Oklahoma state representative Todd Russ has filed House Bill 1125, which would require all marriages to have the stamp of approval of a minister, priest, rabbi or other religious official. "Put it back to what it was supposed to be and was originally, a holy matrimony and a very solemn and spiritual vow." said Rep. Russ.Rep. Russ admits he came up with the idea after Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban was ruled unconstitutional last October. Rep. Russ sees it as a way to keep judges and clerks who are opposed to marriage equality from having to issue marriage licenses or officiate at same-sex weddings. "It doesn't put the county officials into the business of condoning it or approving it or licensing it," explained Rep. Russ.Under House Bill 1125, judges would no longer have the power to officiate at marriages and court clerks would not issue marriage licenses. The clerks' only responsibility would be to file the licenses that couples received through their officiating clergy member. Of course, clergy can grant licenses according to their own religious beliefs, which again leaves a lot of gay couples on the outside looking in. Representative Russ, (photo right) however, has a solution for those who aren't religious or aren't able to receive religious approval. "They don't have a spiritual basis for a marriage and don't want to have a clergy member or a priest or someone involved in the spiritual aspect, then they can file an affidavit of common-law marriage," Rep. Russ told reporters.So religious people can get married married, and everyone else can claim common law status? I wish someone would ask him how that is not a violation of the establishment clause? Russ maintains his bill is a way for the State of Oklahoma stick their finger in the eye of the federal government, complaining: "Where the federal government does not have a right to come in and force its new definitions of what they believe on independent states. Not just Oklahoma, but any state."By the way, Oklahoma does not recognize "common law" marriages. It's just another way to separate those "not worthy."
Government should get out of marriage period
Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 29, 2015, 08:03:44 AMGovernment should get out of marriage periodGovernment should work to protect their citizens from blatant discrimination. If that means they have to give out marriage licenses to couples a church won't wed, or to the non religious, so fucking be it.
What if someone is atheist? Or of a religion that is not available?
It's discrimination if you refuse service to somebody because of their sexuality or skin color
That's probably a secondary reason they did this. They see marriage as a union between man and woman...and God.
Can't exactly run around calling itself the land of the free when it doesn't combat discrimination.
Freedom is for the freedom loving.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 29, 2015, 11:09:30 AMQuote from: challengerX on January 29, 2015, 11:06:04 AMCan't exactly run around calling itself the land of the free when it doesn't combat discrimination.Can't do it if it's forcing people to perform services they don't want to perform, either.Freedom is for the freedom loving.
Quote from: challengerX on January 29, 2015, 11:06:04 AMCan't exactly run around calling itself the land of the free when it doesn't combat discrimination.Can't do it if it's forcing people to perform services they don't want to perform, either.
Quote from: Icy on January 29, 2015, 09:47:42 AMQuote from: Kinder Graham on January 29, 2015, 08:03:44 AMGovernment should get out of marriage periodGovernment should work to protect their citizens from blatant discrimination. If that means they have to give out marriage licenses to couples a church won't wed, or to the non religious, so fucking be it.Discrimination is being beaten up and called a faggot. A church refusing to perform a service for you is a non-issue when it comes to discrimination.
When that service, from religious churches or not, directly impacts government services on you (Tax returns, ability to adopt a child, spousal rights) - it can be classified as discrimination.
Quote from: Icy on January 29, 2015, 01:48:27 PMWhen that service, from religious churches or not, directly impacts government services on you (Tax returns, ability to adopt a child, spousal rights) - it can be classified as discrimination.Oh yeah, I completely agree with that. I agree with a State-recognised form of "marriage" which confers all the benefits, but when it comes to spiritual/religious/ceremonial 'consecrations' of marriage then it ought not be coerced.
have exemptions for religious affiliations to not perform if necessary, while still allowing denominations to perform the marriages if they wish.
Quote from: Icy on January 29, 2015, 01:55:32 PMhave exemptions for religious affiliations to not perform if necessary, while still allowing denominations to perform the marriages if they wish.Wait, does whatever's in the article go further than that? SpoilerNo, I didn't read it. EDIT: Yes it does, and it's fucking retarded.