General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTheocracy rules in Oklahoma
Oklahoma House passes bill restricting marriage to people of faith
March 11, 2015
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 doesnt 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 clerks office claiming a common-law marriage.
Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/03/oklahoma-house-passes-bill-restricting-marriage-to-people-of-faith/#ixzz3UXxyBgHP
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)This is just the latest in their attempts to codify a Xian version of Sharia
bluesbassman
(19,385 posts)If your job is that distateful to you, quit and find another line of work.
Even the activist Justices on the SC would have to strike this down if it ever made it's way to OK law.
liberal N proud
(60,352 posts)Just guessing on that one based on the homophobia observations and the that they think they can cure homosexuality.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Makes for good circus though.
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
OKNancy This message was self-deleted by its author.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)Russ added in the bill that judges could marry people....
and
As pressure mounted on Russ to kill the legislation, however, something strange happened: instead of pulling the bill, Russ simply amended it, re-inserting a clause that allowed judges to officiate weddings. The change was initially welcomed by LGBT advocates such as Stevenson, but also caused confusion, because it defeated the bills aim of fully removing government officials from marriages services. In fact, without the clergy-only provision, some Democrats noted that the bill was arguably pro-LGBT, since it does not define marriage specifically as a union between a man and a woman, effectively re-affirming the legitimacy of same-sex unions in the state. Other lawmakers also pointed out that, since Russ bill requires the government to simply file marriage certificates, it removes the states ability to prevent instances bigamy or polygamy.
Russ called the arguments about bigamy and polygamy absurd because other laws prohibiting such unions are still on the books. But he cautiously agreed with those who say his bill doesnt directly challenge marriage equality.
cstanleytech
(26,349 posts)TNNurse
(6,931 posts)Just want to add that I live in a state that does not establish common law marriages. It does recognize those that are established where they do with appropriate documentation. I have no idea what that documentation is supposed to be. I can tell you that it does not work well with health care decisions and birth certificates.....
cali
(114,904 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Nuttiness appears to be the standard.