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

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: deadeyedick



Therefore a civil union by definition is not unconstitional because it is not involving belief systems.

Neither is Legal Marriage a belief system. It actually is a civil union. A non-religious contract.



Marriage is and has always been a contract. It has nothing to do with a religious belief system.

Thank you.

The term marriage covers two aspects the civil union and the ceremony.

Government only has business in civil unions not marriages

a reply to: deadeyedick

It is no such thing, it is pointing out a historical fact that shows marriage and religion, despite you and Congressman Nutso in the Original Post trying to say otherwise, can be mutually exclusive.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I read your post wrong.

I read the word as to be is... marriage as vs marriage is

Anyhow there you go again blending my stance into the stance presented in the op.

That is 100% ignorrant as i have shown why multiple times. There are the two sides you and the politician disagree on and then there is the side of civil unions i have shown.

You and the politician are equal opposites.

a reply to: deadeyedick

No, there are actually three sides (sort of).

Equality, which I am on.

Religious nuttery, which the pathetic Congressman is on.

And semantics in the guise of compromise, which you are on. Which in actuality has the same affect as option #2.

Only one of those affords people equal protection and rights without caveats, excuses or trying to reinterpret history.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes there are three sides just as i have stated 3 times.

same sex marriage is the issue

So that means you have the pro and anti sides and then a side of marriage being unconstitutional.

in order for the debate to take place marriage has to exist constitutionally in the first place.

since it does not it renders the debate to be a false debate based on the right left divide in the country.

What you state about equality is not a side that would be just an opinion of the side of pro.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: deadeyedick



Therefore a civil union by definition is not unconstitional because it is not involving belief systems.

Neither is Legal Marriage a belief system. It actually is a civil union. A non-religious contract.



Marriage is and has always been a contract. It has nothing to do with a religious belief system.

Thank you.

The term marriage covers two aspects the civil union and the ceremony.

Government only has business in civil unions not marriages

That is not what I said.

I said Legal Marriage is a civil union. It is a government contract. Hence a civil union.

MARRIAGE LICENSE is the correct title/word.

If you want to change a word/terminology for everyone, be my guest. Start legislating for that.

For now --- it is MARRIAGE for everyone.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
same sex marriage is the issue

Marriage equality is the issue.

So that means you have the pro and anti sides and then a side of marriage being unconstitutional.

When you can show that a marriage certificate or the legal benefits it grants have anything to do with God or religion then maybe you can argue it is un-Constitutional.

in order for the debate to take place marriage has to exist constitutionally in the first place.

Wow. You really do not understand the Constitution, do you? A law does not need to be in the Constitution for it to be legal. It merely cannot violate the Constitution for it to be deemed legal.

What you state about equality is not a side that would be just an opinion of the side of pro.

Equality is not a side, it is an absolute.

Dp

a reply to: Annee

Legally in the us marriage is not for everyone.

Using the word marriage with its definition only gives the government future power that can be used against the people. The term civil union based on it's definition is the correct term.

These things are important to keep religion and government seperate.

It may seem petty but it is the correct step for the country.

Seperation of church and state provides equality for all.

Ceaser is not god but tries to assume the duties of God under the guise of unlawful legality.

Here is an update on one of the proposed laws:

Ok House Bill 1125, is by far one of the far worse of the draconian bills out there. (webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us...
Having read it, the first thing that strikes me is that now as taking the state out of marriage, it will be required that a person go through premaritial counsling. That only certain persons trained and approved of by the state will be allowed to sign off on such.

Now this is where it gets good: 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 will be allowed to sign off on the marriage certificate.

In short, given the common sense of the matter, that cuts out all other religions out of the picture. You are a hindu, sorry can’t have you marry in the state of OK. You are a Muslim, sorry your marriage is no longer valid, and so forth. If you are of a faith by something else, it will be handled on a case by case situation. In short the state is dictating to all those who live there, that only those who are of a Christian belief, may get married, all others, well you are just out of luck, or will have to jump through hoops and take extrodinary steps to get married in the state of OK, creating a situation where they are deciding that which will be recognized by the state and benefit within the law and those that will not.

And the funny thing of all of this, is that OK, is one of the states with the highest number of native americans. Do you now dictate to them, with, all of the history of unfair treatment, that they can not have a traditional marriage, or one that would not be part of the Christian faith?

But here is the question at hand, beyond the sex of the persons what exactly is a marriage?

We keep dancing around this issue, same sex marriage, hetro marriage, yet no one has yet to define what all is a marriage and would go into such. Perhaps it is time that we look at what a marriage is and see the truth of the matter.

If you go by a simple definition: the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
And the funny thing of all of this, is that OK, is one of the states with the highest number of native americans. Do you now dictate to them, with, all of the history of unfair treatment, that they can not have a traditional marriage, or one that would not be part of the Christian faith?

Oh, come on. Just get them a little Fire Water and Christian their asses up.


Worked before, right?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

you point out many of the issues that are on one side of this well.

on the other side is the calls for equality that could be well adressed with civil unions instead of marriages while at the same time it would render this purposal and future ones null.

This is all just the tip of the iceburg as far as equality goes. On the issue of divorce we see a whole other inequality debate that goes unnoticed much and that is mens rights. These sad laws have created a marriage and divorce game that ends in men having to pay women because women are not equal to men when it comes to divorce? Women have much more to gain by divorcing men than men have to gain in most cases.

That leads to many other debates that will be in the future when we start seeing same sex marriage become a game like cesear has turned the traditional family into. cesear encourages women to have kids out of the parameters of traditional marriage by giving the most benefits to the woman with the most kids.

The sad part is that what ever amount of dignity that lgbt has right now will slowly be eroded away by becoming part of the system. cesear will find a way to make you hate eachother if for no other reason than gov. benefits.

i could continue but it would just cause more earthquakes as the truth slowly creeps to the portion of your minds that is not occoupied by division.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not this time. Many of the Native Americans view any agreement and laws that would be enforced on them with great skeptism. It would be another in the long list of the valid complaints and broken promises. With most laws like the one proposed, it is far to easy to exploited and there will be those who will exploit this law fully, on both sides.

a reply to: deadeyedick
In order for it to be equal, the first thing that would have to be established and agreed on is the definition of what make a marriage a marriage, and all of the laws, rights and other things that go into a marriage. Once that is agreed on and written down, then one can write the law where both terms would be used, where one set gets to use one term and the other would get to use the other term. But as long as there is no definition, or one that is vague, where the rights and legal aspects are unknown or known to few, then it will be a never ending debate.

And at the same time, it would also have to be an understanding that if same sex couples are not allowed to have a marriage, opposite sex couples could not attempt to have a civil union. And already there is a case where that just came about, and the world is watching how the courts in that country are handling such. Make no mistake, people like to exploit the laws, seeing if they can get away with anything and ultimately to either show the fallacy of said law, or make unjust claims of discrimination to gain something from it.

So now the question still remains what exactly is a marriage, its very definition of such, that should be what lawmakers are looking at. Not who can and can not get married, not adding in all sorts of color and things of that nature, but the very basic definition, without any details, but 2 legally adult humans in a marriage.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

That is exactly why a civil union with equal benefits to current marriages and repeling the marriage act all together would be the best. I have looked at the definitions and it is clear that marriage includes both civil union(contract) and ceremony(religion). Marriage is widely accepted as religous and union as a contract.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Annee

Legally in the us marriage is not for everyone.

Using the word marriage with its definition only gives the government future power that can be used against the people. The term civil union based on it's definition is the correct term.

These things are important to keep religion and government seperate.

It may seem petty but it is the correct step for the country.

Seperation of church and state provides equality for all.

Ceaser is not god but tries to assume the duties of God under the guise of unlawful legality.

Wrong. There is no religion or God anywhere in US Marriage License. It is a godless government contract

As always you are like the tornado. Spinning around dragging peripheral junk into a subject, while completely blocking out the core center --- when it doesn't suit you.

a reply to: deadeyedick
Before I go into a response into that lets look at a history of marriage and the origins of this debate really started.

Marriages have been around long before the advent and movement of religions. Most empires, and civilizations have had such in one way or another. Usually most did not have much to do, though it started to get high profile, when it came to the leaders and nobility, a means to increase wealth and join families, countries, and peoples together.
As religions came about, they would officiate such, under the eyes of the divine, and as it was also a matter of state, also most religions were in joint control over the state as well. The best examples of such, would be more in the middle ages, where the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches would have to give blessings and sanctions to such. Marriages were both based on joining of families and at the same time political.

With the fall of religion, where it was no longer involved more and more of the state affairs, the state assumed more and more control over the area of the marriages, yet most kept with traditions. Many of the things you see in the standard weddings these days, the witnesses, the best man, the brides maids, all have ties to the past. There would be someone who would officiate said ceremony, usually a priest, and the couple would be joined together. Some aspects can be seen more and more.

As the state sought to keep control over the population, more and more records would be kept, on who got married to whom, and to ensure that the laws were not violated. As the state grew more into the economic pattern, so to did the rights and other legal aspects for the married couple.
With the advent for the wall of church and state, marriage slowly and steadily ceased being part of the religious and started to be more within the control over the state. Things like blood tests and other aspects started to become more important than the ceremony itself.

The problem with what you propose, where it is separated by both government and religious is that in short, by making a marriage solely in the religious ceremony, leads to problems both for the couple and it would once again set a problem of inequality between a marriage and a civil union. If it is just merely religious then it should not get the current legal rights that it does not. Nor should a judge be allowed to rule on divorces what so ever. Without the government to keep track of such, then it could lead to the breaking of some criminal laws.

There would be no inequality because they are two different things. The only gov. rights would be bound to the civil union and a religous ceremony would not have any gov. rights. If the couple choose to they could then refer to it as a marriage. There is no other way to respect the seperation of church and state and remain true to the constitution.

In your post you kinda lumped religion and belief systems. You can't really get to the truth of what cesear has done without recognizing that religion is a belief system along with science,gov,athiesism and every organized culture that has ever joined two things together. render to cesear what you believe is his and to God what he has created.

a reply to: deadeyedick

There is already Covenant marriage without a government license.

No one is required to be married by government license. It is a choice they make.

Marriage Without License Prevents "strange gods" From Controlling Families

A Christian marriage without license from the State is necessary for the couple seeking to wed so they may honor the First Commandment. God cannot bless a union that violates the Commandments. The First Commandment requires that neither Christians nor their ministers enslave themselves by allegiance to the law of strange gods that replaces their allegiance to God who freed them from slavery. You cannot serve God and mammon...it is either one or the other but not both. First, let's look at what a license actually is. Second, let's then look at what actually gets licensed.

WHAT EXACTLY IS A LICENSE?

This definition says that a marriage without license from the State is illegal; a privilege that may not be exercised without government authority! Now any thinking person knows that marriage is as old as humanity. If there was any permission to be granted it was usually granted by the bride's family not by a state or tribal government. Marriage licenses only came into existence in America after the civil war...and for a very specific kind of marriage that did require a marriage license application. But, the above definition says clearly that, if marriage must be licensed, marriage without license is illegal if not licensed by the state. But, marriage as such has never been illegal in any society. In all Christian societies, marriage is a contract called into existence and maintained under a religious covenant by two and only two people, a man and a woman. Though Christian ministers have willingly put strange gods before God by becoming uncompensated agents of the state who demand that couples present them with a marriage license to sign. If marriage as such has never been illegal, then

www.boundaries-for-effective-ministry.org...

a reply to: Annee

It is bullocks because of common law marriage laws.

You have to keep them seperated or just declare cesear a god

The goal should be FREEDOM not indentured servitude

There is also the question of domestic abuse laws and divorce that will take place.