would be a slippery slope. It may start out by stating that any couple living together for 5 years are automatically declared married, but it will quickly devolve into feminist dystopian nightmare as it gets amended again and again 'for the children'. Soon enough, if a woman claims that she slept in your home for one night and left her toothbrush there, you're married.

[Invisible Finger]

Um, the state is still making two people file paperwork.

[Hyperion]

I'n not saying that they aren't going to. What I'm saying is that the feds may perceive this as a wrong that needs righted and the solution they come up with probably won't have anything to do with the perceived wrong, it will just be another excuse to pass more rights killing legislation, as usual.

[John]

I have actually completely rethought my view of family law over the last month or two. The reason why we had marriage law in the first place is because married women and children were wards of their husbands and fathers. A married woman had basically no rights of contract without the consent of her husband. To keep husbands from just robbing their wives and children and leaving them destitute, the common law developed marriage law which dictated the terms of the relationship and prevented evil husbands from leaving their wives and children destitute.

That justification has gone away for wives. Women have full rights in society now. The government, therefore, has no interest in mandating the terms of a relationship between two consenting adults. If you are dumb enough to sign everything over to your spouse and they steal it all, that is terrible but it is your problem not the government's. The justification still, however, exists with regard to children. Children can't act for themselves and shouldn't suffer because one or both parents are evil or idiots.

So I think the government should only recognize marriage when there is a child, either by conception or from a previous marriage. Otherwise, people can get married under whatever terms they want. The government will treat them like single people.

[HazelMeade]

Or adoption.

[John]

Or adoption.

[RBS]

both parents are evil or idiots.

This pretty much describes every family case I have right now.

[Drake]

They will continue to recognize it now because it allows them to extract significantly more tax revenue from 2 income families. My Accountant let me know yesterday that the wife and I were paying $47K in 2014 taxes. I know that if we weren't married and each claimed one of our children, we would pay far less.

[Hyperion]

Agreed. A couple that decides to enter into a cohabitation situation, should deal with property division, if there is to be any, in a private contract before they start to cohabitate. I believe they call this a prenuptial agreement now.

Child support also needs reformed into something that is needs based instead of a means for women to screw over men, sometimes multiple men, who then get money from the state also. Right now, child support is almost always totally unfair to the man.

[John]

Child support is outrageous. There is certainly a minimum level of support all parents owe their children. The idea, however, that every father must guarantee his ex wife and children the same standard of living they had when married or give some set portion of his income to them no matter how high is absurd.

[trshmnster the terrible]

The idea, however, that every father must guarantee his ex wife and children the same standard of living they had when married or give some set portion of his income to them no matter how high is absurd.

And this is why I'm avoiding family law like the plague.

Divorce without kids should be simple. Assets and liabilities from before the marriage go to the original asset holder. Assets and liabilities acquired during the marriage are split based on earning potential. Assets and liabilities after divorce (including wages) are none of the other party's fucking business.

Divorce with kids should only change the calculation a little bit. A non custodial parent should be legally responsible only for half of the minimum costs to raise the child. If the non custodial parent wants to contribute more, great. If not, they may be a shithead, but that's not the government's problem.

[trshmnster the terrible]

Oops, fucked up the italics tags

[Scarecrow Repair]

Interesting idea. But there are other excuses for marriage -- inheritance, guardianship when incapacitated. While I would leave all such aspects to contracts, most people would be horrified at all those contracts.

But I like thinking about the concept anyway. Got a lot to recommend it, and might even be acceptable in some fashion, if this Oklahoma bill catches on.

[John]

Inheritance is only an issue if you don't have a will. All marriage law does is keep you from disinheriting your wife and kids. I get the kids part, but why should a spouse get a forced share of the estate?

The reason my proposal will never be reality is that marriage law is totally biased towards women. No way are women going to give up their alimony and forced shares of retirements and such.

Frankly, I think my position is the position social conservatives should adopt. Marriage makes no sense without children. Before birth control, that was not an issue since marriage necessarily involved at least the possibility of children. Now it doesn't and society has been groping for a reason why marriage still matters so much. Without children you are left with bullshit Disney fantasies about soul mates and such. SOCONs should want marriage to be about children again. Tell couples if they want the benefits of government marriage, whatever those are, have kids. Otherwise, stop claiming some special primacy over everyone else who has a special friend or is shacking up.

[GroundTruth]

It can all be handled as estate planning package, for less money than a minimal wedding ceremony and a few nights honeymoon.

[Zeb]

I think that would be an excellent way to deal with it. Make legal marriage for the children. Anyone who wants to make a personal or religious commitment can do whatever they want and make any arrangements they feel they need for inheritance, communal property, etc.
I put myself on the pro-gay marriage side of the argument, but I do worry about the arguments saying that marriage is a right. I don't think marriage is a right at all. It is just the question of equal protection that convinces me that similarly situated gay couples should have the same privilege to legal marriage as straight couples have. Your proposed solution addresses this quite nicely.

John, I have to give you credit. As pig-headed as you can be sometimes when arguing with people you are clearly a thoughtful person willing to reexamine big issues like this. I seem to recall you having a big change of heart on eminent domain a few years ago as well.

[John]

Thanks Zeb. I haven't so much embraced gay marriage as a cause. I have just re-examined just what marriage law is and why we have it. The reason why gay marriage drives social conservatives so crazy and makes no sense to them is because it can't result in children absent adoption. The problem is that thanks to birth control a lot of straight marriages don't result in children either. The gay marriage advocates have a good point when they claim that marriage is not about children since so many straight people who never have children get married.

The answer to that I think is that they are right. Those couples, at least in the view of the government, shouldn't be married either. And I am fine with granting gay couples who adopt marriage license because the interest of that child having two parents whose relationship is recognized by the state and has to be recognized by others, is greater than anyone else' interests in objecting to it. It is not the kid's fault a gay couple adopted them and no one should be allowed to punish the kid for that.

[kbolino]

So I think the government should only recognize marriage when there is a child, either by conception or from a previous marriage [or adoption]. Otherwise, people can get married under whatever terms they want. The government will treat them like single people.

Goddamn, John, but that is a good idea.

[MichaelL]

And, shouldn't a birth certificate take care all of the inheritance questions, absent adoption. And, adoption papers should have the same effect as the birth certificate?! Children's problems cared for! Put the custodial parent in charge of that! Maybe, too simple!?

[mad.casual]

So I think the government should only recognize marriage when there is a child, either by conception or from a previous marriage. Otherwise, people can get married under whatever terms they want. The government will treat them like single people.

I would reserve some manner of time-based common law "marriage" (with no respect to number of people or gender). If I'm the postman and I show up at your door every day for a decade and you and a woman answer the door, wouldn't be violating federal law if, one day, after a decade, I handed your mail to a woman I assumed to be your wife and let her open it.

If you and six other guys have lived at the same address for a decade and I have to place a lien on the property, regardless of who paid what for what part of the property when (let alone who is plugging whom), I'm not out of my gourd seeking/accepting restitution from just one or all six of you.

[John]

It should only enforce the burden and give the benefits where children are involved, since all of that was designed to protect children anyway. Think about it, why should your wife get priority in immigration over someone else? What does the government care who you sleep with? We don't owe you getting laid. The government does have an interest in seeing that children where possible live with both parents. So if there is a kid, then we give her priority. And that goes for gay couples who adopt as well.

[Cyto]

And I guarantee this would be a slippery slope. It may start out by stating that any couple living together for 5 years are automatically declared married, but it will quickly devolve into feminist dystopian nightmare as it gets amended again and again 'for the children'. Soon enough, if a woman claims that she slept in your home for one night and left her toothbrush there, you're married.

In most common law states, simply holding yourself out in public as married is enough to be declared married. So if you had a tryst at a local hotel as "Mr. and Mrs. Jones" ... you are married.

[JWatts]

The laws I've seen require years of such activity.

[Col. R C Dean]

No kidding.

When I've had people in my hospitals claiming to be common-law married, I always tell them "No problem. Give me two years of your tax returns showing you filed as married, and we'll recognize it."

They never do. Because they don't file as married (too expensive). As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't telling the IRS you're married, you aren't holding yourself out as married, and you don't qualify.

[JWatts]

"So if you had a tryst at a local hotel as "Mr. and Mrs. Jones" ... you are married."

And how many hotel's in the US still even have a register? When my wife and I check in, the only difference is that the clerk asks if we want two card keys. I don't think they even ask for any personal information beyond a credit card and maybe my Drivers License if I'm not already in their system.

[Pope Jimbo]

This. When I worked at a hotel in high school (early 80's) all we cared about was having a deposit (in case you caused a lot of damage with your crazy monkey sex).

Was there ever really a time that people had to register as married to get a hotel room? Or is that one of those pop culture tropes that gained traction via TV?

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

in case you caused a lot of damage with your crazy monkey sex

RAYCISS!!!1!11

[Zeb]

The "Mr. and Mrs. Jones" thing is pretty antiquated at this point. No one gives a shit anymore if an unmarried couple gets a hotel room together.

[HazelMeade]

Note the weasel words "at risk of." Why wouldn't the federal government and other states not be required to acknowledge that these marriage certificates are legitimate? What sort of confusion would there be? Each state already has its own marriage certificate process anyway.

That's basically it. The fear is that somehow gay couples would continue to not get the tax benefits of marriage. And neither would straight couples.

I don't think that would be the case, but many gays want the tax benefits of being married, and feel entitled to get them after all these years of everyone else getting them.

[Invisible Finger]

What are these tax benefits you speak of?

Seems to me it's more of a divorce benefit they're after.

[HazelMeade]

Well, for one, when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse does not have to pay estate taxes on the inheritance, also the rules for capital gains taxes on inherited property are different.
There are a number of really famous cases of gay couples with this problem. I recall one about a lesbian couple where one partner died and left a house in San Francisco to the other. IIRC, the widow ended up having to pay something like $75,000 in taxes on the property that she would not have had to pay if they were legally married.

[HazelMeade]

Side note: they actually dealt with this issue tangentially on 'True Blood', where they have a Louisiana law that prevents a vampire from leaving property to his 'progeny'. The inheritance has to go to a distant descendant of his blood relatives. It's meant to be an analogy to gay couples not being able to leave property to their partners.

[PM]

0.15% of estates are large enough to even be subject to estate tax. The exemption is nearly 5.5 million dollars. Odds are good that unless you hit the Powerball, you're never going to make enough in your lifetime to owe estate tax regardless of whether you leave your wealth to your gay partner, your straight spouse, or your retarded nephew. And if you make enough to be subject to the estate tax, you should be able to afford a financial planner smart enough to stash most of it in sheltered trusts and accounts.

And of course, nobody should have to pay for the privilege of dying with money anyway. Nor should anyone's personal relationship status affect their tax rate. Gay couples are going to be livid at any variety of tax reform for at least the next generation since they just got in on the action, but it's really a ridiculous, unjust, byzantine system of perverse incentives.

But back on topic, considering the rate of divorce, the financial risk associated with marriage exceeds by a wide margin the tax rewards.

[HazelMeade]

You skipped the part about the capital gains advantages.

When a spouse inherits the property they get a "step up" in the basis value of the property for capital gains purposes - the basis value is reset to the value of the property on the spouse's death. If an unmarried partner inheritis it they don't. Considering how long a married couple might share a house, this can be a substantial amount of money.

[Cyto]

All of which points out the many evils of an income tax. Because income is taxable, the government cares if you give money to someone. So you can't give your down-on-his-luck cousin $150k, even if you have it to give. Because the government is going to want a share of that loot.

Why? I suppose it is to prevent you from saying that the money you give to your housekeeper is a gift and not a salary. So If you want to send your mom 20 grand a year, you'd better better be married so you can split the gift between the two of you. Any more than that and you'll be taxed on it anyway.

It is probably equally rare that people have enough money to worry about the gift tax kicking in as worrying about the inheritance tax, but it does impact people. I've run into it a couple of times, and I'm by no stretch "rich".

[mad.casual]

All of which points out the many evils of an income tax.

True enough. Well before the level of estate taxes is reached, I remember a discussion on Capitol Hill about every house over $400K/yr. paying their fair share.

Two $200K individuals fall well below the $400K bracket. One dependent each makes being single even more beneficial.

Where this falls with regard to capital gains advantages shared amongst spouses depends largely on the property and the income.

[PM]

AFAIK the basis step up applies to assets bequeathed on death to any beneficiary, not just for spouses.

[Zeb]

If one spouse has a low income it works out to your advantage being married in many cases just on the effective tax rate.

[R C Dean]

SCOTUS has already said that the feds have to recognize as married anyone who is married under state law. There shouldn't be any confusion at the federal level.

The more interesting question is whether other states would have to recognize these Okie marriages under the FF&C clause. The tides are running in favor of that one. Although those tides are currently only carrying gay marriage, the principle is the same.

[DesigNate]

If FF&C becomes the avenue for recognition, does that mean someone could eventually force New York to recognize their Texas concealed carry permit?

[Col. R C Dean]

I eagerly await the tortured distinction between marriage licenses and CCW licenses that will require the former to be recognized, but not the latter.

[spqr2008]

Progtard heads explode

[Adam330]

What's the theoretical case for the possibility they may not get federal tax benefits? Federal tax benefits that depend on marriage all reference state law. If OK changes is procedure for marriage, then federal tax law will go along with that.

[HazelMeade]

Correct. I'm not saying they are right. I'm just saying that that is the underlying motivation.
it's not a secret plot to foist some sort of gay agenda on Americans, they are just being unnecessarily paranoid.

[Grand Moff Serious Man]

My favorite analogy used so far is that this is the same thing as if a racist town in the South shut down its public pool and made every have their own private pool parties rather than let black people into the public one.

The moral narcissism runs deep with these people.

[HazelMeade]

That analogy would only make sense if the government also provided everyone with a free private pool.

[JWatts]

"That analogy would only make sense..."

What? There's a rule saying analogy have to make sense? Damn, I've been doing that wrong. It's like I've been driving my car and pushing the accelerator to slow down! /ducks

[Irish]

Where did you hear that? That's so fucking stupid there are no words.

[SugarFree]

Oklahoma? More like Oklahomo! A-hurr, der durr durr.

[Rich]

"Surrey with the fringe on top", indeed.

[SugarFree]

Please don't bring circumcision into this.

[Pope Jimbo]

Well now, OK has the ability to retaliate against CO.

"If you keep sending potheads over here, we're gonna send in the Rainbow Division"

[Spencer]

I think I'll send this to my state rep and see what kind of legs it could get here in Texas.

[Rich]

The new form for marriage certificates in the bill still only has room for two people.

"See attached."

[DrZaius]

Has SAE weighed in with their opinion on this yet?

[Scarecrow Repair]

Auto-eroticsm is a different kind of SAE.

[Thomas O.]

I think the official response was "There'll never be a fag at S-A-E (clap clap)..."

[Pope Jimbo]

This is pure TEAM bull shit. Let's face it, if the GOP found a cure for cancer, Dems would find a way to bitch about it. Likewise, if the Dems found a way to cure AIDS the GOP would bash them for enabling deviant behavior.

Seriously, if you had shown this bill to people for the first time and not disclosed the party affiliation of the author, I'm guessing that a lot of people would give different answers than they did knowing that the GOP is sponsoring this bill.

[Episiarch]

Bingo. This is all KULTUR WAR bullshit.

[John]

This is why giving them anything is pointless. They will just move on to something else or decide you giving them what they want just isn't good enough. They don't care about marriage. They care about sticking it to the other side and having a reason to feel endlessly aggrieved and righteous. It is a sickness at this point. What do you do with people who have no interest in actually settling issues and instead see endlessly fighting as an end in itself?

[prolefeed]

Yeah, but here they're not giving leftists anything. They're saying every couple gets the same rights.

Which, coming from Republicans, means that quite a few gays in Oklahoma will have a more favorable view of GOP legislators.

Can't have that.

[sarcasmic]

Principals, not principles.

[Pope Jimbo]

It would actually be a pretty entertaining to do one of those "Man in the Street" interviews where you did tell people about this bill and ask them what they thought.

I guarantee that the Team Red people would be against it and bitch about gay marriage being forced on them and the Team Blue people would rave about it and tell us it is about time that this happened.

Then after the reveal when they find out that a) it is fucking OK and not some liberal enclave in New England and b) a GOP sponsored bill, we could watch their heads explode.

[GroundTruth]

Sounds like fun! Please take a camera along so you can post the results.

[R C Dean]

As Colonel of the Offended White Guys Brigade, I got nuthin'. Because I suspect that this would mean more white guys have the opportunity to get married and so this benefits white guys* (probably disproportionately, in fact).

*I'll defer to the white guys at issue on whether getting married is actually a benefit to them.

[Pope Jimbo]

Hey! Who put you in charge of the OWGB?

Was there a sign up sheet or something? Or is there some algorithm that Bo came up with to assess where you rank in the Brigade?

If it is a sign up, I call Master Gunnery Sergeant.

[Col. R C Dean]

I believe Bo did, yesterday.

Take it up with him. If you've got nothing else to waste your time on all day.

[Pope Jimbo]

So, now I'm a Captain and you've assigned me the mission to go upthread and assassinate Col. Bo who lost his mind and went rogue?

Apocolypse Later.

[Scott S.]

I spoke with Russ directly and updated the post at the bottom there.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

My political views have changed substantially over the course of my life. I started as a Marx-inspired socialist and have ended up as a classical liberal, and I've gone from being an atheist to being agnostic to becoming a Christian. One of the few views I've been consistent on is in abolishing state marriage and establishing for civil unions for anyone who wants one -- it still seems like the most reasonable solution to the issue. Interestingly enough, I've gone from being all that is wrong with sinful, decadent America for advocating such a policy, to being guilty of thoughtcrime for not being sufficiently gay-friendly. We're only ever a generation away from the death of liberty, and the pendulum can always swing back -- Oklahoma deserves props for coming to a reasonable compromise which forces the least number of people to violate their consciences, and IMO the nation's gays will come to deeply regret the militancy of gay advocacy organizations if ever the pendulum swings in a direction less favorable to their interests. It is hardly an unprecedented occurrence, after all, and alienating people who would otherwise be allies or at least tolerant is exactly how one gets to that point.

[John]

^^THIS^^

It is entirely possible that one of these days Progressives are going to decide that gay rights no longer furthers the cause. If that ever happens, the gays are going overboard. Imagine if there was a significant and powerful left voting religious Muslim minority in this country. I can guarantee you the gays would be told "sorry but you don't have a right to offend people with your life style" and be told to go back in the closet. And if that ever happened, who are the gays going to run to for help after all of this shit?

[Irish]

Gay people in Europe are already learning that lesson the hard way given that Parisian gay voters have begun voting for the National Front because no other parties give a shit about Muslim hate crimes against gays.

[Zeb]

Gay people in Europe are already learning that lesson

Is it gay people learning the lesson, or is it multiculturalist progressives?

[SugarFree]

gay = old and busted
muslim = teh new hotness

[Zeb]

But it's the left losing the votes. Or are Muslims showing up in large numbers to support them?
Europe is so fucked. It's sad.

[Jimmy Seinfeld]

It isn't so much about the votes as much as it is about the money. Many millionaire and billionaire donors to the Democratic Party are gay and when they yell "jump!" the Democratic politicians ask "how high?"

[trshmnster the terrible]

One of the few views I've been consistent on is in abolishing state marriage and establishing for civil unions for anyone who wants one -- it still seems like the most reasonable solution to the issue.

This sums up exactly why I became libertarian. There are a ton of young republican conservatives out there that feel (at least vaguely) the disconnect between the GOP's small government talk and their social conservative views. The more press given to the "libertarian solution" to gay marriage, the more exposed these folks will be to the hypocrisy of their party.

I slowly evolved from an agnostic-but-christian-leaning moderate republican into a (likely fundamentalist ) christian minarchist libertarian with my newfound faith spurring my political drift in part through the gay marriage issue.

This Oklahoma bill has the potential to open some eyes, even if it isn't perfectly libertarian.

[spqr2008]

Frankly, this is the best law possible. Reduce the amount of government interference in marriage, and you are disarming both sides in the culture war, and hurting the least number of people. My dad's cousin is gay and he and his partner have been together for over 30 years (I think they've been a couple maybe a year or two shorter than my parents). He and his partner's view on it has always been to separate marriage from civil unions, because everything else is completely political bullshit.

[Catatafish]

Getting upset about this is akin to coming home, finding your dog shit on the floor, a gaggle of swimsuit models magically appears to replace the entire carpet and simultaneously serve you with champagne and blowjobs, BUT GODDAMMIT I'M AGGRIEVED BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET THE CHANCE TO RUB MY DOGS NOSE IN IT.

[GroundTruth]

change "swimsuit models" to "chippendale dancers", and I'm afraid you've hit it on the head.

[Catatafish]

Whatever floats your boat, GT. As long as that boat has wall-to-wall carpeting, champagne and BJs.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The objections to this law from Democrats and supporters of gay marriage recognition don't make any sense to me.

It was introduced by a Republican. It's exactly what we asked for, but we cannot support it, because...

...TEAM!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet, people are insistent that this law is going to be bad for the gays and I simply cannot grasp why. As Rep. Virgin noted, Russ' legislation literally, purposefully takes gender roles out of marriage certificates in Oklahoma entirely. What is the problem?

It doesn't create a new, fully-funded, fully-staffed Office of Marriage Equality for starters.

[LynchPin1477]

If I understand this correctly, a heterosexual couple could:

1) Find anyone licensed to perform marriages in the state of Oklahoma, be that a clergy, judge, whatever, to perform a ceremony, and use that certificate.
2) Find anyone NOT licensed to perform marriages in the state of Oklahoma to perform a ceremony and then just file an affidavit of common law marriage, since they won't have a certificate.
3) Just go straight to common law affidavit.

Whereas gay couples could....do the exact same thing.

I'm not sure that completely gets government out of putting a stamp of approval on marriages, but it seems pretty damn close and totally agnostic as to the genders of the partners.

So this sounds pretty freaking awesome. Oklahoma FTW?

[robc]

Thats my reading. It doesnt entirely end state sponsored marriage but does end state licensing of marriage. I give it a solid A-.

[LynchPin1477]

If that's true, then I *REALLY* don't understand the objections on the grounds of "other states or the FedGov may not recognize these". Full faith and credit,right? OK is just using a different criteria for deciding which people call "married", one that basically trusts the couple and allows any two adults to claim that status, with a few exceptions (like incest).

On what grounds would any state or FedGov object to that?

[ace_m82]

Interesting, neither Bo, Tony, nor PB have said anything yet.

I wonder why...

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Bo is still getting over the shock that a bunch of racist flyover shitkickers who believe in Jeeebus would arrive at the correct solution in a culture war issue before college-educated lawyers over in one of the civilized states.

[ace_m82]

I'm not terribly shocked to hear that the Christians from the Midwest figured this out.

Oh, and I'm a Christian from the Midwest, so I should know what I'm talking about. I'm just sad that it took them so long to figure it out; I've been warning them this should be the way for years.

[robc]

About 25 years I've been proposing it.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

If I were Bo, I'd be licking my wounds from yesterday.

Bo won't, however, as that would require self-awareness and the ability to learn through interaction with others.

[ace_m82]

Link? I missed this argument.

[Sevo]

Mostly here, but there were some other dust-ups.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/03.....2-students

[Old Man With Candy]

It's possible that he finally took our advice and is beginning treatment. I sincerely hope so.

[GroundTruth]

Tony may be recharging after last night's global warming, I mean climate change, encounter. Give the poor guy time to catch his breath and let his keyboard cool off.

[GroundTruth]

Woops, should have read down to 2:35....

Hi Tony! You were missed.

[robc]

According to Tonio, there is no organized effort pushing this kind of thing. Not that Im gonna call the Okie legislature organized.

[Zeb]

I think you are moving goal posts a bit. This isn't getting rid of legal marriage recognition. Just changing how it is done a bit. There is still an official state form that gets filed and which says that you are married. I thought your position was that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. I don't think there is any organized movement toward that goal.

[robc]

This ends licensing.

I am "impressed" they found a way to keep recognition without licensing, but it absolutely is a move in the tight direction.

[Stormy Dragon]

When this bill was first proposed, it was structured such that the non-religious had to pay ten times as much because the filing fee was much greater if the form wasn't solemnized by a church. Has that been changed?

[KDN]

From this layman's perspective, such a section would seem to be ripe for constitutional challenges. Far more so than a straight gay marriage ban.

[Catatafish]

That is so blatantly unconstitutional I'm really shocked that it ever existed. I try not to underestimate the power of the stupid but I'm having a really hard time believing legislation was introduced that literally placed a financial penalty on someone for not having official government status blessed by a church.

[Stormy Dragon]

In the above law:

Recording marriage license
certificate if the applicants submit a
certificate that states the applicants
have completed the premarital counseling
program pursuant to Section 5.1 of Title
43 of the Oklahoma Statutes ..................... $5.00

Recording marriage license
certificate if the applicants do not
submit a certificate that states the
applicants have completed the premarital
counseling program pursuant to Section
5.1 of Title 43 of the Oklahoma Statutes
or recording affidavit of common law
marriage ....................................... $50.00

[Stormy Dragon]

B. 1. A premarital counseling program shall be conducted by a
health professional, an official representative of a religious
institution, or a person trained by the principal authors or duly
authorized agents of the principal authors of nationally recognized
marriage education curriculum including, but not limited to,
Prevention & Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP). Upon
successful completion of the program, the counseling program
provider shall issue to the persons a certificate signed by the
instructor of the counseling program. The certificate shall state
that the named persons have successfully completed the premarital
counseling requirements. A minimum of four (4) hours of education
or counseling shall be necessary for successful completion of the
marriage education curriculum.

[Stormy Dragon]

So if you go to church, you can get the lower fee for whatever the church says constitutes "premarital education".

Non-religious, meanwhile, have to take a specific state approved course at their expense or pay 10 times as much.

[Catatafish]

Except you can go to a "health professional" and those "trained" or "authorized" to conduct any nationally recognized curriculum (it doesn't have to be PREP). Don't get me wrong, I don't like premarital counseling requirements at all. But the fact that a religious institution happens to provide such services to their adherents for free is their decision. So long as there isn't some vast difference in the time and effort involved in a program conducted by a religious institution as opposed to one conducted by a private, for-profit one, I'm not really seeing disparate treatment.

[Scott S.]

Other states do this stupid crap, too, I've noticed in my various gay marriage law research. It seems more like rent-seeking than any sort of religious manipulation so I've never really felt the need to comment on it. It might be worth doing a thing about someday, certainly.

[Catatafish]

"It seems more like rent-seeking..."

Agreed.

[Stormy Dragon]

The distinction is the church doesn't have to have a "nationally recognized" cirriculum. The church can decide that you going to the church picnic for four hours with your fiance qualifies as "premarital counseling" and that's fine.

If you're an atheist you have to start jumping through hoops to prove your counseling was sufficiently rigorous for the state's approval.

[Cyto]

Or a mental health professional (marriage counselor) or an "approved course".

All of the above, including the church-related, are at the couple's expense. Even if the charge is zero, which it might be.

No blatantly unconstitutional religious preference here. The point seems to be that they are trying to make couples take some time to consider their marriage before entering the contract, presumably to decrease divorce rates.

Of course, what they should be doing is explaining to the potential grooms just how lopsided the contract they are entering into is. But I suppose that would just drive up the number of out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

[Zeb]

I've just started a religion and I am it's official representative. What do you want me to sign off on?

Problem solved.

[Cyto]

It is not just a joke, it is a legally viable solution!

[Catatafish]

I have a list, Zeb. Unfortunately my e-mail service cannot handle a file of that size.

[Stormy Dragon]

1.) As is always the case with beuracracy, it's not that easy. You have to be a registered minister, and unless you provide regular worship services, you're probably not going to qualify.

2.) Why should an atheist have to pretend they're religious? If we add a law requiring anyone getting married to make a verbal oath that they believe there is no god, the fact Christians could easily lie when taking the oath doesn't stop it from being unconstitutional.

[diane.dallen]

my classmate's ex-wife makes $60 /hr on the internet . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $20806 just working on the internet for a few hours. hop over to this web-site..........

????? http://www.netjob70.com

[Tony]

Gay marriage is already legal in Oklahoma. This bill is pure tantrum-throwing bigoted spite. But you already knew that, of course.

[Catatafish]

There he is!

[Catatafish]

By the by, when legislation actually makes it easier for everyone, regardless of sexual preference, to receive recognition of their marital status, it's a pretty poor attempt at being bigoted and spiteful.

[Tony]

This doesn't make it easier for everyone. It makes everyone confused. The spite is in the fact that nobody thought about such a proposal until the gays started getting married.

[Catatafish]

What is confusing about giving people a broad range of options in order to have their marriage officiated (or not at all in the case of common law status), checking a box and filing your paperwork? This removes the chokepoint of clerks being the only option. There is no reference to gender or sexual orientation of the parties. There. Is. No. Harm.

You're really upset you don't get to rub your dog's nose in it's shit, aren't you?

[Sevo]

Tony|3.11.15 @ 2:46PM|#
"This doesn't make it easier for everyone. It makes everyone confused"

If someone doesn't tell Tony what to do, how in hell is he supposed to do anything? If yu expect him to act as a moral agent, you haven't been watching.

[LynchPin1477]

It doesn't sound confusing or hard. Here is how it worked when my wife and I got married (in PA):

1) We went to the courthouse and applied for a marriage license. Jumped through a few hoops and got the license, not yet valid because we hadn't hand the ceremony.
2) After the ceremony our priest signed the license. Now we were legally married.
3) We sent a copy to the courthouse (or something...my wife took care of it).

Under the OK bill, it sounds like it would now go:
1a) After a ceremony, a judge, priest, or whoever else is licensed to officiate a marriage signs a marriage certificate.
1b) If you don't want to do that, you sign an affidavit of common law marriage.
2) You file your certificate/affidavit at the courthouse. The state now knows you are married.

It basically reverses the order, BUT it takes the issuance of marriage licenses out of the hands of clerks, and it removes any questions about gender from the certificate.

So all you have to do is find someone licensed to sign certificates and that is cool with gay marriage, and you're married. All the clerk has to do is record that it happened.

How is that bigoted? How is that complicated? How is that anything but an improvement over the current situation?

Hey, if I'm misreading things and that isn't what the bill would actually do, let me know. As it stands, it sounds pretty awesome.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

The people this makes confused don't rule the night, don't run in packs, aren't as storing as apes, and are addicted to cake.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

*strong

[#]

"The spite is in the fact that nobody thought about such a proposal until the gays started getting married."

And the first minimum wage laws were put in place to prevent southern blacks from taking construction jobs from northern whites.

And the first gun control laws were in the south to prevent blacks from being armed.

You heard it here - Tony opposes minimum wage laws and gun control.

[Col. R C Dean]

it's a pretty poor attempt at being bigoted and spiteful.

To turn in really top-notch bigotry and spite, you need a college degree.

[LynchPin1477]

It seems like it is explicitly designed to remove the power to sanction marriage from the hands of bigots. Of course, the sponsors would say that it prevents people from having to violate their conscience, but regardless of how you choose to word it, the end result is the same.

So what exactly is bigoted about it?

[SugarFree]

Gays To Marry, Tony and Other Whiners Hit Hardest

[Tony]

You mean what is bigoted, except the entire motivation behind it?

[LynchPin1477]

I mean principles vs principals. You'll note I didn't ask what is bigoted about the people who wrote the bill.

What is bigoted about the law itself? What is bigoted about the way it will actually affect people?

[WTF]

It was written by the WRONG PEOPLE. So they must have nefarious motives that will screw gays, 'Tony' just knows it.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

What is bigoted about the law itself? What is bigoted about the way it will actually affect people?

The fact that it can't be used as a cudgel to bash the doubleplusungoodthinkful.

[Len Bias]

But, ObamaCare and Net Neutrality had the purest of pure motives behind them, so no need to question the intention behind those bills.

[Len Bias]

OK, NN wasn't actually a bill, but you get my drift.

[Zeb]

Again, so what? Why does it matter what the motivation is? How is the solution not perfectly good from a pro-gay-marriage perspective?

[Tony]

I've always said I don't care what form marriage takes, or whether it takes any form at all, as long as gays and straights are treated equally under the law. You're right, I should be cynically happy about this law--it screws straights just as much as anyone else. Maybe they'll stop voting for the absolute stupidest human beings on planet earth to be their representatives in OKC.

[Sevo]

Tony|3.11.15 @ 2:57PM|#
..."I should be cynically happy about this law--it screws straights just as much as anyone else."...

Aw, poor asshole bleeves he's losing some free shit.

[LynchPin1477]

How does it screw anyone?

[Tony]

I'm not sure yet. I have no idea how they plan to square state and federal marriage benefits with funny-money certificates from clergy. I do know that I don't trust these morons to do anything remotely useful for human beings.

[Zeb]

It seems like it is hardly different from what happens now. The only difference is that the county clerk, or whoever did it before, doesn't fill out the form anymore. But marriage is marriage and states get to determine what counts as married and the Feds have to accept that since parts of DOMA were struck down. So I really don't see what possible problem could come up. Unless some other state decided not to recognize any marriages from OK, which seems unlikely.

[WTF]

Principals over principles, we get it.

[Cyto]

Nice! Best post ever!

Pretty much a straight-up admission that Team drives the positions, not principles.

This could be your road to Damascus moment, Tony. Admitting the problem is the hardest step.

[Catatafish]

"I do know that I don't trust THESE morons..."

But YOUR morons, that'll be a-okay.

[LynchPin1477]

States are allowed to define marriage as they wish, correct? And full faith and credit requires FedGov and other states to recognize those marriages, correct?

So if OK defines marriage as having a signed marriage certificate/affidavit of common law marriage on file with the court, what more needs to be done?

[trshmnster the terrible]

And full faith and credit requires FedGov and other states to recognize those marriages, correct?

I was under the impression that marriage was exempted from the full faith and credit clause by DOMA.

[Zeb]

I was under the impression that marriage was exempted from the full faith and credit clause by DOMA.

At the moment. It seems pretty questionable constitutionally to me.

[LynchPin1477]

I was under the impression that marriage was exempted from the full faith and credit clause by DOMA.

Maybe? Honestly don't know. But if so, that's a problem with DOMA and has nothing to do with the OK bill.

[trshmnster the terrible]

I do know that I don't trust these morons to do anything remotely useful for human beings

*Darth sidious voice* Good! GOOOOOOD! Let your distrust build. Let the hate flow through you!

Seriously though, the fact that you distrust politicians when it comes to something important to you (LGBT issues) should somehow, somewhere in that vast chasm you call a skull, trigger you to think about applying that principle on a broader basis. Humans have risen to the top of the food chain by evolving their brains into machines specialized at fitting single events to a larger pattern. Try using your evolutionary monkey brain to fit your distrust over your pet issue to governance as a whole. That will begin your conversion to the dark side.

[Tony]

I distrust the semi-sentient theocrats known as Oklahoma Republicans.

[LynchPin1477]

You seem hung up on the fact that the bill was written by people you think hate gays.

Certainly some people do hate gays, but a lot of the people who are accused of hating of gays will tell you that they don't hate gays at all, they simply think gay marriage is a sin. Love the sinner, hate the sin. My Mom is an example: she is against gay marriage but when my brother's friend came out and needed a place to crash until things smoothed over with his own parents, she opened her house to him, and rather liked him personally.

Isn't it possible the people who say they don't hate gays but are against gay marriage are being honest? And that this bill is truly motivated not by hatred, but by a pragmatic desire to accept the legal reality without forcing people to violate their conscience?

You wanted to know what was bigoted about the law other than it's motivations. I stand by saying the motivations don't matter, but I'm not really sure they are bigoted in the first place. At least not for what I would call a reasonable definition of bigotry.

For the life of me I can't figure out why you would be against this bill by default. Not only does it provide a nice model for the rest of the country on how to get along with gay marriage even when you don't like it, but it may actually provide evidence that fewer people actually hate gays than you may have thought. Good, no?

[Tony]

Isn't it possible the people who say they don't hate gays but are against gay marriage are being honest?

Of course they're being honest, but if someone said "I don't hate black people at all, I just don't think they should be allowed to marry white people," would you assess these people as truly in favor of equality?

I am against this bill by default, because I live here and I know these idiots. But I also am open to the possibility that said idiots just might stumble into a good idea by sheer accident. I don't know enough about the particulars of this bill yet.

[LynchPin1477]

I don't think they are in favor of equality. But I think some of them realize they aren't going to win this fight and might be trying to find the best way to live with it. And lo and behold, they may have just stumbled upon liberty-friendly way of doing that which libertarians have been advocating from the start. It's almost like there's something to the whole "live and let live" mentality that helps people get along!

[Brian D]

Of course they're being honest, but if someone said "I don't hate black people at all, I just don't think they should be allowed to marry white people," would you assess these people as truly in favor of equality?

If those people then went on to pass a law that forbade government from preventing a white person and black person from marrying, then I would say they were in favor of equality.

You know, which is exactly what's happened. Who cares what their personal feelings are regarding gay marriage if they don't empower the government to prevent it?

[Brian D]

Tony: (the bill) screws straights just as much as anyone else.

LynchPin: How does it screw anyone?

Tony: I'm not sure yet.

Wow. I'm trying very hard not to call people names on the internet, but some people really make it difficult.

[George the Tooth]

Because, in order to deny this civil right to SOME citizens, they wish to deny it to ALL citizens.

This is FAR from "perfectly good". It's discrimination at its worst.

Like it or not, LGBTQ folk ARE citizens too. And, as such, deserve the Constitutionally-promised equal protections of the law. Denying those self-same "protections" to ALL isn't the same thing as GRANTING them to all.

Why it "matters" is: 1.) Civil marriage is a secular thing, and 2.) pandering to the religiously-prejudiced in a non-theocracy like America is corrosive to a civilized society.

Prejudice is always horrid, but when it's religion-induced, it's harmful.

[Catatafish]

How are gays being treated differently under this law?

[PM]

They wouldn't be. Neither would anyone be denied any of the benefits of marriage by the state. George the Moron read the headline and didn't bother going any further to see what the law, you know, actually does.

[gary47290]

If the law keeps authority to perform a marriage in the hands of judges and clergy, then it will not survive court review, because it is clearly animus driven, intended to prevent same sex couples from marriage because they can't find anyone to do the state-mandated process. If the couple marry themselves (no officiant required), and file the paperwork, it's fine.

In Colorado, no ceremony is required, the happy couple sign and file the paperwork themselves. In California, anyone over 18 can be licensed to do officiate, if you don't know a judge or clergy person.

When my hubby and I wed in New York, we had to find a judge, which wasn't too hard in the New York suburbs. I don't know what someone in Rotting Pines County would do upstate.

[LynchPin1477]

If the law keeps authority to perform a marriage in the hands of judges and clergy

That is one bad thing about it, but it's still an improvement over the status quo.

But it is pretty easy in most states to get licensed to perform a marriage. I had a professor in grad school (in VA) that married his daughter because they weren't religious and didn't want to go to a church, but wanted something more personal than a judge they didn't know.

And there is the common law option.

[paranoid android]

But it is pretty easy in most states to get licensed to perform a marriage. I had a professor in grad school (in VA) that married his daughter because they weren't religious and didn't want to go to a church

And wanted kids with 6 fingers on each hand, I guess.

(I kid, I know that's proper usage of "married his daughter" in that sense.)

[Zeb]

This is a decent point. I see no reason why people shouldn't just fill in the form themselves and have a few witnesses sign.
But it's not as if it would ever be difficult to find someone qualified to sign the form. Anyone can become an ordained minister for free in about 5 minutes from various organizations. For example: http://www.themonastery.org/. Can't find a minister? Have your friend get ordained. Because of freedom of religion, the state really can't define who is or is not a member of the clergy.

[George the Tooth]

I think it would be far smarter to dis-enfranchise clergy persons from officiating at civil marriages. Let them stick to performing religious rites, rituals and ceremonies, but keep them out of CIVIL matters. Kind of a 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's' thing.

[robc]

Marriage isn't a civil ceremony.

[robc]

This is why I oppose state marriages. It is a religious ceremony to many, including myself, and not a civil ceremony at all.

[George the Tooth]

Yes, actually, it is. It's the rite of holy matrimony that is the religious ceremony - a ceremony that, by itself, does not make a couple legally married.

[tmitsss]

In South Carolina a Notary Public can officiate a marriage ceremony

[Cyto]

I was going to mention the same thing. Lots of places have this level of requirement. The only thing you have to do is sign the marriage certificate and get it witnessed by a notary. Done, you are married.

A friend of ours got her notary license just so she could officiate at our friends wedding. Being non-religious Catholic marrying a non-religious jew, they decided to have a private ceremony with just the three of them in a little alcove off to the side of the reception. The whole thing was less than 5 minutes. The reception was off the charts though.... probably spent $1,000 a head on that party.

[Len Bias]

As an okie living in SF, I really hope this passes, because I will never tire of pointing out gays are getting married in OK, but not CA.

[Stormy Dragon]

And they'll probably give you weird looks since CA has been performing gay marriages since June 27, 2013 as a result of Hollingsworth v. Perry.

[Len Bias]

True, but the courts went against the will of the CA voters who voted for Prop 8, so gay marriages are taking place against the will of the voters.

[psiphiorg]

The California legislature also passed a bill removing the marriage ban from state statutes. Also, no number of voters can pass a valid law that violates the US Constitution.

[Scott S.]

Hmmm ... so I made a fundamental unforced error in not recognizing that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage recognition is in its state's constitution. This means that Russ's legislation would not (and technically could not) legalize recognition.

What it does do is create the framework for gay marriage recognition should the Supreme Court strike bans down (which seems extremely likely to happen).

So Russ's legislation is still important for what it does do should the Supreme Court rule and for reducing the role the state would play in gay marriage recognition, but not as much as I indicated.

[Len Bias]

It still puts forward the possibility of govt having a reduced role in marriage altogether, which is a debate worth having, unless you are Tony.

[LynchPin1477]

Ah. Good catch.

But you're right, it creates the framework. And if OK didn't think SCOTUS would strike the ban down, then there would be zero reason for this in the first place.

Dampens the enthusiasm a little bit, but not too much given the reality.

[George the Tooth]

There already IS "zero reason for this" bill ... NOW.

Apart from anti-gay, religion-based animus, that is.

[Col. R C Dean]

It does two things, Scott:

(1) It opens the door for same-sex marriages in Oklahoma.

(2) It makes it very difficult for Oklahoma to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages in other states, as the FF&C argument for not recognizing the legal acts of other states requires a pretty strong showing of public policy. Which is hard as hell to do when you "license" gay marriages yourself. The constitutional provision is an interesting twist, but no more than that. Constitutional FF&C requirements would override state constitutional requirements.

The term "recognition" may be causing some of the confusion. I use it to mean "recognizing marriages performed in other states", with "licensing" used for marriages performed in your own state.

[George the Tooth]

Re: "Something remarkably libertarian has just happened in Oklahoma. The state's House of Representatives voted Tuesday to end government licensing of marriages. Doesn't that potentially sound amazing and liberating?"

No.

It "sounds" like more asshattery from the looneyunes frightwingnuterati.

It "sounds" like a 7 year old saying, "It's MY ball, and if you don't play by MY rules, I'm taking it home and YOU can't have ANYTHING to play with.'

It "sounds" like a government abdicating its responsibility to provide civil services to ALL members of its citizenry.

It "sounds" like pandering to the religiously-prejudiced.

If "some clerks have religious objections" to doing their SECULAR jobs, they should either have the integrity to quit or they should be fired for insubordination.

[PM]

It "sounds" like you don't have any comprehension whatsoever what you're actually talking about.

[George the Tooth]

I really don't 'get' the desire for the government having a reduced role in marriage.

civil marriage is a civil right governed by civil laws.

Is it no longer the very ROLE of government to establish and administer the (secular) civil laws?

When did THAT happen?

[LynchPin1477]

civil marriage is a civil right governed by civil laws

We want the law to protect rights, not govern or limit them. And consenting adults have a right to enter into contracts/living arrangements that don't hurt anyone else.

[George the Tooth]

They might NOT have that right ... in OK if this law passes.

[Catatafish]

Please explain.

[PM]

So a law making it easier to get married by removing a layer of bureaucracy in the licensing process somehow in your view infringes on the right of consenting adults to enter into marriages?

That's... interesting, certainly.

[Col. R C Dean]

You have to understand, if rights consist solely of what the government gives you, then removing a layer of bureaucracy that can give you something is infringing on your rights.

[TuhayBey]

This isn't that novel. As the Jim Crow laws were being torn down, the last ditch move of a lot of segregationists was along these lines. They would propose just not having buses at all rather than having integrated ones, they'd cancel events and close schools when they were forced to be integrated, etc.

The article kind of presents it as if the bill does something tangible that is good, but people are objecting because of the messaging. Seems to me that it has no practical effect at all. If the court permits the constitutional ban on same sex marriage, this law doesn't kick in at all. If the court overturns the ban, then gay people can already get married without the need for this law. So what does it add? Seems to me it just lets people who oppose same sex marriage say "well, at least the state of Oklahoma isn't involved in that dirty business directly." If so, this bill would be unconstitutional. Conveying a message of bigotry is not a legitimate state interest and hence fails even the lowest equal protection test that all statutes must pass.

[PM]

If the court permits the constitutional ban on same sex marriage, this law doesn't kick in at all.

The law would "kick in" when passed regardless of the outcome of any SCOTUS ruling. It changes the licensing structure in Oklahoma for all marriages. It also doesn't deny any marriage benefits to any couple, it just changes the way in which the couple enters into the legal arrangement, so your Jim Crow analogies don't work.

[[e-mail]]

"This puts the responsibility for officiating the ceremony on judges or various religious figures." TRANSLATE: This will allow Judges and religious figures the legal protections to deny gays equality.

[Sir Topham Hatt]

I think the article has an error that is important. It says: "Judges (both serving and retired) would still be able to officiate marriages (even so, I wouldn't assume that even in Oklahoma you couldn't find clergy willing to marry them)." According to the legislation, which I just partially read and searched for the every judge portion, this is not true. The words 'judge' and 'retired judge' are taken out throughout the document except in instances of minors I believe. So as the bill stands, the only way to have a solemnized ceremony is with a official preaching the Gospel (it is clear on this) or a rabbi. So apparently if you aren't Christian or Jewish, you now have to get a common law marriage. Of course, Unitarian clergy will no doubt fill in as well as other more progressive denominations, but it seems as if some tweaking of the language would be beneficial. For instance, allowing other officiants outside of those two religions to solemnize a ceremony for those not affiliated with a certain church. Also, I wonder if the language is in line with the common law language. With that said, as most states are moving away from common law marriage as it is an outdated concept (only 8 states allow it I believe and some with restrictions) in some ways this 'fix' to keep the emphasis on marriage and religion may just be kicking the can down the road a bit.

[psiphiorg]

You may have read the first version of the bill, as introduced by the sponsor. In committee, those sections were modified, so now judges are no longer removed from the list of officiants. The House passed this second version.

[psiphiorg]

The first version of the bill said that judges could no longer officiate at weddings, only clergy. That would mean that a marriage certificate could only be given if a religious ceremony were held, not a civil ceremony. That provokes some serious questions about equal protection for people who want a civil ceremony.
.
Most of the news stories about the bill passing the state House are reporting about this version of the bill. The problem with the reporting is that when the bill went to committee, the committee removed the restriction on judges performing weddings. The House passed this second version of the bill, but few reporters mentioned this. So commenters on the news stories, and people who share the stories on social media, point out the problems with the bill that had (unbeknownst to them) already been fixed. They get outraged not because of the bill passing the House, but because of the inadequate journalism.

[Sir Topham Hatt]

Actually, I wasn't responding to any 'rage' that I read on social media. I just noticed that one report specifically said that judges couldn't do it and the Reason article said the opposite. I was just curious. It was actually my error in reading, but now that I read the amendment on the same legislature site, I see that it was changed. My bad.

[Scott S.]

This is actually good to know. I didn't see the original draft myself, so I was wondering why I keep seeing people making the argument that churches would control marriage.

[psiphiorg]

This comment ("The first version of the bill...") wasn't directed at you specifically, but at the author of the article, who said that some people were upset at the bill even though it is not hostile to their interests.

[sunilnarine346]

my co-worker's mother-in-law makes $73 hourly on the internet . She has been unemployed for 5 months but last month her income was $12184 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read Full Article.......

http://www.Jobsyelp.com

[aywadaframsoh]

My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do

http://www.wixjob.com

[aywadaframsoh]

My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do

http://www.wixjob.com

[CN_Foundation]

This is where the United States is going.
There will be monogamous "marrying and giving in marriage" without respect for gender because the word "marry" is taking on a new meaning but can NOT be forced by SCOTUS or a state without motivating the LAST AMENDMENT.

[George the Tooth]

Re: "with the intent of getting county court clerks out of the duty to officiate marriage ceremonies. This was because some clerks have religious objections to gay marriage."

Proving once again that religionism poisons everything it touches.

Too bad civil marriage isn't a religious thing.

[Trouser-Pod]

And yet, this "religionism" you speak of pales in comparison to the cancer that is statism.

Enjoy your long, slow death.

[George the Tooth]

I'm curious as to why civil servants should be exempted from providing civil services to ... some citizens?

[stan James]

kind of wonder when the other shoe will drop, anti equal marriage

BTW here in MD anyone over 18 can and acceptable to the couple (str8 or gay) can sign the marriage license.

But there still could be opposition from people who have to record it in official state records

all my 3 children are married, no religious ceremony etc. Just a big party and the paperwork

[MichaelL]

Perfect!

[biohazard221]

No magistrates can opt out of there public duty, they swore an oath to the u.s constitution not the damn bible. It doesn't fucking matter what there "religious beliefs" are they leave them at home when they go to work. They can do there damn job or leave hut they can not cheery pick the law like they do there bible.

[spqr2008]

biohazard221,
you must be one of those individuals who can't understand that tolerance does not mean everyone must agree with you, it means you must put up with other peoples' views, and not use the force of the state to try to change their mind. This bill decreases government involvement in citizens' private lives, and as a result of that decrease, it will result in some religious government employees not having to do things they personally find immoral. It's called a win-win, and is a very good way to help reduce government control of its citizens lives. If you can't accept that framework for it, you must believe that because the government isn't fully accepting and praising some aspect of your life, your rights are being denied. I've met many geniuses like you before, and the thing they want most in life is to control how other people think so that everyone has the "right thoughts" all the time, and so that they don't ever have to confront any uncomfortable ideas in their soft precious little lives.

[Bergen]

I'm not sure how this law does anything tangible to reduce government control over the lives of its citizens.

[D. M. Michell]

If the objection to gay marriage comes from a person's belief in "Biblical marriages" then they should know that at the time of Jesus and for several centuries thereafter, a Jewish man could marry as many women as he wanted and could afford. A women could only marry one man. (Seems like the Mormons were right.) Further, the God of the Jews and Christians no where in the Bible forbids or punishes father-daughter incest. Take Lot and his daughters for example, or Abraham and his half-sister Sarah.

Marriage is neither sacred nor holy. It is a contract between two (or more) people and a statement to their family, friends, and the public at large as to their living/sexual arrangements. (It also serves notice as to who is responsible for any children produced by a marriage among heterosexual people.) The "State" only got involved in order to get more money from the people. A license is something granted to a person and the licensor can revoke the license. Enforcing the Christian version of marriage is a form of Christian religious law under the auspices of a supposedly secular government.

Any and all non-violent, non-coerced, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not harm other people or their property, that does not immediately and directly threaten harm to other people and their property, that does not disturb the peace or create a nuisance in public, is the inalienable right of all free citizens.

[woodNfish]

"But sorry, polygamists. The new form for marriage certificates in the bill still only has room for two people."

Big F'ing Deal! I have a word processor and I know how to use it. It is also none of the state's business other than to acknowledge that it exists.

[George the Tooth]

Yes, you DID make a "fundamental error" - resulting in one "correction", another "clarification", and an "update".

Twisting the meaning of this proposed legislation will NOT serve you anti-equality folk very well at all.

[SMB1128]

Religion is the biggest downfall of man. Marriage is a government regulated institution and as such the government cannot absolve it's duty. This bill will get tabled and then enjoined once the suits are filed. If it even makes it to becoming a law.

[Rev. M. Throckmorton]

I believe this is neither good law nor particularly Libertarian. The state still will have an abiding interest in marriage, including property rights, tax status, and the authority to divorce. As an ordained member of the clergy, I did not volunteer to do the state government's work for them. I see no provision in the legislation providing clergy with compensation or training for this new legal function of issuing marriage licenses. The bill provides no clarification on the state or local government's right to challenge the legitimacy of a particular marriage performed by a member of the clergy on grounds of the minister's competency to issue the license or the manner in which the license was issued. Will there be an impact on my professional liability insurance due to the addition of this function related to the government? Clergy have had the assurance that a governmental agency has vetted the couple to some degree. Most of my colleagues already work 50-hour+ weeks, and a new task that the government wishes to weasel out of for ideological reasons does not appeal to many of us at all. It is bad law, it is not relieving a burden of government on the people (in fact, it places a burden on clergy), and it is disingenuous in origin. Even straight, Republican clergy have a reason to be suspicious of this legislation.

[searchingmind]

Wow! So this is "flaming", huh? I haven't seen the many fireworks since the last time I went to Disneyland. For what it's worth, I emailed Rep. Russ as follows:

I wish, however, that it had gone a bit further in two areas. First, I would find an alternative to the word "marriage". Replace the proposed Certificate of Marriage with something along the lines of a Certificate of Wedlock.

Second, I would get religion out of the legal process. Let the certificate include all the information required in your 5.7.E, and bear the (notarized?) signature of the two parties and two witnesses. Essentially, let everyone file a Certificate of Common Law Marriage, but don't use the words "marriage" or "common law". This relationship is, after all' a creature of statutory law, not unwritten common law, and "common law marriage" has always had the implication of a second-rate marriage, a short step away from living in sin and bastardy.

Leave "marriage" to individual morality and organized religion; let it remain "between a man and a woman" for those who would define it so.

[searchingmind]

Wow! So this is "flaming", huh? I haven't seen the many fireworks since the last time I went to Disneyland. For what it's worth, I emailed Rep. Russ as follows:

I wish, however, that it had gone a bit further in two areas. First, I would find an alternative to the word "marriage". Replace the proposed Certificate of Marriage with something along the lines of a Certificate of Wedlock.

Second, I would get religion out of the legal process. Let the certificate include all the information required in your 5.7.E, and bear the (notarized?) signature of the two parties and two witnesses. Essentially, let everyone file a Certificate of Common Law Marriage, but don't use the words "marriage" or "common law". This relationship is, after all' a creature of statutory law, not unwritten common law, and "common law marriage" has always had the implication of a second-rate marriage, a short step away from living in sin and bastardy.

Leave "marriage" to individual morality and organized religion; let it remain "between a man and a woman" for those who would define it so.

[searchingmind]

Sorry for the duplication. I guess I clicked twice or something.

[Jonathan G]

While it's not exactly what I desire (I prefer eliminating marriage in all legal bullshit and replace it with civil unions), it's most definitely a step forward to that goal in phasing the state out of marriage. I as an Oklahoman and libertarian enthusiastically support this legislation.

[Jonathan G]

To follow up my original comment, I've gotta say I'm baffled at least on the surface of it all the fierce opposition coming from the left as logically this doesn't change anything for same-sex couples that have married here in Oklahoma since the Supreme Court deferred to the 10th circuit on its ruling on same-sex marriage bans. Though thinking about it, makes sense why they'd be oppose as it withdraws the state's power (least to certain extent) in marriage thereby less control over people. The marriage state was introduced by leftist progressives a century or so ago to ban interracial marriages and ultimately control people's lives.

[Bergen]

What I find most problematic about this bill is that, of marriages solemnized in a religious ceremony, it only recognizes marriages conducted by members of the Christian and Jewish faiths. Specifically, it only allows 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." To be fair, there is a later addendum that allows Mormons, Quakers, and Baha'is to perform their own marriage ceremonies, but that's it.

For a bill that purports to take the religious issue away from state officials, it really seems to dive into what religions are acceptable to solemnize a marriage. I find that to be incredibly problematic.

[BillWright1776]

Time to separate government and religion. States should all get out of the marriage business, and leave marriage solely to the clergy.

[TxJack 112]

This is the RATIONAL solution to the problem. Of course Democrats have a problem because it cuts off a free source of revenue which is the reason the government got into the marriage business in the first place. Do we really think it the role of government to make moral decisions that have no immediate harm on the public? The claims for opposing gay marriage are just that claims or in other words opinions, that is all. There is no proof of damage and the fight has been far worse than the actual marriages could ever be. Why are people so opposed to a marriage that in the end will have no impact what so ever on their lives? Why are both sides willing to engage is such heated battle and use the government to attempt and impose their value system on the other? Freedom is about choice and accountability. I have the freedom to make choices and then have to live with the consequences of those choices. However, to deny someone the same rights as everyone because I have a MORAL objection to their choices is crap. This bill simply puts the fight back where it should be, in the Church where issues of morality are discussed and decided.

[GreenTeaOreo]

Gay marriage is already legal in Oklahoma.

IANAL I'm not totally clear about the law's aims and effects. But it doesn't seem to take the state out of marriage, but rather to place the licensing of marriage almost entirely in the hands of clergy, and Jewish and Christian clergy specifically. That doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

[ace_m82]

The difference between this bill and current law in Oklahoma would be bad for them in... what way again?

[Brian D]

Which is still no reason to object to this proposed law.

[Col. R C Dean]

States with bans can still refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states

Not after SCOTUS rules otherwise.

[WTF]

You're trying to reason with the fucking Rain Man, you know.

[trshmnster the terrible]

What exactly did you tell? All I see is a bunch of bolded cap and DOMA.

[ace_m82]

Apparently I'm too stupid, cause I don't get it. DOMA isn't controlled by Oklahoma.

So this affects DOMA... how?

[WTF]

Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully with this book, I'm gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don't rule the night. They don't rule it. Nobody does. And they don't run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

[trshmnster the terrible]

We're back to ace's question:

The difference between this bill and current law in Oklahoma would be bad for them in... what way again?

[Brian D]

That's a problem with DOMA and not the Oklahoma bill. Oklahoma couldn't pass a law forcing other states to recognize their definition of marriage, no matter what said definition is.

[PM]

Because of the way the OK statute restructures the marriage licensing procedure, it would actually present a unique case in the context of DOMA. But god knows it's pointless to try and discuss any matter with you beyond the 3rd grade civics level.

[ace_m82]

But very simply. The trick is to make it too simple to confuse too much. He will almost certainly change his mind, but maybe a little tiny bit of doubt will grow if it's simply enough stated.

[ace_m82]

*(not) change his mind.

No edit button sucks.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Guys, you shouldn't pick on a stroke victim. I'm sure everything Mr Hihn writes makes perfect sense...

...to him.

You can't win an argument with someone who has no comprehension that what he's saying doesn't make sense to another soul on earth, but him.

Why bother. Just pity him.

[trshmnster the terrible]

where in DOMA would this new Oklahoma regime be treated any differently than the existing regime?

[trshmnster the terrible]

You're still missing the entire fucking point. Here, maybe bold will help you:

WHAT FUCKING BILL COULD THE OKLAHOMA STATE LEGISLATURE FUCKING PASS THAT WOULD OVERCOME FUCKING DOMA? ??

The entire point of the article is that the gays advocacy groups and the dems are against this bill In the Oklahoma state legislature. Name me some provisions that they would like the OKLAHOMA STATE LEGISLATURE to pass regarding marriage that this bill doesn't contain.

[Catatafish]

But the Oklahoma law doesn't make that any more or less likely to happen. So why the fuck would you be opposed to the Oklahoma law?

[SugarFree]

Are you being an asshole or just a garden-variety retard?

[Old Man With Candy]

In fairness, the damage he did to the link is colloquially referred to as "SugarFree-ing."

[SugarFree]

So, then a little of both?

If OK had full on, state-recognized gay marriage, DOMA Sec. 2 would still apply, so why is it relevant to what OK did here?

[Catatafish]

How does it fail "to deliver as advertised?" What "is reported wrong here?"

[Brian D]

Let's see what the gay rights group was quoted as saying, shall we"

"This legislation puts all couples who plan to marry in Oklahoma at risk of being denied hundreds of federal legal rights and protections, if it were to become law," said Troy Stevenson, executive director of Freedom Oklahoma.

This seems like a flat out fearmongering lie, and doesn't have anything do do with DOMA, since it doesn't grant any 'legal rights and protections' to gay marriages. It does the exact opposite, in fact.

"The federal government and other states will not be required to acknowledge these proposed 'marriage certificates.' This legislation will only result in mass confusion from clerks' offices to courtrooms around the nation ? while putting Oklahoma families at risk."

DOMA already says that states won't have to recognize gay marriages from other states and the proposed bill won't change that. He doesn't point to any law that says the federal government won't be required to recognize gay marriages that take place according to the bill's language, so the burden of proof is on him for that.

[WTF]

I told you guys, but would you listen, oh, no, you have to go and try to make the Rain Man see logic.

[SugarFree]

Wow. You honestly can even begin to grasp what the argument is. It's amazing really.

[Zeb]

Has that part of DOMA been specifically challeneged? It seems pretty suspect in regards to the FF&C clause. Seems to me that states recognizing marriages from other states is a big part of the point of that clause.

[PM]

It's a purely academic argument anyway, as I said above, since SCOTUS is about to decide the issue on equal protection grounds, obviating what's left of DOMA. But here's a hint: the changes taking place as a result of the OK statute might affect the extent to which Oklahoma marriages constitute a public act respecting a same sex (or opposite sex, for that matter) marriage.

(laughing until I piss my adult diaper and the orderly comes and takes away my internet privileges *snicker*) LOL

[WTF]

If OK had full on, state-recognized gay marriage, DOMA Sec. 2 would still apply, so why is it relevant to what OK did here?

He will never ever see it, no matter how plainly you state it for him. Because Wapner.

[PM]

Since DOMA would apply to the existing marriage structure in Oklahoma if it were extended to gays, and since this new structure provides a greater deal of liberty than the current structure while, at worst, being subject to the exact same statute, the objection makes no sense. It's not specific to this particular new arrangement. Because of the changes to the actual licensing procedure, it actually poses a novel case even in the context of DOMA. Which is going to be utterly irrelevant in a few months anyway, since SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of gay marriage recognition in all states on equal protection grounds. Scott, if anything, is guilty of presuming that known outcome and failing to be pedantically articulate for the benefit of idiots.

[trshmnster the terrible]

To be fair, I don't know what a rain man is, besides the contextual clues that it means the kind of guy you find smelling of piss and arguing with pigeons at the train station.

[ace_m82]

"Fools find no pleasure in understanding
but delight in airing their own opinions."
"The lips of fools bring them strife,
and their mouths invite a beating."
"The mouths of fools are their undoing,
and their lips are a snare to their very lives."

(excerpts from Proverbs 18)

[SugarFree]

No, you're right. He's dedicated to being a fucktard. In the pile he goes.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Yeah...definitely...definitely Rainman.

[paranoid android]

The other way. DOMA still "prohibits a state, territory, possession, or Indian tribe from being required to recognize any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a same sex marriage."

Exactly as the OK gay group is quoted in the posting,

They explicitly couch their opposition in terms of negative consequences "if the bill becomes law". What you say about DOMA is true even of the current legal situation. So how does bill negatively impact the legal standing of gay couples compared to current law?

[PM]

Exactly as the OK gay group is quoted in the posting,

That's not actually what the group in question said at all. Try reading for comprehension:

"This legislation puts all couples who plan to marry in Oklahoma at risk of being denied hundreds of federal legal rights and protections, if it were to become law," said Troy Stevenson, executive director of Freedom Oklahoma. "The federal government and other states will not be required to acknowledge these proposed 'marriage certificates.'

There's no reason the federal government shouldn't acknowledge both the straight and gay marriages in Oklahoma under the proposed law and provide all of the attending benefits to couples married in the state under the new system. The situation for recognition in other states would be the same as it is currently, which is to say that other states could theoretically choose not to recognize gay marriages performed under the new system for a few more months until SCOTUS rules on the issue.

[WTF]

Because he's the fucking Rain Man. He just gets something in his head that he thinks makes sense and repeats it endlessly, as though it's an actual argument.

[SugarFree]

"A state law that can't amend Federal law, doesn't amend Federal law... GOTCHA, LIBTARDARIANS!"

[WTF]

Rain Man.

[WTF]

"Game. set, MATCH, fuckers!"

[SugarFree]

His febrile pride at not making any sense is both hilarious and kind of sad.

[ace_m82]

And how does anyone in Oklahoma affect this?

[ace_m82]

Once again, you can't answer the question I've asked 4 times.

Perhaps you should have read Proverbs 17:28 before commenting...

[WTF]

Except the courts already allow exceptions to FF&C, in the case of firearms permits, professional licenses, etc.

[ace_m82]

So... how does anyone in Oklahoma fix this (nonexistent) problem? The Fed need not recognize any definitions of marriage.

Your argument is against the Fed doing anything. I agree.

You've attacked this as if it were nonsense when it's (part of) exactly what you claim to want.

I really wish I could look into your brain and study just how it does work. I could write a book about it.

[Col. R C Dean]

The federal government and other states will not be required to acknowledge these proposed 'marriage certificates.'

The federal government will. So he's dead wrong about that.

Other states don't have to now, so this is no change from current law. So he's wrong about mass confusion, OK families at risk, etc.

Wrong. And Wrong.

Two wrongs make . . . a wrong.

[trshmnster the terrible]

Congratulations, you found a (since corrected) fuck up in the article...want a cookie? It still doesn't answer what the Oklahoma state legislature could possibly do short of assembling a constitutional convention that will overcome DOMA. You do realize the point of the article is that democrats and gay activists are against this legislation because, well, uh... I guess because it's confusing, and it doesn't overturn DOMA, which somehow makes it bad.

[WTF]

And he just keeps going. He's like the Energizer Bunny of retardation.

[Catatafish]

I don't think there is a hammer made of an alloy strong enough to pound this simple concept into it's head.

[ace_m82]

(me) "The difference between this bill and current law in Oklahoma would be bad for them in... what way again?"

(you) "I just told you."

So... let me get this straight... you think it will be worse for gays, but you don't oppose it?

[Col. R C Dean]

I can't find anyone on the page who opposes the law.

Other than you, I guess, because you keep posting the opposition's talking points, with approval.

[Catatafish]

The article is about SSM proponents getting pissed over an Oklahoma law that will actually make it easier for SSM to take place. It cannot effect DOMA because DOMA is a federal law. So why are you bringing up DOMA in a discussion about the relative merits of THE OKLAHOMA LAW?!

[trshmnster the terrible]

I can't find anyone on the page who opposes the law.
How the fuck do you conclude otherwise

From the article:

This legislation puts all couples who plan to marry in Oklahoma at risk of being denied hundreds of federal legal rights and protections, if it were to become law

[PM]

where in DOMA would this new Oklahoma regime be treated any differently than the existing regime?

It wouldn't. If anything the new regime they're proposing would be more resilient to a DOMA challenge. And when SCOTUS rules in favor of 50-state recognition on equal protection grounds it will no longer matter anyway. Hihn's an idiot and doesn't understand what he's bitching about. Footage at 11.

[Col. R C Dean]

It doesn't.

Hihn is a good example of how being half-smart, and half-right, still means you end up all wrong.

[Catatafish]

Is it...sentient?

[Zeb]

I think that an argument can be made that marriage is different from those things. It has generally been understood to be something that is inherent in the people involved and not something specific to any jurisdiction. Which is why getting married in Vegas and divorced in Haiti works for people.
But when it comes to courts, you never know what reasoning they will follow.

[Col. R C Dean]

How much you want to bet that SCOTUS doesn't mandate recognition of gay marriage, Mikey?

I'll need at least 10:1 odds in favor of SCOTUS mandating gay marriage recognition before I put my money up.

[PM]

SCOTT ridiculed the concern of the gay group.

Rightly, since 3/4 of it was wrong and the 1/4 that was basically right had nothing to do with any changes being made by the law in question.

People who actually understand English lined up on the opposite side from you only because they actually understand English.

[Careless]

lol how much do you want to bet about the outcome of gay marriage in SCOTUS, Mike? I love easy money, so fork it over.

[Careless]

lol how much do you want to bet about the outcome of gay marriage in SCOTUS, Mike? I love easy money, so fork it over.

[PM]

(laughing)

As most children in the process of shitting in their diapers will do.

The statement to which Scott replied was flat out wrong on the federal issue, not entirely wrong but completely exaggerating on the state issue, and the state issue will be moot in a few months anyway. Since you didn't understand the original quotation despite bolding the relevant portions yourself several times, it's unsurprising that you also didn't understand the explanation.

[PM]

The Windsor case was entirely federal recognition of a legal (in a state) gay marriage.

In a country, actually. The couple in question was married in Canada.

[PM]

And Scott was still wrong to ridicule concerns by the OK gay group

No, he wasn't. Again, they flat out lied about the repercussions of the bill. It will not affect federal recognition of OK marriages as they said it would, and the status of state recognition of OK marriages will not be changed by the bill, as they said it would be. Your big "gotcha" here is that Scott seemed to imply that all states would be required to recognize OK marriages. This is actually partially true - they'll still be required to recognize OK straight marriages. But until the SCOTUS ruling, they'll have the option of not recognizing OK gay marriages performed under the new system. In no case does the new OK law change the way in which the federal or 49 other state governments will recognize OK marriages, as the group to which Scott was replying claimed. Their concerns were disingenuous, and at worst Scott either spoke too broadly or took for granted the SCOTUS ruling when he referred to state recognition of OK marriages. He was right to dismiss those disingenuous and dishonest "concerns".

[PM]

I already addressed why this law might be more resilient than current law to a challenge under DOMA 2 hours ago. Note that I said more resilient, not necessarily DOMA-proof. (And, lest we forget, DOMA is irrelevant as soon as the SCOTUS decision drops in a few months) Given that you can't even comprehend the same paragraph of text you've copied and pasted over 20 times in the same thread, it goes without saying that the legal complexities involved in such a challenge, if it were ever even brought to court, are so far beyond your comprehension that they would take millions of years to reach you traveling at the speed of light.

And just to needlessly indulge your retarded TEAM bullshit, DOMA was passed by sweeping, bipartisan majorities in both houses (85-14 in the senate, 342-67 in the house) and signed into law by a Democratic president.

[PM]

RIGHT. That's what the Ok Gay group said

No, they did not. It's amazing that you can copy and paste the same text 2 dozen times and still not actually understand what the words means.

And only one person on the page knew Section 2 of DOMA was in effect until I mentioned it.

No, it's just that nobody brought it up until you decided to shit all over the thread because it had no relevance whatsoever.

The marriage would not have equivalence claimed by both the sponsor and Scott.

Show your work.

[ace_m82]

I read your infamous 3:07. You didn't answer. You're a moron (of low intellect). That's the only answer.

[ace_m82]

It's really sad that you think that saying DOMA should be repealed was an answer.

I guess the others are right, you're hopeless. I wonder what it's like inside your head?

[ace_m82]

Oh, and me responding to your nonsense doesn't mean the nonsense was an answer. We were having a discussion, with me using reason and you spouting nonsense and non sequiturs. That doesn't mean I'm endorsing what you said as an answer to anything (in the entire universe).

[Lord at War]

Other states still don't have to recognize my CHL.