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

originally posted by: deadeyedick
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.

Did I hit a nerve?

So you want marriage laws.

Then I guess those who want Covenant marriage and not state marriage need to legislate for those laws.

NO ONE is forced to have a state Marriage License.

And I doubt many will give up the "benefits" of government marriage for God.

a reply to: Annee

No nerve but do please expand why you think that.

The rest of your post is not really an issue that adressed the post.

Why is cesear performing marriage and no one can see how that becomes a belief system.

I think we see what we want to see.

By choosing to extend God into government you and the rest advocating for such will end up regretting it happened because the connection will grow between the two and not decrease as it should.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Why is cesear performing marriage and no one can see how that becomes a belief system.

Where is the government mandating that they perform marriages? If you want to get married all you need ot do is get your certificate signed and the deal is done without a ceremony.

By choosing to extend God into government you and the rest advocating for such will end up regretting it happened because the connection will grow between the two and not decrease as it should.

Marriage equality does not put God into government, it does that opposite, it prevents wackadoodles like the Congressman from putting God into government.

a reply to: deadeyedick

America did not have a government license to marry until one was created to prevent interracial marriage.

They could have named it or called it something else, but they didn't. It is Marriage License.

That they didn't have foresight of same sex Marriage is tough cookies. Marriage License is what it is and shall be for everyone.

Denying gays the same right, same word Marriage would be discrimnation.

The religious can pursue Covenant Marriage if they want something that separates them from everyone else.

But, we are not going backwards to undo something they don't like to appease their religious sensitivity.

Not going to happen and shouldn't.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

wtf

Where is the government mandating that they perform marriages

troll asomeone else

you inserting things i clearly did not say shows the level of debate you choose to have. you do this over and over but i guess it is just a bit clever for everyone to pick up on.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Really? Is the poster that said, 'Why is cesear performing marriage' you or someone else?

Maybe it was space aliens that came down and typed it with your account?

You said it. You back it up. Where is the government mandating that they perform a wedding ceremony for two people to get married?

a reply to: Annee

It is not a right to participate in unlawful acts such as marriage by gov. in a country that seperates between God and gov.

Your post only proves it is unlawful 1938 version of the politician in the op.

The country was founded and prospered without gov. marriage and should revert back to that.

continuing it is unlawful along with extending it is unlawful.

a reply to: deadeyedick

render to cesear what you believe is his and to God what he has created.

I think that is a great code for Christians to go by, but it doesn't have anything to do with the rest of us.

Marriage has been around a lot longer than your religion has so why do you guys keep trying to define it with your religion?

Why do you think your religion has any authority in the matter?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
The country was founded and prospered without gov. marriage and should revert back to that.

No it shouldn't.

Why something began has nothing to do with how it's evolved.

And now it's evolved to include same sex couples.

No one is forced to marry by government license. NO ONE.

It is a choice.

a reply to: Grimpachi

marriage is unconstitional in the us

seperation of God and gov.

as annee pointed out the us marriage act was just a 1938 version of the crap outlined in the op. extending it is not the answer as it would still be unlawful.

The goal for us should be to take away power from such groups that have been spun into the laws.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: deadeyedick

The country was founded and prospered without gov. marriage and should revert back to that.

No it shouldn't.



Why something began has nothing to do with how it's evolved.



And now it's evolved to include same sex couples.

that is like saying if the bill in the op passes and the scotus upholds it then we should not seek to repeal it but to change it. It is just not sound thinking and is unconstitutional

How many times must it be said?

Religion does not own the word Marriage or even the institution of Marriage.

Marriage is a contract and has always been a contract. Now through government you can make that contract legal.

There is very good reason any contract should be legal.

I guess some just don't comprehend the importance of a legal contract.

a reply to: deadeyedick

marriage is unconstitional in the us

seperation of God and gov.

No, it isn't quit trolling. God and marriage are exclusive you guys combined them for your own purpose but that only applies to you guys.

as annee pointed out the us marriage act was just a 1938 version of the crap outlined in the op. extending it is not the answer as it would still be unlawful.

You haven't made a sensible case yet for it being unlawful so you may want to start there.

The goal for us should be to take away power from such groups that have been spun into the laws.

I agree we should take power from groups. Your group isn't excluded from that. What you are actually proposing is granting power to groups.

When this country was founded, a handshake was a binding contract. Try that today.

Society is never stationary, it continuously evolves.

a reply to: Annee

religion is in the definition of marriage that has been put into law.

The reason the constitution does not cover marriage is because it is a religious issue.

That is why in 1938 we entered into something that puts religion into gov unlawfully.

The left and the right seek to destroy our foundation. We should not help fuel them any more.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

religion is in the definition of marriage that has been put into law.

Cite the relevant passage of the law that proves this.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

The reason the constitution does not cover marriage is because it is a religious issue.

No, basically it was a family issue.

Families arranged Marriages and the contract.

Religion is only important to those who are religious.

The Constitution didn't tell you how to tend your farm either.

1938 marriage act

the definition of marriage has been posted several times and includes religion

the constitution has something in it that protects life and that can be extended to include how we farm to be a matter of survival

originally posted by: deadeyedick

1938 marriage act

There is nothing called the '1938 marriage Act'.

Link it.

marriage relates to souls,sex and sin=religion

civil union relates to joint contract covering property and property rights=government

this is why it is a state right and not origionally in the constitution until 38'