Interesting approach...
A bill that would restrict the right to marry to people of faith and would mandate all marriage licenses be approved by a member of the clergy was approved by the Oklahoma state House on Tuesday.
The bill, approved by a Republican majority, now goes to the state Senate for consideration.
House Bill 1125, sponsored by Republican State Representative Todd Russ, is a radical measure that would end secular marriage licenses in the state. In addition, the bill would bar all judges and other secular officials from performing marriages in Oklahoma.
Russ claims the radical legislation is motivated by his desire to protect court clerks from having to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Russ says he doesn’t want these workers put in the position of having to condone or facilitate same-sex marriage.
Under the legislation, atheists and others not wanting to be married by a religious official could file an affidavit through the court clerk’s office claiming a common-law marriage.
Republican supporters of the legislation want to remove the state from the marriage process. Rep. Dennis Johnson, a Republican, said:
Marriage was not instituted by government. It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage.
Johnson and other Republicans are confused. For the record, marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults, and as a legal contract it is governed by the state. A wedding, on the other hand, may or may not be a religious ceremony, depending upon the wishes of the couple.
If conservative Christians could only understand this simple and basic distinction, which in many ways mirrors the constitutional distinction between church and state, a great deal of time, energy, and taxpayer money could be saved, and used towards more productive ends.
As it stands, the legislation is thinly disguised anti-gay Christian bigotry, pure and simple. The bill is a naked attempt to force Christian theocracy upon the citizens of Oklahoma.
A toxic combination of anti-gay discrimination and discrimination against non-theists, the bill is emblematic of the dangerous and hateful nature of conservative Christianity in America.
Well, I suppose it's constitutional because only the powers of the federal government are limited by the Constitution but, sheeesh, what is the matter with these people? At first I thought this must be a parody news site, but no. Two years ago we had a Republican state representative introduce a bill that would make Christianity the official religion of North Carolina, but at least the Republican majority had the good sense to kill it.
Only two states in the US have higher divorce rates than Oklahoma, so they obviously have a marriage problem that needs fixing...or is it a religion problem? 😮
Anyway, here is the bill's sponsor talking about why no one should object to this bill, least of all gays and democrats (one in the same in his eyes, I'm sure)...
“Marriage was not instituted by government,” state Rep. Dennis Johnson (R) said. “It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage.”
Tell that to the IRS.
So much for separation of church and State. Just when you thought you have seen everything a Republican politician tops themselves in stupididty.
So Alloak do we need a psychiatric degree to say this guy is bat sh*t crazy? 
[Edited on 5/29/2015 by Bill_Graham]
So this is just one more piece of the puzzle why we liberals consider the GOP out of touch with current day society. Maybe this is something the national GOP can campaign on for 2016...looks like a winner.
Maybe mule & alloak can help explain and justify why this legislation is a good thing for the state of OK.
So Alloak do we need a psychiatric degree to say this guy is bat sh*t crazy?
[Edited on 5/29/2015 by Bill_Graham]
If you want it to carry some weight. In general, some pretty wacked out comments are not limited to one party if you hadn't noticed.
[Edited on 5/29/2015 by alloak41]
Oklahoma & North Carolina.........way up there on my list of states I want to visit, right after I go to Nebraska & North Dakota.
So Alloak do we need a psychiatric degree to say this guy is bat sh*t crazy?
[Edited on 5/29/2015 by Bill_Graham]
If you want it to carry some weight. In general, some pretty wacked out comments are not limited to one party if you hadn't noticed.
Funny I don't know one Democratic Politician who has sponsored a similar bill, compared ACA to slavery, America to Nazi Germany, claimed being gay was a choice because prison turns people gay or crazy stuff like that. And that is just two GOP politicians I am mentioning.
I am sure you could find silly comments by Democratic politicians, Like Joe Biden, but you have to admit the GOP politicians say some cringe worthy stuff that does not require a psychiatric degree to recognize.
[Edited on 5/29/2015 by alloak41]
So much for all men are created equal. At this point, maybe the country should just outlaw marriage altogether.
I have never been to Oklahoma and there is a good chance I will never go there. But it is amazing how stuff can get so twisted by people who for there own reason's want to twist things. Like "The progressive Secular Humanist " what ever that is. I don't know if this bill as Written is a good idea or not, I don't particularly care. But when you omit some things and omit some words and then try to paint all republicans are crazy, all conservatives are out of touch is just stupid. Then have a headline that says "only people of faith can get married" is just flat out lying. In case you are interested judges can marry people so it is not just clergy. Just a little fact for the uninformed.
Without passing judgement on this bill here is another link to an article about it with a link in the article to the actual bill in case you want spend (or waste) your time reading it
https://bawdyhouse.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/no-oklahoma-is-not-banning-atheist-marriage/
Funny I don't know one Democratic Politician who has sponsored a similar bill, compared ACA to slavery, America to Nazi Germany, claimed being gay was a choice because prison turns people gay or crazy stuff like that. And that is just two GOP politicians I am mentioning.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Plenty of wacked out comments have come from Democrats, every bit as bad as those. PLENTY.
I don't know if this bill as Written is a good idea or not, I don't particularly care. But when you omit some things and omit some words and then try to paint all republicans are crazy, all conservatives are out of touch is just stupid. Then have a headline that says "only people of faith can get married" is just flat out lying. In case you are interested judges can marry people so it is not just clergy. Just a little fact for the uninformed.
Honesty, facts, truth don't matter. It's a political tactic and that's all it is. A tactic used to discredit people, stifle opposition, tamp down debate. Label an entire group of people as "crazy" call a few names and pretty soon they're not even entitled to a viewpoint.
I don't know if this bill as Written is a good idea or not, I don't particularly care. But when you omit some things and omit some words and then try to paint all republicans are crazy, all conservatives are out of touch is just stupid. Then have a headline that says "only people of faith can get married" is just flat out lying. In case you are interested judges can marry people so it is not just clergy. Just a little fact for the uninformed.
Honesty, facts, truth don't matter. It's a political tactic and that's all it is. A tactic used to discredit people, stifle opposition, tamp down debate. Label an entire group of people as "crazy" call a few names and pretty soon they're not even entitled to a viewpoint.
Please explain why it is always the GOP & conservatives that consistently come up with ways to attempt to inflict religion into social issues as a means to limit / restrict individual rights or inflict government into peoples' lives? It just doesn't jell with that "less gov't is better" thing your crowd likes to pretend to believe in. The pontification is beyond hypocritical.
What you label in your post as "tactics" is really attempts by a political party and its cultural ideology to step on peoples' lives & rights.
I don't know if this bill as Written is a good idea or not, I don't particularly care. But when you omit some things and omit some words and then try to paint all republicans are crazy, all conservatives are out of touch is just stupid. Then have a headline that says "only people of faith can get married" is just flat out lying. In case you are interested judges can marry people so it is not just clergy. Just a little fact for the uninformed.
Honesty, facts, truth don't matter. It's a political tactic and that's all it is. A tactic used to discredit people, stifle opposition, tamp down debate. Label an entire group of people as "crazy" call a few names and pretty soon they're not even entitled to a viewpoint.
Please explain why it is always the GOP & conservatives that consistently come up with ways to attempt to inflict religion into social issues as a means to limit / restrict individual rights or inflict government into peoples' lives? It just doesn't jell with that "less gov't is better" thing your crowd likes to pretend to believe in. The pontification is beyond hypocritical.
What you label in your post as "tactics" is really attempts by a political party and its cultural ideology to step on peoples' lives & rights.
The best advice I can give is that you contact Rep. Russ directly for the explanation you seek. I haven't got a clue.
I have never been to Oklahoma and there is a good chance I will never go there. But it is amazing how stuff can get so twisted by people who for there own reason's want to twist things. Like "The progressive Secular Humanist " what ever that is. I don't know if this bill as Written is a good idea or not, I don't particularly care. But when you omit some things and omit some words and then try to paint all republicans are crazy, all conservatives are out of touch is just stupid. Then have a headline that says "only people of faith can get married" is just flat out lying. In case you are interested judges can marry people so it is not just clergy. Just a little fact for the uninformed.
Without passing judgement on this bill here is another link to an article about it with a link in the article to the actual bill in case you want spend (or waste) your time reading ithttps://bawdyhouse.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/no-oklahoma-is-not-banning-atheist-marriage/
Thanks for posting this. Yes, it appears that the bill as it stands today does not mean that atheists can't get married. However, as originally written, judges were not allowed to marry people anymore, and clearly the intent of the bill was to make it difficult for gays to get married, and in the process non-religious people were caught in the crossfire (whether intended or not).
I don't know if this bill as Written is a good idea or not, I don't particularly care. But when you omit some things and omit some words and then try to paint all republicans are crazy, all conservatives are out of touch is just stupid. Then have a headline that says "only people of faith can get married" is just flat out lying. In case you are interested judges can marry people so it is not just clergy. Just a little fact for the uninformed.
Honesty, facts, truth don't matter. It's a political tactic and that's all it is. A tactic used to discredit people, stifle opposition, tamp down debate. Label an entire group of people as "crazy" call a few names and pretty soon they're not even entitled to a viewpoint.
Please explain why it is always the GOP & conservatives that consistently come up with ways to attempt to inflict religion into social issues as a means to limit / restrict individual rights or inflict government into peoples' lives? It just doesn't jell with that "less gov't is better" thing your crowd likes to pretend to believe in. The pontification is beyond hypocritical.
What you label in your post as "tactics" is really attempts by a political party and its cultural ideology to step on peoples' lives & rights.
The best advice I can give is that you contact Rep. Russ directly for the explanation you seek. I haven't got a clue.
But we both know that Rep. Russ would most likely ignore this. You, on the other hand, post in a way that would seem that you identify with GOP & conservatives. You've almost never seen a post that you didn't have a contrary opinion and speak your beliefs. You probably do have a clue, but your choice not to answer the question is evasive. Point taken.
The other question to you would be - Do you agree with the policy? That question only needs a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
alloak posting that he "didn't have a clue" is the most honest thing he's said in years.
muledouche should admit the same.
I don't know if this bill as Written is a good idea or not, I don't particularly care. But when you omit some things and omit some words and then try to paint all republicans are crazy, all conservatives are out of touch is just stupid. Then have a headline that says "only people of faith can get married" is just flat out lying. In case you are interested judges can marry people so it is not just clergy. Just a little fact for the uninformed.
Honesty, facts, truth don't matter. It's a political tactic and that's all it is. A tactic used to discredit people, stifle opposition, tamp down debate. Label an entire group of people as "crazy" call a few names and pretty soon they're not even entitled to a viewpoint.
Please explain why it is always the GOP & conservatives that consistently come up with ways to attempt to inflict religion into social issues as a means to limit / restrict individual rights or inflict government into peoples' lives? It just doesn't jell with that "less gov't is better" thing your crowd likes to pretend to believe in. The pontification is beyond hypocritical.
What you label in your post as "tactics" is really attempts by a political party and its cultural ideology to step on peoples' lives & rights.
The best advice I can give is that you contact Rep. Russ directly for the explanation you seek. I haven't got a clue.
But we both know that Rep. Russ would most likely ignore this. You, on the other hand, post in a way that would seem that you identify with GOP & conservatives. You've almost never seen a post that you didn't have a contrary opinion and speak your beliefs. You probably do have a clue, but your choice not to answer the question is evasive. Point taken.
The other question to you would be - Do you agree with the policy? That question only needs a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
It's not a matter of being evasive. It's a matter of not having a clue how stuff gets into these guys heads or why they even go there. My opinion of how they should handle social issues is pretty well documented here already, so I'd rather not explain it all again.
You probably won't be satisfied with my second answer, either. I'm neither in favor of the policy or against it. Honestly, I could care less and have no official opinion on the matter.
alloak posting that he "didn't have a clue" is the most honest thing he's said in years.
Nothing wrong with my transcript sonny.
A religious Christian would see a flood as a punishment from God. Why are the women and children in OK and TX being punished and killed by God?
A religious Christian would see a flood as a punishment from God. Why are the women and children in OK and TX being punished and killed by God?
Both states allowed their football programs to decline.
This is a matter of semantics. If "marriage" is a religious institution, the state should have no say in it. If we are talking "unions" sanctioned by the state, the state has every right to regulate it. Maybe everyone who desires a legal union in the eyes of the state should have to fill out all the necessary papers. Remove "marriage" from being a legally binding union and allow it to remain a religious function.
The Oklahoma law is intended to protect pastors and churches from criminal prosecution by the government if they should dare practice their faith.
Of course the secular progressives are having a fit. When it comes to matters of faith, morals and values the extremist left demands that big government destroy any signs of it. The liberal blog which this thread is based shows their hatred of people with ethics, principles and any semblance of morality.
The Oklahoma law is intended to protect pastors and churches from criminal prosecution by the government if they should dare practice their faith.
Of course the secular progressives are having a fit. When it comes to matters of faith, morals and values the extremist left demands that big government destroy any signs of it. The liberal blog which this thread is based shows their hatred of people with ethics, principles and any semblance of morality.
Like Dennis Hasterdt? Oh, wait.........
The Oklahoma law is intended to protect pastors and churches from criminal prosecution by the government if they should dare practice their faith.
Of course the secular progressives are having a fit. When it comes to matters of faith, morals and values the extremist left demands that big government destroy any signs of it. The liberal blog which this thread is based shows their hatred of people with ethics, principles and any semblance of morality.
Like Dennis Hasterdt? Oh, wait.........
______________________________________________________________________
More like Bill Clinton.
The Oklahoma law is intended to protect pastors and churches from criminal prosecution by the government if they should dare practice their faith.
Of course the secular progressives are having a fit. When it comes to matters of faith, morals and values the extremist left demands that big government destroy any signs of it. The liberal blog which this thread is based shows their hatred of people with ethics, principles and any semblance of morality.
Like Dennis Hasterdt? Oh, wait.........
______________________________________________________________________
More like Bill Clinton.
Secular progressives hate Bill Clinton because he has ethics, principles and a semblance of morality? Huh?
The Oklahoma law is intended to protect pastors and churches from criminal prosecution by the government if they should dare practice their faith.
Of course the secular progressives are having a fit. When it comes to matters of faith, morals and values the extremist left demands that big government destroy any signs of it. The liberal blog which this thread is based shows their hatred of people with ethics, principles and any semblance of morality.
Like Dennis Hasterdt? Oh, wait.........
______________________________________________________________________
More like Bill Clinton.
Secular progressives hate Bill Clinton because he has ethics, principles and a semblance of morality? Huh?
______________________________________________________________________
Secular progressives love Bill Clinton because he has no ethics, principles or morals.
Monica Lewinsky
Gennifer Flowers
Maria Burda
Belinda Stronach
Naomi Robson
Marjorie Post
Patricia Duff
Elizabeth Gracen
Sally Perdueis
Dolly Browning
Paula Jones
really??
Newt Gingrich's track record on keepings one's marital vows is nothing to brag about, but I don't see the self righteous Republican right on his case.
getting back to the OP - forbidding marriages done by a non clergy is forcing religion. Forbidding marriages by a non clergy is not at all the same as protecting clergy for not marrying gays or someone they don't believe in.
It seems like some people complain when government restricts their freedoms, but then complain when someone is allowed to do something they don't agree with.
the best definition of freedom that I've ever heard is that freedom is the ability to stretch your arms out as far as you want without hitting your neighbor in the face.
this law violates that principle
muleman are you saying that Bill Clinton's actions are akin to Dennis Hastert's actions? You actually think that consensual sex between adults is as horrific as child molestation?
