lawmakers declare ‘all-out assault’ on marriage for same-sex and atheist couples in Oklahoma

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

I really see your point. But "marriage", just like "Last Will and Testament", is a legal institution. If religions want to call their unions something different from the gays and atheists, so they don't get cooties from us, then they can go off and formulate their own word. Matrimony, or Holy Union, whatever.

But for religion to force government to change the name of this institution for everyone that religion doesn't approve of, would be a gross violation of the first amendment's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The religious would still have to get "married" (same as us) to receive government benefits.

If this passes temporarily, it will be found to be unconstitutional. They're just not going to win with this one.

originally posted by: neo96

Mean like that 'fair share' snip ?

Mean like how we ended up with the ACA ?

Mean like how we ended up with 70 years of gun control ?

What does ACA and Gun control have to do with Legislating Morality???

When it comes to 'gay' rights. Marriage equality.

Then the same people feigning outrage of that are silent.

On gun owner rights,banker rights,corporate rights etc.

Call me apathetic to gay 'rights'.

Because it is nothing more than GD selective outrage.

Maybe because there is no such thing as Gay Rights, Gun Owner Rights, Banker Rights or Corporate Rights. Just Equal Rights and that's it and we all are supposed to share them equally. Seems pretty simple.

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

why does it have to be marriage? why not civil partnerships , state marriage's etc ...

Because the religious right doesn't own marriage - not the concept, not the rights - none of it

Permission to marry is not theirs to grant or deny

In a country based on equality and freedom for all it's citizens, under no circumstances is it acceptable for them to deny the right to marriage to anybody. It's gays now, and apparently atheists - next they'll be saying Muslims can't get married, or Catholics, or Jews...

I have to stop now or I'm going to say something that will get this post removed

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

Cause why does it need to be called something different?

I saw a great picture of a church sign, it may have been fake but it was from an episcopalian church.

Said something to the nature of " Ya don't let same sex marriage ruin the sanctity of your 3rd or 4th marriage"

Divorce is against their religion, should they not add divorces to this?

Yes they should add divorces.. like i said i do not agree with the policy , but if your arguing that side it would be best to exclude all things related to Religious marriage that the Religion considers to be wrong.

Q

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

Ask the government, why it's not called the same thing.

What it boils down to is pretty simple.

The Government, created a service, called marriage. It provides benefits to people who enter into this contract, or service with the state and or Fed Gov.

Under US law, without any kind of SCOTUS ruling or anything, the gov CANNOT discriminate against people when it comes to Services offered by said government.

If they want to keep offering Marriage, and collecting their taxes and giving benefits etc, then they have NO choice to allow any law abiding, consenting party of two adults, to participate.

Regardless of religion, gender or sexual orientation.

So it does need to be called the same thing, because you are accessing a government service.

~Tenth

did the government create it?

Wasn't this practice used in Religion in many forms over many years? i think the current Governments of the time just pin benefits and pitfalls to marriage.

But at its Base it is a Religious ceremony with rules and guidelines and if they want to be sticklers and say one rule counts when another does not, this is hypocrisy at its worst.

again i stress that 'Marriage' ( i personally don't believe one needs a piece of paper made up of some lawmakers in an infinitesimal time period in the scale of things matters a whole lot, Actions speak louder than words imho.

I was just commenting from a Religious standpoint although i am not Religious ?!?!


Q

originally posted by: xuenchen
Looks like the State Legislators are just satisfying the voters ?

It doesn't matter. The majority cannot oppress the minority. Majority Rules, Minority Rights

The Founders had great respect for the will of the majority, but also understood that, as James Madison stated at the Virginia Constitutional Convention in 1829, “In republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of minority.” President Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in his first inaugural address, “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”
...
Landmark Supreme Court cases that illustrate this principle include Korematsu v. United States (1944), Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and Loving v. Virginia (1967).

If the majority voted to make women wear hijabs, or blacks ride in the back of the bus, it would be illegal.

Maybe some "officials" think it would be against their freedom of religion ?

Too bad. They don't get to break the law because they're religious. If they cannot bring themselves to marry someone without religion's "stamp of approval" then they shouldn't hold an office of the government.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

why does it have to be marriage? why not civil partnerships , state marriage's etc ...

Because the religious right doesn't own marriage - not the concept, not the rights - none of it

Permission to marry is not theirs to grant or deny

In a country based on equality and freedom for all it's citizens, under no circumstances is it acceptable for them to deny the right to marriage to anybody. It's gays now, and apparently atheists - next they'll be saying Muslims can't get married, or Catholics, or Jews...

now this would be the ideal situation
I have to stop now or I'm going to say something that will get this post removed

no need to stop you make excellent points

Are marriages ... Under the eyes of God .. etc etc
Religious in nature or a governmental tool ???

not what you Know they are ... but where they originated....

I agree everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt others who has the right to tell people what is wrong and what is right? like i stress before i am speaking from Religions standpoint.

If your going to say homosexuals cannot get married because Religion A, B, or C says so then all the rules should be adhered to when debating the topic .. and atheism in this context would appear to fit the criteria..

Is that right? no way!

Should it be debated in the context of the OP .. yes indeed!

Q

a reply to: olaru12

Why stop with just homosexuals and atheist? Perhaps they should include Jews, Gypsys, poles, physically and mentally disabled and all those religiously inferior. Does this sound familiar?

Beat me to it -

I had to read the article twice. I understand that this is just one man - from Oklahoma. But, is this really where we are now? They're not only going to work at denying rights to those that don't have them, they're going to try their chances at stripping others of their rights too?

originally posted by: Quantum_Squirrel
did the government create it?

Our government (the US Government) created the legal institution of union in the US today, and they called it "marriage", even though the concept has existed for as long as people have been on this rock and the word has existed for many years.

They didn't create the idea of marriage, but they established what it would mean, LEGALLY.

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

Is that right? no way!

Should it be debated in the context of the OP .. yes indeed!

:-)

I understand now

I'm afraid that debating this idea as presented in the OP isn't really possible - it's not rational. Anyhow - I'd have to wait until I simmered down to even take a stab at it

What strikes me as funny is how stupid people are here bickering over the description.

We can call a fusion of flavors in foods or a blend of technologies "marrying them", it's a common description. But two people of the same sex, or the non-religious, nawp, that's not what the word means!!

Y'all are idiots. Really. The word's already been redefined for use outside of pair-bonding purposes. Does cuisine need to be blessed by a church before you eat some Peruvian-Chinese fusion now? To give the "married" flavors legitimacy? Give me a break. You don't own the description (any of them for the word "marriage")

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: olaru12

Legislating morality...now that's a good idea!

Mean like that 'fair share' snip ?

Mean like how we ended up with the ACA ?

Mean like how we ended up with 70 years of gun control ?

There's more.

Oh yeah I see the GD hypocrisy.

I love the EPIC double standard.

When it comes to 'gay' rights. Marriage equality.

Then the same people feigning outrage of that are silent.

On gun owner rights,banker rights,corporate rights etc.

Call me apathetic to gay 'rights'.

Because it is nothing more than GD selective outrage.

Focus Neo, Focus. We weren't talking about all of that. LOL

We're talking about athiests not being able to Marry. I'm not a Christian and this kind of stuff scares me. We do not want a theocracy.

Same old bs. People should be allowed to have civil unions regardless of gender but they should just leave marriage alone. They claim they want the same benefits but what they really want is too make other people uncomfortable. It is a shame that people cry when they get refused service by someone else.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It doesn't matter. The majority cannot oppress the minority. Majority Rules, Minority Rights

Too funny.

Tell that to gun owners,bankers, business owners, and them evil rich folks, etc.

Such glaring hypocrisy.

In a 'democracy' the minority is always subject to the whims of the majority.

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
Aristotle

Read more at www.brainyquote.com...

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Same old bs. People should be allowed to have civil unions regardless of gender but they should just leave marriage alone. They claim they want the same benefits but what they really want is too make other people uncomfortable. It is a shame that people cry when they get refused service by someone else.

But should I be allowed to have a marriage even though I'm not a Christian. I mean the whole legal marriage certificate thing. Because that would suck. I am married to a wonderful woman. I don't want a civil union.

a reply to: amazing

Focus Neo, Focus. We weren't talking about all of that. LOL

I know your talking about selective rights pandering to a demographic.

The rights of other groups are being denied, but it's nothing, but crickets.

Just exposing the cognitive dissonance in the thread, and the LACK of consistency here.

originally posted by: Quantum_Squirrel

why does it have to be marriage? why not civil partnerships , state marriage's etc ...


Q

Because Christianity doesn't own the institute of marriage. It's been around long before that Jesus fella and Moses.

There is nothing inherently Christian about marriage. It's an institution that has always been secular with religion added for flavor.

originally posted by: neo96
Too funny.

Tell that to gun owners,bankers, business owners, and them evil rich folks, etc.

Such glaring hypocrisy.

In a 'democracy' the minority is always subject to the whims of the majority.

What rights have gun owners, bankers, rich folk and business owners lost exactly??? Last I checked people still own guns, bankers still bank, rich folk keep getting richer and business owners still own businesses.

originally posted by: neo96
I know your talking about selective rights pandering to a demographic.

The rights of other groups are being denied, but it's nothing, but crickets.

Isn't it you that is talking about selective rights??? You're the one saying things like "Banker Rights & Gun Owner Rights." The rest of us are talking about Equal Rights. You know, equal as in they belong to everyone the same and not just certain groups.

Just exposing the cognitive dissonance in the thread, and the LACK of consistency here.

You like that term "Cognitive Dissonance" don't you??? Here's another one for ya you might like, "Psychological projection". Thought I would mention it since you're doing it right now.