Oklahoma House votes to end marriage licenses to avoid issuing them to gay couples

[KamaAina]

http://www.towleroad.com/2015/03/oklahoma-house-votes-to-end-marriage-licenses-to-avoid-issuing-them-to-gay-couples.html

The state of Oklahoma would no longer issue marriage licenses under legislation approved by the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

The bill, which is designed so that the state doesn't have to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, passed the House 67-24....

Troy Stevenson, executive director of the LGBT group Freedom Oklahoma, issued the following statement:

"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. 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 clerk’s offices to courtrooms around the nation - while putting Oklahoma families at risk. In the past six months, the freedom to marry has been the law of the land in Oklahoma, and not a single marriage has been at risk - until now, and it is our elected officials who are creating the danger.”

[peacebird]

1. Good grief. What about couples who have booked a venue and have wedding planned?

What a stupid stunt.

[uppityperson]

2. The more obnoxious they are, the more people they will lose supporting them. Stupid stunt.

[avebury]

3. You don't realize that there is no degree of obnoxious,

idiotic, or unconstitutional behavior that would cause an uber right wing idiot to lose an election in Oklahoma.

Legislation attempts like that is the norm for this state. And, of course, the Attorney General will have no problem wasting tax payer dollars defending the idiocy.

[guillaumeb]

4. Oklahoma is also the state that tried to pass a law banning Sharia Law.

See link below:
http://dailycurrant.com/2014/11/04/oklahoma-voters-narrowly-reject-sharia-law/

So now Oklahoma has declared war on marriage? Can a law banning Christmas and the baking of apple pie be next?

Is Oklahoma in a competition with Texas for dumbest State Legislators in the country?

[Major Nikon]

9. The daily currant is a satire site

Just sayin'

[guillaumeb]

11. true, but

These two sites are not.

http://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_International_and_Sharia_Law,_State_Question_755_(2010)

http://newsok.com/u.s.-judge-permanently-bans-oklahoma-islamic-law-vote/article/3872460

There is no satire when talking about the GOP. Nothing is too ridiculous for them

[Orsino]

5. Smug, stupid fuckers. n/t

[RussBLib]

6. Good! Maybe Oklahomans will quit reproducing, and you know what that means!

FEWER REPUBLICANS!!

[Runningdawg]

17. Really?

You do know there are a few of us out here who aren't r wing religious zealots and can read a science book?

[Mike Daniels]

7. Is this their play at showing how same-sex marriage "threatens" opposite-sex marriage?

Because same sex people want to get married they aren't going to let anyone get married?

[spanone]

8. oklahoma, the state of the 'senator with the snowball'

they deny many things in this sad state

[Xithras]

10. It's be great if ALL states would eliminate marriage licenses.

The concept of the marriage license is very American and has its roots solidly entrenched in racism and the early 20th century eugenics movement. In nearly all of the world, the process works exactly like Oklahoma is proposing. You get married, and the state simply registers the fact that the marriage has occurred. The United States started requiring that people get a marriage license (license=permission) as a way to enforce laws prohibiting interracial marriage, and later to enforce laws that limited the marriage rights of others.

While I don't support the reasoning behind this effort, I've advocated the idea of eliminating marriage licenses for more than 20 years. The government shouldn't have any right to tell you who you can, and cannot, marry. The only role of government should be to record that the marriage has actually occurred.

On edit: Oh, and I should mention that the quotes statements about other states and the federal government not having to recognize the certificates is false, or is no different than our current standards. There is no federal standard or requirement for marriage licenses. Each state gets to set its own requirements by its own guidelines. That's why four states require you to get blood tests when the other don't, and can deny you a license if you don't meet their health requirements. It's why 19 states will let you marry your cousin, six will permit it under certain circumstances, and the other 25 ban it outright. Every state has its own rules and standards, and all of the other states get to accept or reject them as they see fit (if you marry your first cousin in California, where its legal, and then move to Arizona, where they are prohibited, the state of Arizona will not recognize your California marriage license). The federal government, on the other hand, recognizes all forms of marriage approved by all states.

Changing it from a "you must get permission first" model to a "you have to let us know afterward" model doesn't change any of that.

[guillaumeb]

12. outstanding!

great analysis.

[WDIM]

15. agreed

Once the state accepts and files the marriage certificate then the people would be just as legally married as any other state.

Getting permission from the state to get married seems a bit antiquated and intrusive. This way the state has no say on who can and cannot get married. A couple can just go and get married and have a minister sign off on the marriage. Then it is registered with the state that they are married and all is legal.

[ieoeja]

16. Contrary to Troy's comments in the OP, this confuses nothing. The license does not make you married.

The license, as you say, only gave us permission to get married. At the wedding** we, the Monsignour and our witnesses signed a marriage certificate which the Monsignour then filed with the county. The certificate, not the license is what proves marriage. Had we not gotten and file that, we would have never been married, even though we had a license to do so.

This is also why religion first got involved with marriage. Initially between the fall of Rome and the rise of governments, commoners got married by simply moving in with one another. If they separated and could not agree on the division of stuff, they appealed to tribal leaders, respected elders and judges. These were pushed to the wayside as Lords and Ladies extended their sway. But the Lords and Ladies only pushed them aside, they did not do much in the way of establishing government functions. Commoners began turning to the Church to settle their disputes.

Priests had to reach their decisions based on "he said, she said and others said". Eventually, the Church hit on the idea of performing marriages for commoners for the sole purpose of documenting the marriage. All those "marriage as a religious sacrament" are nonsense. It was never a religious institute. It was a beaucratic one.


**Actually, we signed it at rehearsal the night before and post-dated it. That way it did not break up the ceremony. I think most couples sign it before or after the ceremony. Though I certainly have seen it done during the ceremony.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. Let's give all of Oklahoma back to the Native Americans we stole it from.

[Chiyo-chichi]

18. ...and the rest of North America, while we're at it?

[sinkingfeeling]

19. Fine with me.

[Major Nikon]

20. The Native American casinos there are doing a good job of stealing it back