OK Oklahoma
Oklahoma has decided that you can only get married if the church approves.
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.
It passed the House.
If you’re an atheist you have to file an affidavit in the county clerk’s office for a common law marriage.
Get this: Republican representative Dennis Johnson.
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.
Uh, Dude, how about divorce? Are we going to be doing divorce court in church now?
Republicans say that the purpose of the bill is to keep “Christian” county clerks from being “forced” to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. I disagree. The purpose is to make Oklahoma look stoopid.
Thanks to AlanInAustin and Brian for the heads up.
Oh, man! More of that knee jerk stuff! They just never think things through, do they! You are right, JJ, especially about divorce. All I can say is this is what inbreeding gets you!
1And this just when I was starting to think Oklahoma wasn’t the epicenter of buffoonery in the known universe. Foolish me. But Boren still rocks. And Texas only doesn’t fall into the gulf cause Oklahoma sucks so hard.
2And the hits just keep on comin’.
3I can see this now in church bulletins all across Oklahoma:
“All intended marriages (between a man and a woman) performed the first Sunday of the month after the potluck. You must get the music, refreshments, and necklines approved by Friday afternoon. All intended divorces the last Sunday of the month after the congregational gathering at Joe’s Barbecue and Grill and (deregulated) Local Utility. Be sure and bring necessary documents for approval.”
4Well, that’s kinda pointless and stoopit – there are plenty of churches that will happily wed gay couples and for that matter I can get ordained by the Universal Life Church online for free and become a real true officiant for weddings (Conan O’Brien was ordained by them):
http://www.themonastery.org/wedding-laws/oklahoma
So, “problem” not solved at all by this silly bit of grandstanding.
5This is insanely unconstitutional. They’ve stopped even pretending they’ve read the Constitution or have a bugs worth of idea about what it says.
It’s already not a good day, so I’d better shut up now before I say more.
6I hope it doesn’t pass because it would make too many of the wrong people miserable. But in theory I almost hope it passes and they try to enforce it just so we can see all the unintended consequences.
A side note: Marriage provides a lot of tax breaks, which is an indirect way of bringing federal money into the state. Reducing marriages would reduce this money flow. In the same way refusing ObamaCare, especially the fed-paid expansions, reduces the flow of federal money to a state.
Historically blue states have on net paid into the federal government while red states have taken money out. The red states in their ignorance seem determined to make themselves poorer. Interesting trend.
7The knee-jerk responce to christian-only marriage is misplaced. If marriage is confined to the religious org’s, then dissolution or divorce also becomes a religious issue. Requiring a common-law affidavit places marriage and social unions in proper context. I would file a contract of partnership [call it what one likes], and this contract would have the terms of dis-solution are agreed in advance. If conditions change perceptively or onerously, then the issue is adjudicated in family courts.
New ideas require new armatures of social, legal, financial and economic relationships. Change is proposed in a vacuum if the idea is to defeat change. When presented within the framework of a new armature, discussion and negotiation usher change to culture.
8Darn…. I just finished lunch.
Barf!
What ever will now be the function of an Oklahoma Justice of the Peace… if they cannot perform civil unions?
I kind of see that this is a thing akin to people who want to bet on horse racing…. They go one state over….. to where it’s legal… and spend their money ……some place else (Texans go to Louisiana)……. (Oklahomans will probably come to Texas…).
Sometimes, I just cannot believe the dumb.
9As if the racists in their college campuses are not enough, more stupid out of Oklahoma. Clearly, the stupid is strong there.
10What next? Turn over the IRS to the churches so they can steal all of our money?
The only terrorists to fear are the evangelical Dominionists with their “states rights” dog whistles, end of times devotion to Israel, and double down dog dare you to mention separation of church and state. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; only to be pursued their way. That’s not “small government.” It’s government by the small-minded.
11They cannot be so stupid as to think that such bs (short for business, Mama) would pass constitutional muster. I think we’ve reached the point where writing legislation has become nothing more than an exercise in creating re-election campaign rhetoric and sucking up to their two religions: Gawd and the NRA.
12There are no words.
13@angela. Oh, there are words; it’s just that we can’t say them as Mama maybe around. Lye soap doesn’t do a body good.
14If the founding fathers could see what these imbeciles have tried to turn our country into, they would kill themselves.
15“Make Oklahoma look stoopid” honey, we passed that post years ago at a flying gallop.
16Wow. Just wow….
Wonder when this brain trust will start in on interracial marriages…
17Sounds like a job for the Church of Secular Humanism. For that matter, if the Oklahomans so despirate to spell “stoopid” with an “er” on the end keep claiming that “Evolutionists” are a religion, maybe biology teachers can perform weddings under this law.
The more amusing part is when people start inventing their own religions. (Perhaps start the Church of Dr. Frankenfurter?) Will Oklahoma have a state agency that determines whether or not, say, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is (or is not) a “religion” under this statute?
Then, too, what happens when someone wants to get married in a mosque? Doesdn’t this statute set a precedent for the establishment of Sharia Law for marriages?
18Here I was going to send away in Illinois for one of those mail-order Doctor of Divinity degrees. Maybe I need to find a supplier in Oklahoma.
19A reading from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 5:
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
And if thy duties as county clerk offend thee, quit thy frickin’ job and leaveth off persecuting others whosoever thou might find icky in their proclivities.
Or don’t runneth for the position of county clerk in the first place, I mean, COMETH ON. The LORD hast not the time nor the inclination to be thy excuse for all manner of meanness and jackassery, that thou shouldst bear the clerkish rod over thy fellow man and profiteth from his taxation, which payeth your frickin’ salary no matter thy religion, nor thy marital status, nor what the gender of thy bedmate be.
So knock it off, that thy whole body not be cast into hell. Because thou art really starting to pisseth me off.
20Amen, daChipster, preach!
21If some wingnuteth spaketh as hath daChipster,thine word be accepteth as gospel and broadcast on Sunday at mandatory services.
22Amen, daChipster! What thou sayeth!
23“JACKASSERY”! Thanks to daChipster for coining the word which most succinctly encapsulates the Republican mind-set.
24daChip … you’ve done it again!!
25Brother daChipster never, ever disappoints!
26http://www.today.com/parents/sign-banning-boys-over-6-ladies-room-sparks-debate-2D80545254?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral
Oklahoma strikes again.
27http://www.today.com/parents/sign-banning-boys-over-6-ladies-room-sparks-debate-2D80545254?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral
28@Mel
29Hat to burst a good point bubble but interracial marriage was not permitted in most states before 1948.
This is what occurs when the adherents of Christian Dominionism get a slice of power.
30Oh daChipster! That was more bee-yoo-tee-full than Shakespeare!
31He got one thing right: “There is no reason for Oklahoma or any other state to be involved in marriage” Okay then, there is no reason for Oklahoma or any other state to be passing laws about marriage!
32That’s more on the right wavelength. The secret is that civil unions should carry the same weight as marriage in terms of legal rights. As long as people with a civil union carry the same rights and privileges then who cares what it is called? Let them throw a hissy over Chuck and Larry having a civil union.
Have every marriage certificate from the state converted into a civil union. Then it can be dissolved as such legally down the road. My wife and I could get divorced by the state but our church won’t recognize it anyway. Those are two separate issues. You have the legal/financial implications of the union and disunion and then the religious/moral implications on the other end.
If you separate the sophomoric way in which they are going about it, it’s actually not a half bad idea. Everyone is equal under the law if everyone has a civil union in the eyes of the law. As someone said, many churches will marry anyone now. The funny thing is that if this law is interpreted correctly then no state or federal authority could prevent any two consenting adults from being married in any church.
33“The purpose is to make Oklahoma look stoopid.”
Way, way, way too late.
34Marriages were originally secular. They were originally secular–a governmental matter, because they involved the division and combination of property, both in the present and in the future, in terms of inheritance…what the children would inherit, and what the government (Rome was really interested in this) could tax.
Marriage was secular and based on economics, not on love, and not “from God.”
The Roman church got its fingers in the pie of marriage early and gradually took over where it controlled the government, insisting on witnesses being approved by the church. One small part of this was well-meant–the Church was the only body that cared if the woman being married off was willing or not. Her choices were few–she might beg to be put in a nunnery instead, but she wasn’t going to get to run around loose–but she had a choice and the Church insisted on an age of consent, and on her consent, in most cases. The rest was back to “show me the money”. The Church made money off of marriages the same way the county clerks do–only more so in some cases. Look it up; it’s interesting.
Marriage has always had legal and financial repercussions for those who are married–in pagan marriages, in atheists’ marriages, in every society. Various gods have been dragged in to provide a reason for this or that legal or financial change, though in many cultures “tradition” did the job just fine without needing a divine interpreter.
So, as usually, the rightwing thugs are wrong on the facts, but they never let that stop them.
35Let’s ban all marriages and then only outlaws will have in-laws(and welcome to them). 🙂
36epOnion, that discussion re: little boys in restrooms, we had four kids, two of each kind. I think that mothers ought to be able to bring a little boy into a restroom if the situation calls for it. I always tried to have restroom “teams” for kids but that doesn’t always work. I mean, he’s gonna go into a stall; what’s the big deal? For that matter, what about little girls under six? Is that how family restrooms work? I’m glad my grandchildren have parents to figure that out.
37And re: marriage, I’m seeing more and more unmarried couples haVing babies. I asked one the other day. She said “I’m pregnant.” “Oh that’s wonderful! When did y’all get…oh, do couples get married these days?” She said “We’re not. We’ve been together for five years.” I said, “You’re married.”
Marge Wood-the answers are sometimes so obvious they shouldn’t need to be explained. Then there are wingnuts who need someone to hold their hands and guide them through life’s dangers of young children in the wrong restroom. How do these people get elected?
38