Oklahoma Republican’s bill would block same-sex marriage by stopping ALL marriages

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Raw Story

Oklahoma Republican’s bill would block same-sex marriage by stopping ALL marriages
By David Ferguson
Saturday, January 25, 2014 12:17 EST

A Republican lawmaker in Oklahoma has proposed a controversial way to stopping same-sex marriages in the state. According to News9.com, state Rep. Mike Turner (R) has proposed scrapping marriage in the state altogether.

The lawmaker contends that it is the only way to keep same-sex marriage illegal in the state while still defending the U.S. Constitution.

“(My constituents are) willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all,” Turner told Channel 9.

Other lawmakers feel the same way, he said. They envision a state that doesn’t recognize any marriages at all.


Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/25/oklahoma-republicans-bill-would-block-same-sex-marriage-by-stopping-all-marriages/

[Tx4obama]

1. The nuts keep on geting nuttier! LOL :) n/t

[Heather MC]

47. I really hope they do this

If they do this, maybe this case would make it to the Supreme Court and this time the SC will do the right thing and make all marriage legal.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. It's the social con version of the fiscal con government shutdown. nt

[al_liberal]

3. The very reason for LGBT marriage legality.

How the fuck are they going to explain to their dipshitted constituents that nothing will lawfully become the property of the survivor if one partner dies? How about dealing with the end of life directives? How about property ownership?

These fucking people are the very definition of idiots. god bless them if that's their plan, they'll destroy marriage in any form in the US.

[former9thward]

13. Marriage is not needed for any of those.

Contracts can be made for anything. End of life directives have nothing to do with marriage. Why are progressives suddenly defending most conservative institution of all?

[Humanist_Activist]

20. I don't consider it a conservative institution, but a useful one, to bestow next of kin rights...

to a person you choose, the simplest, cheapest, and most reliable way possible, and it should be universal, for same sex or opposite sex couples.

Other methods are more expensive, less reliable, and less recognized, and hence, less universal, than marriage, its as simple as that.

[Raine1967]

34. Would you say that to out sisters and brothers in the DU LGBTQ community?

I personally find marriage equality a civil rights issue, and I;m going to leave it there.

It's NOT a conservative institution.

[New Orleans Strong]

37. Don't!

Don't you DARE say that advanced directives - even those signed and fucking having a raised seal - are EVEN considered in Louisiana. Please don't even say it. Please. The story is too sad -

[Fearless]

42. You are both right and completely and utterly wrong

You are right in that contracts can protect assets. However, those assets will be subject to legal pursuit by family members and taxation based on state laws.

In reality it has to do with much much more than this however. And in this you are staggeringly wrong. It has to do with two things:

1.) Marriage inequality is unconstitutional. It is treating some group of people as second class citizens.

2.) Marriage is NOT a conservative institution. It has been perverted by conservative groups to attain power. Power over women. Marriage has existed LONG before Christianity. Long before American conservatism and the rise of religious Puritanism and fanaticism. LONG BEFORE.

The idea of marriage is this:

Two people are validated in their love for each other by their friends, families, and the world at large. Denying anyone that validation is wrong. Ethically, morally, constitutionally, and legally. To us it signifies a huge benchmark in the effort to be accepted by society.

[former9thward]

66. Your history is off.

State sponsored marriage is very recent historically. It does not exist before Christianity. Marriage licences starting being issued in the 1600s. Before that a public declaration by a couple that they were married was accepted.

Don't try and make a strawman by bringing up marriage inequality. I am talking about state sponsored marriage no matter who it is between.

[Fearless]

71. There was marriage in Native American and Easter Societies.

They were state or "community" sponsored.

They also existed in Egypt.

I don't have my history wrong. I actually have a degree in it.

[kardonb]

56. okla...

the repuke party is fast becoming a BAD JOKE ! Or a new disease : bacterium republicanum ,or serial dementia .

[elleng]

4. What a good idea!!!

[jtuck004]

5. This is really revealing. If anyone thinks for a moment that your enemy wouldn't just as soon

burn the country down around us all if they thought there was a chance of you winning, take a look at this.

If they don't get their way they think everyone should just be dead. And they have not a moment's hesitation about it, regardless of how small or large the "thing" is. No different from the person that blow themselves up to kill complete strangers, as is anyone who works in a bipartisan fashion with them.

That's why it's so easy for things like this to come out of their mouths - it's a window into their soul.

[pangaia]

22. I like very much your comparison to people who blow themselves up.

Very perceptive...
This is why they really ARE American terrorists.

[RKP5637]

27. I fear people like this within the US more than "them" over there. It is a window into

their minds. They are totally fucked up and dangerous in so many ways. This, is just one more example.

[atreides1]

50. The enemy within

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
― Cicero

[lunasun]

57. +100 (or so BC) timeless truth !

[stg81]

60. these people are hateful, evil bigots. beyond redemption. period.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. Divorce lawyers won't like that one

If they're so pro-marriage, why don't they make divorce illegal???

[theHandpuppet]

58. Oklahoma has one of the highest divorce rates in the country

Go figure.

BTW, there was interesting article from the Huffington Post about the irony of red state divorce rates:

'Red' States Have Higher Divorce Rates Than 'Blue' States, And Here's Why
Posted: 01/21/2014
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/divorce-study_n_4639430.html

It may seem counterintuitive, but divorce rates are higher in religiously conservative "red" states than "blue" states, despite a Bible-based culture that discourages divorce.

In a new study titled "Red States, Blue States, and Divorce: Understanding the Impact of Conservative Protestantism on Regional Variation in Divorce Rates," which will be published later this month in the American Journal of Sociology, demographer and University of Texas at Austin professor Jennifer Glass set out to discover why divorce rates would be higher in religious states like Arkansas and Alabama -- which boast the second and third highest divorce rates, respectively -- but lower in more liberal states like New Jersey and Massachusetts.

It was previously thought that socioeconomic hardships in the South were largely to blame for high divorce rates, however Glass and her fellow researchers concluded that the conservative religious culture is in fact a major contributing factor thanks to "the social institutions they create" that "decrease marital stability."

Specifically, putting pressure on young people to marry sooner, frowning upon cohabitation before marriage, teaching abstinence-only sex education and making access to resources like emergency contraception more difficult all result in earlier childbearing ages and less-solid marriages from the get-go, Glass writes in the paper.... MORE

[neverforget]

7. They keep proving that Republican Party is nuts

Batshit insane actually.

[RKP5637]

28. Yep, the republican party now has all of the terrorists, religious nuts and wackos in one

party. In some ways it's convenient as they collectively demonstrate over and over again what a deranged and delusional party the republican party is. Frankly, I think it's a form of mental illness, yet stated as such. Short of that, it's evident many are misfiring on more than a few cylinders.

[uppityperson]

8. How does doing away with legal marriage "defend the US Constitution"?

[quakerboy]

44. They are getting wise to the fact that the constitution may protect everyone, not just straights.

In theory that could leave open the door for all or none, and he is claiming none is preferable to some. Roughly equivalent to doing away with public restrooms rather than integrating them for whites and nonwhites.

My guess is he is not actually for his proposal, but just trying to provoke a reaction among his constituents.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. It's the goats.

[MNBrewer]

10. How does that even work?

The state will pretend that the legal designation of marriage doesn't exist any more? It will amend all laws that impinge on the rights and responsibilities of married people? It will amend all child custody laws? Tax laws? Inheritance laws? No marriages from other states will be recognized as valid, and will be considered null-and-void in OK?

[RKP5637]

31. Republicans are incapable of deductive logical reasoning/decisions, so for the entire state it

really doesn't matter, It will just add to the F'ed-up-ness of OK.

[weissmam]

11. fool

[barbtries]

12. yeah right.

that's gonna fly.

[HockeyMom]

14. Fundies will be very happy

since Holy Matrimony is only performed in a church before god. ALL civil marriages are not real marriages anyway; gay or straight.

Do some research, or trolling, and you will hear this.

[former9thward]

15. Disappointing to see posters who call themselves progressive defending

the most ultra-conservative institution society has. I remember when feminists called marriage legalized rape. How far we have regressed. At least some of us.

[Raine1967]

29. What are you talking about?

Are you defending this tripe?

[former9thward]

64. I don't defend the institution of marriage.

Do you?

[Raine1967]

65. You called in conservative.

I defend equality under the law. Either you are being purposefully obtuse or you are against equality.

[former9thward]

67. I am opposed to state sponsored marriage.

For everybody. It is none of the state's business. You defend a conservative practice.

[Ahpook]

16. Can these bastards get crazier? :)

They just throw the BS out to see what sticks.

[rurallib]

17. hard to believe but I could go along with that

Let people do what they want in drawing up commitments to each other and get the government out of the interpersonal relations business. Marriage is mostly a religious institution anyway, at least in my opinion.
I saw a lecture many moons ago that stated the first state to regulate marriage was Alabama after the civil war. I think you can figure out why.

[defacto7]

18. They're in their death throes. n/t

Twitching, convulsing, gasping......

[rocktivity]

19. And what would be the difference between that and civil unions

which could then by recognized their church of their choice if they wish?


rocktivity

[stg81]

21. shockingly - I AGREE! The govt should recognize only civil unions

If you want a church marriage - go for it. But the government should ignore it. The only marriage that should be recognized by the government is a civil union between two people - get a license at the courthouse.

[RKP5637]

32. To me, religion has way too much baggage with marriage. I agree, let the civil unions

be done for legal affairs. Then, as a separate path, they can go off and do the marriage and religion bit only if wanted.

[JDPriestly]

41. In California, a civil wedding and a religious rite are two different things.

The pastor or priest fills out the form for the civil wedding and files it according to state law, but no one is required to have the religious wedding.

[RKP5637]

43. To me, that is excellent. We want to get married for legal purposes, but could care less

about the religious part.

[JDPriestly]

48. May be the same where you are. Check. Google it.

[riqster]

54. Ohio law cares not one bit about the religious aspect

We were married by a shaman. Perfectly legal.

[arcane1]

33. The government won't recognize a church wedding anyway.

[NastyRiffraff]

23. Not The Onion?

No? Okay, just another nutty Republican, who lately are out-Onioning The Onion.

[blkmusclmachine]

24. Ahhh, the beauty of home skoolin'

[Burf-_-]

25. just when i think TEXAS has won stupid....

BAM... my own home state.... out stupids them.... Gotta love that red river rivalry... GO SOONERS !! ....

[RKP5637]

45. I though KS might win at one time, but this sure puts OK far beyond KS. n/t

[RKP5637]

26. These people are absolute assholes. Why don't they suceed, maybe that would solve their

problems and allow them to have their totally fucked up state. We don't even drive through Oklahoma, we drive around it.

[Lint Head]

30. We don't wanna wedding date! We just wanna fornicate!

Rah rah sisk boom bah! No more Momma no more Pa! Oklahoma blah blah blah!

[watoos]

35. My guess is

they are drinking frack water.

[NoGOPZone]

36. that's one way of lowering the state's high divorce rate. nt

[niyad]

38. thank you for posting this. I reallllly needed the laugh.

of course, if all marriages are banned, that means no adultery, no illegitimate children, no marital rape exceptions, domestic violence treated as actual assault, etc., etc., yes??
guess marriage counselors, divorce attorneys, etc., would all have to find new lines of work. and what will that mean for wedding planners, wedding dress companies, bakeries, florists, not to mention city coffers?

[quakerboy]

46. The first half yes

Also, no divorce, a complete redefinition of custody issues, property concerns, etc.

But an end to marriage as a legal device doesn't end it as a social or religious custom. Baptisms and first communion and babys first snake handling all still go on unabated. Those jobs are fairly safe, I think.

[hrmjustin]

39. Wow, just wow!

[JDPriestly]

40. This would have interesting tax repercussions for the people of the state.

[freshwest]

49. He got this from Rand Paul:

Tea Party GOP Candidate Rand Paul Rails Against Same-Sex Marriage

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/tea-party-gop-candidate-rand-paul-rails-against-same-sex-marriage/politics/2010/10/16/13853

Rand Paul Wants To Abolish Department Of Education So Kids Don’t Have To Learn About ‘Two Mommies’

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/15/124465/paul-kids-moms/

This is another rant about Paul's views on gays, and everything.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/add-same-sex-marriage-to-the-list-of-things-rand-paul-doesnt-understand/

This link ncludes a *wonderful* video with Bryan Fischer's show! They sound almost reasonable. Bring the barf bag anyway.

Another video I posted on Fischer's support for Duck Dynasty shows Fischer's true love is Libertarianism. He began with a few Bible verses, waxed orgasmic on Libertarianism and then approved of Duck Dynasty's views.

The only links I can find that explain Rand Paul's method to deny gays the right to marriage are from RW sites, Rush, Freeperville, Fox. The plan is to keep marriage out of the tax code.

But you can see the background on what this man thinks and is doing. He's well schooled in his father's views, a full libertarian corporatist, but will get support among many who say they are liberal, I guess.

His ideas are from the Victorian era and will end democracy world wide. The only freedoms will be for the wealthy. He showed his desire for private militias in a video I posted, too. Sickening.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

51. You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of hate and crass but of stupidity

a journey into a horrific land whose boundaries are that of irrational thought. That's the signpost up ahead; your next stop...the Republican Zone.

(my apologies to Rod Serling)

[SoapBox]

52. Yes! Please run, run, RUN with this, Mr. Turner!

Oh...and some really sharp scissors too.

[jmowreader]

53. I can just see the veto message

Dear Rep. Turner.

Are you fucking nuts?

Love, Mary.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

55. "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party,...

and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

Barry Goldwater 1988)

[area51]

59. This just takes crazy

to a whole new level.

[Ash_F]

61. Ah..the old scorched earth strategy.

Impressive.

[tanyev]

62. Oh, so that's how same-sex marriage is going to destroy traditional marriage.

[Scuba]

63. He believes women should be owned, not married.

[Paladin]

68. Do it, Turner.

Learn for yourself how powerful, money-drenched, and well-connected the Wedding Industry is, even in Oklahoma.

[treestar]

69. The right wing Christians won't like that

Don't know who he thinks he will sell that too.

[L0oniX]

70. So what about all those old religious "living in sin" laws?

[KamaAina]

72. So they're the ones who are threatening the sanctity of marriage

[apnu]

73. I wonder how this goes with Rand Paul's comments on unwed mothers and benefits?

As see here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=709352

[Spitfire of ATJ]

74. Rename the state "Oklahomophobia".