The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it's an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it's what Oklahomans want.
http://www.news9.com/story/24543033/lawm...n-oklahoma

I saw that. Good luck changing 10,000 different laws on the state level and THEN getting the Federal government to do the same.

Make all government unions, Civil Unions...let the churches, temples, mosques, etc decide who's married.

Plenty of churches are willing to marry gay folks...

As I predicted they would do.

Leave marriage up to the Churches.

Curious, what happens when someone sues a state or Feds about 2 females and 1 male demanding to
get married. Anybody OK with that?

This is a knee-jerk reaction, not a real solution.

(01-30-2014 04:14 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  As I predicted they would do.

Leave marriage up to the Churches.

It'll be the couples that decide whether to call their arrangement a "union" or "marriage" or "partnership" or "legal joint taxation status" or whatever else. I have plenty of friends that were not married in a church but still consider themselves "married". What do I care what they call it?

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the SCOTUS. I don't think the courts will allow a State to stop all marriages.

(01-30-2014 04:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is a knee-jerk reaction, not a real solution.

Sure it is. It's kind of like the left demanding the Ten Commandments being removed or pushing for a satan display on our state Capitol - then using an all or nothing argument.

In this case it's the same argument. Nothing.

What is the ACLU going to do about it now?

(01-30-2014 04:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is a knee-jerk reaction, not a real solution.

To me...it is...marriage belongs to religion...all government unions should be Civil Unions.

Problem is (for the GOPers) plenty of these churches will marry gay people....boom, legal gay marriage nation wide.

But.....it'll never happen that way.

(01-30-2014 04:18 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the SCOTUS. I don't think the courts will allow a State to stop all marriages.

That's not what they are proposing. It's putting a stop to marriage licenses. People can still get married. At a Church.

(01-30-2014 04:18 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the SCOTUS. I don't think the courts will allow a State to stop all marriages.

People often say this, which is incorrect.

What the Court said is dicta.

(01-30-2014 04:20 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:18 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the SCOTUS. I don't think the courts will allow a State to stop all marriages.

That's not what they are proposing. It's putting a stop to marriage licenses. People can still get married. At a Church.

But not a Temple or Mosque?

(01-30-2014 04:19 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is a knee-jerk reaction, not a real solution.

Sure it is. It's kind of like the left demanding the Ten Commandments being removed or pushing for a satan display on our state Capitol - then using an all or nothing argument.

In this case it's the same argument. Nothing.

What is the ACLU going to do about it now?

It is tough to argue that the state has a duty to recognize only heterosexual marriage as a necessary foundation for society while simultaneously arguing that the best way to protect that foundation is to not recognize any marriages.

(01-30-2014 04:23 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:19 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is a knee-jerk reaction, not a real solution.

Sure it is. It's kind of like the left demanding the Ten Commandments being removed or pushing for a satan display on our state Capitol - then using an all or nothing argument.

In this case it's the same argument. Nothing.

What is the ACLU going to do about it now?

It is tough to argue that the state has a duty to recognize only heterosexual marriage as a necessary foundation for society while simultaneously arguing that the best way to protect that foundation is to not recognize heterosexual marriage.

I think that sounded better in your head. The simple fact is this. If the Supreme Courts ends up forcing states to recognize gay marriage, they will just stop issuing marriage licensees altogether. That will then force the big gay to seek out courts who will force Churches to perform weddings.

Libertarians should be all over this.

(01-30-2014 04:14 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Curious, what happens when someone sues a state or Feds about 2 females and 1 male demanding to
get married. Anybody OK with that?

My wife said that I am not OK with that.

(01-30-2014 04:26 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:23 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:19 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is a knee-jerk reaction, not a real solution.

Sure it is. It's kind of like the left demanding the Ten Commandments being removed or pushing for a satan display on our state Capitol - then using an all or nothing argument.

In this case it's the same argument. Nothing.

What is the ACLU going to do about it now?

It is tough to argue that the state has a duty to recognize only heterosexual marriage as a necessary foundation for society while simultaneously arguing that the best way to protect that foundation is to not recognize heterosexual marriage.

I think that sounded better in your head. The simple fact is this. If the Supreme Courts ends up forcing states to recognize gay marriage, they will just stop issuing marriage licensees altogether. That will then force the big gay to seek out courts who will force Churches to perform weddings.

Libertarians should be all over this.

Court would simply order the State to issue marriage licenses...

(01-30-2014 04:27 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:14 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Curious, what happens when someone sues a state or Feds about 2 females and 1 male demanding to
get married. Anybody OK with that?

My wife said that I am not OK with that.

Jesus, what's next, turkey Ruebens?

(01-30-2014 04:26 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:23 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:19 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is a knee-jerk reaction, not a real solution.

Sure it is. It's kind of like the left demanding the Ten Commandments being removed or pushing for a satan display on our state Capitol - then using an all or nothing argument.

In this case it's the same argument. Nothing.

What is the ACLU going to do about it now?

It is tough to argue that the state has a duty to recognize only heterosexual marriage as a necessary foundation for society while simultaneously arguing that the best way to protect that foundation is to not recognize heterosexual marriage.

I think that sounded better in your head. The simple fact is this. If the Supreme Courts ends up forcing states to recognize gay marriage, they will just stop issuing marriage licensees altogether. That will then force the big gay to seek out courts who will force Churches to perform weddings.

Libertarians should be all over this.

One of the arguments that was presented to the SCOTUS in the DOMA case was that the government should encourage heterosexual marriage as the foundation of society and that heterosexual marriage should be "protected" from samesex marriage.

Saying that we shouldn't recognize any marriage completely undercuts the argument that heterosexual marriage must be promoted by the government via recognition. Either the country benefits from recognition of heterosexual marriage or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Personally, I'm totally in favor the government recognizing the union of any two adults for the purposes of taxation and benefits. More than two are welcome to form an LLC. Call it whatever you want.