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

a reply to: Cuervo

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

if it has been around for so long why are we changing it now?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Cuervo

if it has been around for so long why are we changing it now?

WE aren't........It's the Christian Right wing that wants to deny the Marriage right to folks that don't meet their spiritual
criteria.

Have you been reading this thread....???

a reply to: mOjOm

Seriously think EQUAL rights means just one group of people ?

Equal rights is equal rights.

And not being subject to the whims of the majority.

GUESS WHAT ?

All those other groups have thousands of LAWS regulating their conduct.

Walk the talk.

originally posted by: amazing

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.

Yes it is legal for a man and a woman to get married. You have that right.

However lets say you are a graphic designer and i come into your shop and ask you to make me some really off the wall offensive signs and i say hey it is me the dick from ats you have to make this stuff for me. You should have every right in the world to tell me to pound sand. I am not wanting to say i would do that or that you would but it should be your right by law to refuse service to someone.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: mOjOm

Seriously think EQUAL rights means just one group of people ?

Equal rights is equal rights.

And not being subject to the whims of the majority.

GUESS WHAT ?

All those other groups have thousands of LAWS regulating their conduct.

Walk the talk.

Yeah, I got it. Equal for everyone. That should also include Gays and Atheists too right??? It's not equal if only Christians are allowed to marry and nobody else is. Seems pretty clear to me.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: Cuervo



if it has been around for so long why are we changing it now?

WE aren't........It's the Christian Right wing that wants to deny the Marriage right to folks that don't meet their spiritual

criteria.



Have you been reading this thread....???

The two topics in the op contridict eachother. It is not legal for gays to marry but it is legal for athiest to marry. Two different situations. I support the need to keep marriage the way it is but to also make it so that two people sharing a house together regardless of other factors should get any and all benefits under the law from the government. A civil union seperate but equal to marriage.


You say "we are not" but as another member pointed out marriage is older than most countries yet in todays age we feel it necessary to change it now to include same sex. That is not right.

a reply to: deadeyedick

It's been around a long time and it's been changed multiple times too. This isn't the first nor the last change involving marriage, far from it.

a reply to: mOjOm

It should include gays,atheists,gun owners,business owners, rich people,bankers, and everyone else.

To be consistent.

Until the laws already on the books regulating their conducts gets removed.

Keep on spinning selective liberty.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: mOjOm

It should include gays,atheists,gun owners,business owners, rich people,bankers, and everyone else.

To be consistent.

Until the laws already on the books regulating their conducts gets removed.

Keep on spinning selective liberty.

That's exactly what I'm saying too. Does this mean we are on the same side on this issue then???

Nobody is suggesting that Gun Owners, rich bankers, etc. aren't allowed to marry though. Just atheists and Gays.

When I first heard about this I started to laugh, and laugh hard, as this is going to be real good. Another bill, that if passed will ultimately cost the tax payers of Ok, millions of dollars while the attorneys clean up and ultimately have to have it struck down. And here is how I came to this conclusion.

This law, is designed to prevent same sex marriage, by taking government out of the marriage business, making it against the law for judges to marry and for clerks to officiate, and require a religious figure sign off on the document to be filed by the county clerks. Now if I was a lawyer, and this bill passed, the argument could be made that no judge could rule on any divorce due to the fact that the law prohibits any judge from dealing with any marriage, and point to this law. And it gets better from that.

Now the state is going to have to accept marriages done by religions that they do not want to deal with. So that means that there may be say contesting of a marriage performed by say an Inman or a Ripoche, and ultimately there will be court cases that will cause the state no end of grief and accusations of prejudice, and racism, along with how the law unfairly discriminates against those religions not mentioned in the law itself. And then there are those who are not Christian, and they will cry that it violates their freedom of religion and they will have the right to sue. But the one group, the absolutely one group that will pop up and offer to marry anyone, including same sex marriage will be the last group that sued the state and won, and that would be the Church of Satan. Do you really think that the legislators will be happy if temples to Satan pop up around their state to offer wedding ceremonies?

And then there are the pagans and all sorts of other groups. IN fact this is a door that they will regret opening up, as anyone now, can claim that this is unfair, as their particular church, or faith is not there and it is in inconvience for them to travel and the state will either have to allow for a judge to perform the ceremony or pay for them to travel to get married.

Gee I thought most politicians would be paying attention to what has gone on in the recent history, especially stuff that is less than 5 years old.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: deadeyedick



It's been around a long time and it's been changed multiple times too. This isn't the first nor the last change involving marriage, far from it.

I think the majority of people disagree with you. Where can i find such info. showing that?

There is one other thing I forgot to add.

With all of these laws that are designed to discriminate against the LGBT community, I guess it will be no shock that if one day that community is added into law to put them as a special class, designed to prevent and protect them against discrimination in the United States of America. I wonder how they will feel about such then, knowing that their actions will force such to occur.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

you really think that the legislators will be happy if temples to Satan pop up around their state to offer wedding ceremonies?

Perhaps but if they do they will be burnt down.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

You are bent. The laws are not designed to discriminate. That is a byproduct of that chosen lifestyle.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Just google Marriage History or something like that.

At one time marriage was done to join families and property. It was set up by the parents. Then it changed to where the men and/or family chose the bride, usually for the same reasons. At one time men were also allowed to have multiple wives and they wife was basically there to be a baby factory. Then it changed to only allow only one husband one wife. Only recently has it changed to be something done primarily out of love and a choice between two people. Also divorce has now been allowed and so forth. That's only dealing with the kinds of Marriage we are familiar with today and doesn't even get into marriage that other tribes and civilizations may have had throughout history.

How do they tell if a "Man" and a "Woman" are really a "Man" and a "Woman"?????

There must be some kind of "Definitions" in the law language.

Hmmm.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

It is actually a lot simpler than that as to why the law would never hold up in court and be stricken down.

Requiring that a religious official has to sign a couple’s marriage certificate for it to be accepted by the county clerks violates the separation clause.

In fact, such a standing law would open up religious officials to legal recourse from those they turn down because they would have become part of the state system a required part.


This is a stupid bill written by a person blinded by hate or he is just a stupid person because anyone that understands even the basics knows that bill is doomed to fail.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: deadeyedick



Just google Marriage History or something like that.



At one time marriage was done to join families and property. It was set up by the parents. Then it changed to where the men and/or family chose the bride, usually for the same reasons. At one time men were also allowed to have multiple wives and they wife was basically there to be a baby factory. Then it changed to only allow only one husband one wife. Only recently has it changed to be something done primarily out of love and a choice between two people. Also divorce has now been allowed and so forth. That's only dealing with the kinds of Marriage we are familiar with today and doesn't even get into marriage that other tribes and civilizations may have had throughout history.

Thanks for the info.
The point i was making and the point you likely knew i was making was about gay marriage never being legal and that is the onlly reason i asked you to show me if it was a real thing but it is not really. I think we can safely say that throughout time marriage has been between a man and woman with only minor exceptions never including gay marriage.


The question remains why should we start now?

a reply to: Grimpachi

The stated reason for the change was to protect gov. officials from having to do something they are not comfortable with because long ago when they were hired it was illegal just like it is still against federal law to gays to marry.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Ahhhhh....Now I got ya. You're probably right. As far as I know it's usually between a man and woman. There could be an exception but I don't know of any either. But that isn't exactly a surprise since being Gay let alone getting married while Gay would have probably gotten you killed at any other time in history. It would certainly get you thrown out of town I'm sure.

My point was that "Marriage" has changed forms multiple times over time. This is just the latest change that's all. Just like allowing for Divorce took a while and getting married for love rather than property rights and family building had it's day for change, so today we have this change, that's all. It used to be that Women didn't have a choice who they married either but over time we have started to apply rights equally so now they do. The same is happening with Gays as well and apparently atheists now too.