Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma
NEWS ON 6 ^ | 24 JANUARY 2014 | Michael Konopasek

Posted on 01/24/2014 4:44:08 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist

OKLAHOMA CITY - State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma.

The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it's an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it's what Oklahomans want.

"[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all," Turner said.

Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.

"Would it be realistic for the State of Oklahoma to say, ‘We're not going to do marriage period,'" asked News 9's Michael Konopasek.

(Excerpt) Read more at newson6.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; gopestablishment; homosexualagenda; liberalagenda; marriage; miketurner; nomarriage; oklahoma; rino; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last
Strategery or caving in to the Gaystapo?
1 posted on 01/24/2014 4:44:08 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

My dog IS my dependent. Dog food and vet bills are no longer low cost items. I need a deduction for Income Tax. Marrying my dog may be the only way....


2 posted on 01/24/2014 4:45:50 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Govt has no business being involved with marriage in any way.


3 posted on 01/24/2014 4:47:27 PM PST by kingattax (America needs more real Americans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

What benefits attend to the State recognizing and defining marriage, as well as other relationships that are not marriage? Ideally the State should be an agent to promote prosperity and good order. The State defines a multitude of relationships and commitments. It honors faithfulness, truth, and other virtues the left would like to define or legislate out of existence. There is an inherent interest for the State to distinguish between virtue and vice, using its authority to punish evildoers and reward those who do good - just as it is in a good, solid home with God-fearing children and parents.


4 posted on 01/24/2014 4:50:56 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

This might be a good idea. The state does not marry people, churches do. People could still marry in their church. What’s the advantage of registering it with the state? It isn’t taxes... There is a marriage penalty with taxes.


5 posted on 01/24/2014 4:51:40 PM PST by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Hadn’t considered this angle. Wonder how it would play out.


6 posted on 01/24/2014 4:51:54 PM PST by TheZMan (Buy more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Badly written article, but amazing that it's actually being considered by a lawmaker. It doesn't mention that marriage would go back to where it was in the first place - the churches.

IMO, it's the only solution, and it's the right solution. The only business the State has in marriage is to recognize its validity under the 1st Amendment - religion alone. But the State should have zero authority in actually validating its existence.

That's why liberals scream over this idea - without the State, what do they have?

7 posted on 01/24/2014 4:53:12 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Unless you want a simple legal status that ties a man to his children and their mother.


8 posted on 01/24/2014 4:55:33 PM PST by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

BTW, no matter how much “love and commitment” may be present before, during, or after the act, there is no virtue in depositing one’s own DNA into an excretory orifice. There is most certainly an ill effect and mendacity against the Creator and nature in defining “marriage” as equal to such a practice. The left cannot handle truths of this nature, as it elevates an imagined “inclusiveness” over the exclusiveness of virtue.


9 posted on 01/24/2014 4:57:29 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rwilson99

Unless you want a simple legal status that ties a man to his children and their mother.

Private Marriage contract between two people, they decide to split, they have to go to a regular court like any other contract dispute


10 posted on 01/24/2014 4:59:41 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Marriage is between a man and a woman and God so how did the state get in the mix of all of this?


11 posted on 01/24/2014 5:02:07 PM PST by plainshame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

What about enforcement of laws relating to estates, trusts and wills, etc.?


12 posted on 01/24/2014 5:07:28 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Yes! What a cool idea!


13 posted on 01/24/2014 5:12:50 PM PST by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Yes! What a cool idea!


14 posted on 01/24/2014 5:12:59 PM PST by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Might be a better move to prevent all divorce.


15 posted on 01/24/2014 5:17:45 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

I’m all for this...

Because if marriage is what the STATE or FED defines it as, instead of what GOD established it to be, then it means nothing.

This country has rejected God, and thus it’s freedom.

I applaud my state of OK for this


16 posted on 01/24/2014 5:38:55 PM PST by Safrguns (PM me if you like to play Minecraft!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Marriage has always had to be legal, or it didn’t count outside of the people who were rooming with each other.

You can do what ever you want in private, and call it whatever you want, but if you want it to be legal, then it has to be legal.

No one forces people to “marry” according to law.


17 posted on 01/24/2014 5:44:06 PM PST by ansel12 (Ben Bradlee -- JFK told me that "he was all for people's solving their problems by abortion".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Just wondering - Could a church perform marriages that it considered strictly spiritual commitments without the state considering it a LEGAL marriage for tax purposes, property rights, etc.? Such marriages would be registered in church records but not forwarded to the state for official recognition as state-sanctioned, legally-binding marriages.


18 posted on 01/24/2014 5:46:03 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

The reasons the statists scream over this idea is that they wouldn’t have a way to punish and to keep punishing those who they know will never accept whatever impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time.

Freegards


19 posted on 01/24/2014 5:51:24 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
"Marriage has always had to be legal, or it didn’t count outside of the people who were rooming with each other."

Why - particularly in this day and age - does marriage need to be "legal"? The state does not say that only married people can live together, or have sex, or have children, so why should there even BE a LEGAL entity called marriage? All of the moral and social reasons for it have been disputed by - and mainly abolished - by liberals. Why shouldn't churches just perform marriages as a sacrament or religious vow, without registering with the state?
20 posted on 01/24/2014 5:52:59 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: babygene

Creates revenue with marriage licenses.


21 posted on 01/24/2014 5:55:27 PM PST by The Mayor (Honesty means never having to look over your shoulder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

surrender


22 posted on 01/24/2014 5:57:31 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed
"The reasons the statists scream over this idea is that they wouldn’t have a way to punish and to keep punishing those who they know will never accept whatever impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time."

I think this legislator is on to something. And you are right, too: the state senses power in defining what marriage is, and it does not willingly relinquish power. Churches should say: we do not recognize the power of the state to determine what - for us - constitutes a valid marriage. For us, it is a strictly religious vow, and is none of the business of the state or of the IRS. You can take your gay marriage and shove it.
23 posted on 01/24/2014 5:58:19 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

The homosexualists have to have the state involved in order to punish those who they know will always disagree them. The statists go along with it because they know it will help destabilize the culture, producing more broken people reliant on the state. Thus state approved serial civil divorce and now ‘gay marriage.’

Freegards


24 posted on 01/24/2014 6:07:52 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

destroying the institution of marriage was their goal, looks like Oklahoma might give the nuts the win.

Bye bye civilization


25 posted on 01/24/2014 6:10:11 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

No, I am absolutely on board with this.

Look, the SCOTUS IS going to rule against the family, regardless of what Kennedy specifically wrote in the DOMA decision. He is all gay all day and is going to try and force this upon the country.

The way we can actually win against the Gaystapo is threefold.

A) This gets rid of any state recognition of their union whatsoever. No getting sworn into the state senate with your butt-buddy etc.

B) It heads off future attempts to mandate churches to perform such unions

C) It strips out the benefits they crave. You can get any kind of marriage benefits you want to families without mentioning marriage directly, linking it to biological child-rearing for example.

We should get behind this effort before the Feds rule through the judges and force us to cave. Remember, this is only temporary. Once we take over the country, or parts secede (one of which is almost inevitable at this point). Once that happens, we can do as we wish.


26 posted on 01/24/2014 6:10:40 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

destroying civil marriage was always the goal of the perverts

sounds like you are on their side


27 posted on 01/24/2014 6:11:36 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

It’s a fascinating response to the grasping black-robed dictators.

Very similar to the Montgomery Bus Boycott.


28 posted on 01/24/2014 6:21:18 PM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

GeronL, I always though you were more of an independent thinker

I see this move as a plus, keeps the civil g’ment out of personal issues. This may force a whole new g’ment redefinition of civil society.


29 posted on 01/24/2014 6:24:24 PM PST by DanZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
"sounds like you are on their side"

Don't put words in my mouth; I made my attitude to gay marriage very clear. My point is that civil marriage is already a joke, and that churches can - or should be able to - enforce their own marriage rules without state sanction. If you are worried about children, the law already protects them (or tries to) whether there is a marriage or not, or whether the parents ever even lived together. But it sounds like what you really want is for the Christian idea of marriage to be institutionalized by the state, and that is what you are calling "civil marriage." Unless there is a massive revival of Christian faith in this country, that is not going to happen.
30 posted on 01/24/2014 6:26:12 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DanZ

I see marriage as the bedrock of civilization, and yes, I expect government to honor the real definition of marriage. Not redefine it.

Government redefining things is the last thing we need.


31 posted on 01/24/2014 6:26:56 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

The state will never allow itself to give up the ability to punish those who will never accept its ever-mutating definition of marriage. It provides too much control of the culture. Civilization and culture is therefore safe and doing fine.

Obviously Oklahoma is in the vanguard to destroy civilization. Surprising that the most liberal controlled states like Vermont and California aren’t the ones to attempt something like this first.

Freegards


32 posted on 01/24/2014 6:27:25 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

That can be arranged. There’s a website “marryyoourpet” or some such. But they aren’t legally binding. I’m sure you remember the German postal worker who married his cat. But I don’t think it was legally binding. And they couldn’t get a clergy person to perform the ceremony so got an actress.


33 posted on 01/24/2014 6:28:17 PM PST by crazycatlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: babygene

Atheists would gripe. They always do.


34 posted on 01/24/2014 6:29:27 PM PST by crazycatlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed; Steve_Seattle; DanZ

The first things the government is going to do is find a way to punish those who do not accept their dictates. Whether that be the IRS or denial of healthcare, who knows right now.

...

I don’t see how government redefining things is “keeping government out of it”


35 posted on 01/24/2014 6:30:10 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kingattax
Govt has no business being involved with marriage in any way.

Yes it does. Inheritance.

36 posted on 01/24/2014 6:31:11 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: crazycatlady

Given the way things are going with 0bama Care, you local vet could take care of you and your pet AND perform necessary ceremonies.


37 posted on 01/24/2014 6:31:52 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"Inheritance. "

Screw the State. It's none of their business unless there is a conflict to resolve without violins.

38 posted on 01/24/2014 6:33:08 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
"surrender"
<
On the contrary, this is a direct assault on the prerogative of the state to declare what marriage is. It would be a fundamental change in how marriage is understood, and would make churches realize that they are not just handmaids of the state, but moral authorities in their own right, able to police marriage according to the tenets of their own faith. All of the legal issues surrounding marriage - tax laws, property rights, rights of children, and so forth - have already been addressed in ways that make legal marriage virtually irrelevant.
39 posted on 01/24/2014 6:33:34 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Because some people in government are now hostile to marriage as God defined it, in order to protect godly marriage we must remove the power of the State to define and regulate marriage. Then anyone will be perfectly free to enter into whatever relationship they want. However, they will not be able to call upon the police power of the state to force me to recognize a “marriage” that I don’t want to accept.

Lesbians can marry each other, but they won’t be able to force me to sell them wedding cake or artfully photograph their “marriage”. They will be free to do as they please without demanding that I approve of it.

But clearly, homosexuals want to force me to approve of what they do, which I cannot do. And that is the thing that makes them so furious.


40 posted on 01/24/2014 6:33:57 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Screw the State. It's none of their business unless there is a conflict to resolve without violins.

The state is going to insist on the management of land and real property. You simply are not going to be able to get around that.

41 posted on 01/24/2014 6:37:53 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

“But clearly, homosexuals want to force me to approve of what they do, which I cannot do. And that is the thing that makes them so furious.”

Furious and eager. It’s the stick they know they will never have to put down, because they also know that those they hate most will never accept it and so will be able to be beaten continuously. With the power of the state.

Freegards


42 posted on 01/24/2014 6:41:57 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"The state is going to insist on the management of land and real property."

Then it's not Private Property is it?

43 posted on 01/24/2014 6:43:46 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Talisker; Extremely Extreme Extremist
That's why liberals scream over this idea - without the State, what do they have?

I think it's a brilliant idea. And I think you're absolutely right.

44 posted on 01/24/2014 6:44:42 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

I think its a great idea. Everyone equal. No “Marriage penalty”. Most importantly, no state issued permit, aka marriage license.


45 posted on 01/24/2014 6:45:52 PM PST by Chuckster (The longer I live the less I care about what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Then it's not Private Property is it?

Where did you get the notion it ever was? Don't pay the taxes and see who owns the land after a few years.

We just rent land. The State OWNS it.

46 posted on 01/24/2014 7:13:28 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

You can do what you want, you could do that 50 years ago, and 250 years ago, and 2500 years ago.

If you don’t care if the law recognizes your marriage, then don’t comply with the law.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington wanted legal marriages, but that was their choice, others didn’t, and don’t need to, if they don’t want to.


47 posted on 01/24/2014 7:46:40 PM PST by ansel12 (Ben Bradlee -- JFK told me that "he was all for people's solving their problems by abortion".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: plainshame
...between a man and a woman and God...

I agree, but who's going to make the laws regarding all the divorces? And sidetracking a bit, is God also in the mix of a third marriage, for example? I guess it all depends on what one believes!

48 posted on 01/24/2014 7:54:59 PM PST by IIntense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

I think he’s on the right track. The State shouldn’t be in the business of licensing marriage at all. Period.


49 posted on 01/24/2014 8:00:46 PM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“Marriage has always had to be legal”

Wrong. States didn’t begin licensing marriage until the 19th century.


50 posted on 01/24/2014 8:02:45 PM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson