Oklahoma GOP wants to restrict marriage to people of faith

[LeatherCouch]

I lived in several towns in different areas of Oklahoma for the majority of my life, and culturally speaking South Eastern and South central is Southern and the rest of the state is midwestern.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_D ... klahoma%29

I know it's wikipedia, but if you google "Oklahoma little dixie" you'll find more.

As far as the Native American tribes, they are sovereign nations in OK with their own governments. I'd guess that in the unlikely event this ridiculous bill passes they will issue their own licenses.

[salex]

There is a place in Miami, OK that has long been known by people in parts of Kansas for quickie marriages. Because, back in the day when KS required blood tests (Not sure they do today), Oklahoma did not. And there was no waiting period for a marriage license. So, it became a place where people from KS (and possibly other areas) could and did elope. I am willing to bet that since for at least 40 years, Lavern's has been happily providing a minister to marry all comers, they would not start asking questions now. That said, they might well not marry gays, though if it were legal, they might-- I have not been in the market for a wedding for a long time, and never in the market for a gay wedding, so haven't researched Lavern's a a venue ; 0.

lavernsweddingchapel.com/

Must be 18 yrs. of age, have valid ID, no divorce pending.

Marriage License across street ........................ $50.00

Wedding/Pastor/Witnesses................................. $60.00

Totals.................................................................. $110.00

All less than l hour

[Cartmann99]

Texas covers a LOT of territory. In extremely broad brush strokes, deep east Texas is culturally part of the south -- and has a common border with Louisiana. West Texas is its own planet. Central and Southeast Texas were settled primarily by Germans, Austrians and Czechs. There was consternation when Texas declared for the confederacy in the Civil War -- these European immigrant groups were sometimes pacifists and other types of idealists and typically were against slavery.*

South Texas has very much an Hispanic flavor.

I don't know much about the Texas panhandle or the northern tier of Texas that has a common border with OK.

*If you think this is ancient history, as recently as 2000 this issue was being replayed in Comfort, TX: Plan for Memorial to Civil War Group Splits Texas Town Anew

Comfort is just down the road from Boerne, as in Boerne Christian Assembly.

:lol: Yes, it is. Just remember that there are a handful of us out here among the tumbleweeds and pumpjacks who aren't eight kinds of crazy. :P

[Cartmann99]

I lived in several towns in different areas of Oklahoma for the majority of my life, and culturally speaking South Eastern and South central is Southern and the rest of the state is midwestern.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_D ... klahoma%29

I know it's wikipedia, but if you google "Oklahoma little dixie" you'll find more.

As far as the Native American tribes, they are sovereign nations in OK with their own governments. I'd guess that in the unlikely event this ridiculous bill passes they will issue their own licenses.

My mother is from SE Oklahoma and I agree with your observation about that region of the state.

[Mama Mia]

Off -topic --- but I'm curious because of this discussion --

What are the differences between southern and mid-western culture?

[nolongerIFBx]

I had read about this proposed law and totally looked at it from the POV that it was a first step to getting the government out of the marriage business so that it wasn't their business to legalize a marriage. This seems like a very good idea to me; it seems like that would solve the disagreements over gay marriage, polygamous marriage, "I want to marry my toaster" marriages because the government would deal with individuals as individuals. DNA and the courts could determine parentage so marriage is not necessary to ensure children have two parents. But, obviously, there is more than one way to look at this bill and I think that is true with most bills. The person who proposes it sees it accomplishing their goal and the opponent follows it through to the bitter end and sees how that law could be abused.

[browncoatslytherin]

I had read about this proposed law and totally looked at it from the POV that it was a first step to getting the government out of the marriage business so that it wasn't their business to legalize a marriage. This seems like a very good idea to me; it seems like that would solve the disagreements over gay marriage, polygamous marriage, "I want to marry my toaster" marriages because the government would deal with individuals as individuals. DNA and the courts could determine parentage so marriage is not necessary to ensure children have two parents. But, obviously, there is more than one way to look at this bill and I think that is true with most bills. The person who proposes it sees it accomplishing their goal and the opponent follows it through to the bitter end and sees how that law could be abused.

the only thing would be how to determine if someone is eligible for certain spousal benefits. if there is no legal recognition of marriage, how would a company or agency be able to determine if someone really is someone else's spouse?

[Sundaymorning]

the only thing would be how to determine if someone is eligible for certain spousal benefits. if there is no legal recognition of marriage, how would a company or agency be able to determine if someone really is someone else's spouse?

You can find solutions. Around here, many companies voluntarily offer spousal benefits for people who have been in a commited relationship (gay or straight) for 5 years or more. Courts have also begun to recogise that marriage and its special laws doesn't cover many peoples real life situation anymore, and have begun to rule accordingly (as far as they can, they still have to obey the laws of course).

[browncoatslytherin]

You can find solutions. Around here, many companies voluntarily offer spousal benefits for people who have been in a commited relationship (gay or straight) for 5 years or more. Courts have also begun to recogise that marriage and its special laws doesn't cover many peoples real life situation anymore, and have begun to rule accordingly (as far as they can, they still have to obey the laws of course).

well, that's great that company recognizes that (i'm not being sarcastic, it really is cool) but in order for that to work, all companies would need to recognize that, which doesn't sound like something they'd do voluntarily unless...there was a law...

can you give specific examples as to the rulings you allude to? if they're what i'm thinking of, there's a lot of struggle that some spouses have to go through in order to be recognized, bordering on the "not worth it" territory.

[Childless]

My concern would be how insurance companies would handle insuring a family if there was no recognition of marriage. Right now, my husband is not working. Since we are married, he is covered under my insurance plan. Without that marriage license, he would have to get his own policy. That would mean paying for two insurance policies on one income. We wouldn't be able to survive. Furthermore, without a DNA test, how could I prove my children belong to my husband? Would they automatically be covered under my insurance plan even if my husband's plan was better? Would people be responsible for shelling out the money for these DNA tests?

Marriage is so imbedded in our society, that it would be a mess to untangle it. I would rather see everyone enter civil unions for legal purposes and leave "marriage" for the religious folks. That way, they have their term and can feel good about it, but gays/non-religious people can still get all the legal benefits. If you want your partnership to be legal, you must have a civil license, but an actual marriage ceremony is not needed.

[polecat]

I had read about this proposed law and totally looked at it from the POV that it was a first step to getting the government out of the marriage business so that it wasn't their business to legalize a marriage. This seems like a very good idea to me; it seems like that would solve the disagreements over gay marriage, polygamous marriage, "I want to marry my toaster" marriages because the government would deal with individuals as individuals. DNA and the courts could determine parentage so marriage is not necessary to ensure children have two parents. But, obviously, there is more than one way to look at this bill and I think that is true with most bills. The person who proposes it sees it accomplishing their goal and the opponent follows it through to the bitter end and sees how that law could be abused.

Marriage is a legal contract. Sure, some people also see it as a sacrament/covenant/commitment, but stripped of everything else, it is a legal contract that has certain protections and benefits for both parties, and as such, it is in the government's domain.

[salex]

I had read about this proposed law and totally looked at it from the POV that it was a first step to getting the government out of the marriage business so that it wasn't their business to legalize a marriage. This seems like a very good idea to me; it seems like that would solve the disagreements over gay marriage, polygamous marriage, "I want to marry my toaster" marriages because the government would deal with individuals as individuals. DNA and the courts could determine parentage so marriage is not necessary to ensure children have two parents. But, obviously, there is more than one way to look at this bill and I think that is true with most bills. The person who proposes it sees it accomplishing their goal and the opponent follows it through to the bitter end and sees how that law could be abused.

Depending on which article I've read, it sounds like the state won't issue the license, but will take it after the wedding (ie, it says something about submitting it to a court clerk) but who knows. I think for now it is all saber rattling.

[Sundaymorning]

well, that's great that company recognizes that (i'm not being sarcastic, it really is cool) but in order for that to work, all companies would need to recognize that, which doesn't sound like something they'd do voluntarily unless...there was a law...

can you give specific examples as to the rulings you allude to? if they're what i'm thinking of, there's a lot of struggle that some spouses have to go through in order to be recognized, bordering on the "not worth it" territory.

Well, they for example count longterm cohabitation partners in some points as "einfache Gesellschaft" which for example can give the one partner who has been staying at home and doing the household while the other was out working substancial financial benefits if they separate.

If someone kills your partner, you can sue them for compensation for personal suffering (the wording of this particular law isn't quite clear if it also covers non-married partners, but the highest court has decided that it does).

If your partner is in hospital, a new law gives you many rights for things like visitation and even making medical decisions for them, even if you aren't married but "just" cohabitating.

Of course, in many areas, you are still screwed if you aren't married to your partner (except in some cases of social security, there you actually get more if you aren't married but just living together).

As for those spousal benefits: you could make better laws where everyone could just name the one person they are living with. Of course, people who are in a long-term relationship should (and many already do) make a cohabitation contract where you should settle stuff like what happens with "spousal benefits" if you separate, if one partner has to pay the other alimony and so on.

With the marriage laws like they are now, many people are stuck in situations which doesn't really respresent their actual living situation anymore, but since they fear divorce (costs a lot of money, Catholics are screwed anyway, you get the sometimes still disdained official martial status "divorced" and so on), they don't dare to change it.

[Mama Mia]

My concern would be how insurance companies would handle insuring a family if there was no recognition of marriage. Right now, my husband is not working. Since we are married, he is covered under my insurance plan. Without that marriage license, he would have to get his own policy. That would mean paying for two insurance policies on one income. We wouldn't be able to survive. Furthermore, without a DNA test, how could I prove my children belong to my husband? Would they automatically be covered under my insurance plan even if my husband's plan was better? Would people be responsible for shelling out the money for these DNA tests?

Marriage is so imbedded in our society, that it would be a mess to untangle it. I would rather see everyone enter civil unions for legal purposes and leave "marriage" for the religious folks. That way, they have their term and can feel good about it, but gays/non-religious people can still get all the legal benefits. If you want your partnership to be legal, you must have a civil license, but an actual marriage ceremony is not needed.

Really the only time marriage as a legal entity has come up for me is in federal situations -- tax filing status, potentially social security benefits.

In day to day life -- my sister covered her boyfriend under her insurance as a " domestic partner" . For insurance they just had to prove they were living together. I think it was a copy of an utility bill. I'm not sure but I think that's a state law , where I live.

My husband and I lived together and raised our kids for a very long time before we got married. We had a blended family. I had been married to my older children's father. He was never married to his older children's mother. We were un married when we had our child together.

There were really no differences in the way any of the paperwork was handled in those situations. No DNA tests were required for the birth certificate or school enrollment or kid pick ups or any of that. We were on benefits for awhile and because we had a child together and lived together our income was calculated like for any two parent married family. The child support he paid to his ex was calculated the same even though they were never married. When they had a custody dispute they handled it in court the same way . We presented as a family unit and weren't treated any differently than if we were married. Both of us would fill out kids school paperwork, take them to the doctors etc.

The only thing that changed when we got married was that we were able to put all the kids on the better of our two insurances ( that was before the domestic partner option was available ) and it changed our federal tax filing status . In our particular case it actually raised what we paid, but I know that's unusual.

In some cases, for example the health insurance case above with one working and one non working partner -- if insurance wasn't available the non-working partner is often eligible for state coverage -- because they are considered to have no income. Obviously not the best way to go. But really, it tend to come down to employment based health insurance and how everything in U.S life revolves around that .

[Sundaymorning]

Marriage is a legal contract. Sure, some people also see it as a sacrament/covenant/commitment, but stripped of everything else, it is a legal contract that has certain protections and benefits for both parties, and as such, it is in the government's domain.

The problem is that most people don't just see marriage as a legal contract. I mean, there are, basically speaking, two types of marriage, the civil one and the religious one. But many people don't make the distinction, most have some sentimental feeling regarding the matter, and almost everybody hates and fears divorce and the consequences that come with it.

When is comes to the word "marriage" some people just loose all their marbles and aren't able to think rationally anymore. Also, many don't want to get married cause they don't want to "conform" the rules of society, many fear getting married cause of family troubles and so on.

If you don't want to entirely privatise marriage, I think France has found a good solution: pacte civil de solidarité (PACS). It was originally ment for gay couples, but it's mostly used by straight couples. It is basically a civil union which offers many benefits of a civil marriage, but also offers a bit more freedom.

[Cleopatra7]

I think that religious conservatives freak out over civil marriage for same-sex couples because they fear (quite rightly) that government-sanctioned same-sex marriage will legitimate homosexuality and make it more difficult for them to be openly anti-LGBT. The law has a pedagogical effect in that most people assume that what is illegal is "bad" and what is legal is "good." Laws have a deterrent effect in the sense that average person who views him or herself as law-abiding will tend to view people who break laws as "bad," because "good people" follow rules and laws. This is why Orson Scott Card said that anti-sodomy laws needed to stay on the books, even if they weren't actually enforced, since it would cast a shadow on LGBT people who dared to live openly. However, if sodomy (however that's defined) is legal, then that implies that homosexuality isn't wrong, and if the state legitimizes same-sex marriage, then that implies that same-sex relationships are equal in value to those of straight couples, both of which is anathema to religious conservatives. It's harder to say that homosexuality is evil, an "abomination," sinful, etc. when the government is giving Adam and Steve's a marriage license, which is tacit approval of same-sex unions.

[browncoatslytherin]

all the examples listed of how to get around not being married and utilizing benefits of any kind, so far that i've read here, are either employer/insurance company-specific or state specific. not every employer or insurance company or state has the same policies. what you can do in one state, you won't be able to do in another. what you can claim for one employer or insurance company, isn't accepted at another. if legal marriage for contract purposes was done away with, we would have to have a federal-level law in order to standardize how everything is handled, because i can guarantee you that short of a new law, not everybody will be on board.

and i have a feeling if something like that were introduced, it would be treated similarly to the aca. people would protest the gubmint gettin all up in their business, certain religious organizations (and businesses run by religious people, like hobby lobby) would try to claim an exemption, already crowded courts would be piled on with lawsuits, etc.

ultimately, i think everybody should have the right to live however they please, as long as they don't harm anyone (sensibilities not included in that). if they choose to not marry at all and just cohabit, then let them do that. if they choose to have a civil marriage only, let them do that. if they want to go the whole hog and have everything, no matter what their orientation or religious affiliation, they should be allowed to do so. period.

[Trynn]

Do people just come up with these bills for attention? They know there's no way this law could ever pass....

[doggie]

Do people just come up with these bills for attention? They know there's no way this law could ever pass....

got to look like they are doing something for their cause

[LittleOleMe]

got to look like they are doing something for their cause

I think this is similar to Santorum's desire to ban pornography. It's just for attention to make their constituents think they are hard core. That's it.

[salex]

I think this is similar to Santorum's desire to ban pornography. It's just for attention to make their constituents think they are hard core. That's it.

Holier than thou is a race that never ends and has no limits.

[polecat]

The problem is that most people don't just see marriage as a legal contract. I mean, there are, basically speaking, two types of marriage, the civil one and the religious one. But many people don't make the distinction, most have some sentimental feeling regarding the matter, and almost everybody hates and fears divorce and the consequences that come with it.

When is comes to the word "marriage" some people just loose all their marbles and aren't able to think rationally anymore. Also, many don't want to get married cause they don't want to "conform" the rules of society, many fear getting married cause of family troubles and so on.

If you don't want to entirely privatise marriage, I think France has found a good solution: pacte civil de solidarité (PACS). It was originally ment for gay couples, but it's mostly used by straight couples. It is basically a civil union which offers many benefits of a civil marriage, but also offers a bit more freedom.

I live in a state with both civil unions and marriage equality. And still people choose to get married religiously, civilly, whatever, and some choose civil unions. Whatever works for each couple -- and that's their business, not mine and certainly not a church's.

[Black Aliss]

I can honestly say that in no way has it ever crossed my mind to consider Oklahoma "Southern." Texas is kind-of Southern but Oklahoma is midwestern.

Which helps explain why people in Minnesota no longer want their state to be called Midwestern, rather "The North".

[Black Aliss]

Do people just come up with these bills for attention? They know there's no way this law could ever pass....

I hope it passes! Make Oklahoma the laughing stock of much of the rest of the country. Give business owners second and third thoughts about locating or re-locating there. Dry up their convention business and whatever tourist industry they have. Discourage anyone with a brain and a heart from moving there. You can't fix stupid but perhaps it can be starved out.

[browncoatslytherin]

Which helps explain why people in Minnesota no longer want their state to be called Midwestern, rather "The North".

minnesota is pretty much the canada of the united states :lol: