patrick.net

As long as divorce and outsized child support laws are not done by the state-fine. Mormons, the gay church, the demonic churches, can all have their weddings there by the religious laws??

Nothing like faux outrage over a faux institution. Progressivesecularhumanist my ass. Go fight some real atrocities around the world or bring food and teach starving kids in Africa.

mell says

Go fight some real atrocities around the world or bring food and teach starving kids in Africa.

You mean instead of sending food to African nations where atrocities are committed on an hourly basis, only to have the War General of the hour seize that relief shipment and use it to feed his growing army of kids with AK-47's?
I think Bill Gates has already supplied the guerrillas with enough food to last 3 winters. But thanks for the nice gesture.

CaptainShuddup says

mell says

Go fight some real atrocities around the world or bring food and teach starving kids in Africa.

You mean instead of sending food to African nations where atrocities are committed on an hourly basis, only to have the War General of the hour seize that relief shipment and use it to feed his growing army of kids with AK-47's?

I think Bill Gates has already supplied the guerrillas with enough food to last 3 winters. But thanks for the nice gesture.

Sending aid is always problematic because it lands in the hands of the warlords or the bureaucrats of said larger organizations. But there are smaller organizations who set up tents right there and do some good stuff, such as teaching them how to become non-reliant on foreign "aid" while providing them with food, shelter and knowledge in the meantime. Quite a few are religious or missionaries. It's easy to become cynical and just forget about those kids entirely. Also peace corps is not too bad - definitely better than armchair quarterbacking about huge "humanist" issues because some folks cannot get married.

mell says

Quite a few are religious or missionaries. It's easy to become cynical and just forget about those kids entirely.

Yes it is, when you have international celebrities crapping on those missionaries work, by taking a hands off approach. Like Bono raising billions sending over a a few million in food aid, with crossed fingers hopping it gets to where it's going. I saw a documentary on Netflix a few months back. Explaining how those European Celebs who are philanthropist for pure selfish reasons like self esteem. Have never EVER once, asked the actual people living on the ground in those conflict and war torn regions, what do they need with those funds. Food and weapons are on the bottom of that list, because they know it will just go to feed and arm the Warlords.

From the article: "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 doesn’t want these workers put in the position of having to condone or facilitate same-sex marriage."

What a moron. On the bright side, religions are not all the same, and the legislation might (contrary to his intent) advantage the many that do perform same-sex weddings: Metropolitan Community Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Churches, most Episcopal Churches, reform synagogues, many more. Tough luck for the Moronic Cult, jihadi mosques, Our Lady of the Sacred Ostritch, and whatever Bible Basher Baptist sect Russ probably came from.

mell says

peace corps is not too bad

I agree with that, in fact Peace Corps can do a lot of good, but one of the biggest problems in Africa is the religious missionaries doing misguided charity work. The reason Ebola got its name was from an epidemic spread by a Christian mission near the Ebola river. Evangelicals have given Ugandans yet another reason to kill each other. That place has enough troubles already without missionaries adding to them. Parachuting "aid" into some remote culture that you know nothing about is not a good formula. Charity begins at home, next help your neighbors, your town, etc. And, in America, that does include helping people get the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by our Constitution.

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.

This asshole wants to live in a theocracy, so ship his ass to Afghanistan. Ten years living in a Muslim tribe under Sharia Law will make him respect the separation of church and state.

sbh says

Why didn't racists in the 50s and 60s think of this? They could have passed legislation banning any government from building water fountains in public places.

Some of them did, actually. Prior to Brown v Board of Education, many southern municipalities had officially segregated swimming pools. After the Supreme Court declared segregation unconstitutional, some decided to close the pools or turn them over to a "Christian" organization that would keep them segregated. The issue went all the way to the Supreme Court, which said you can't force a municipality to operate a swimming pool.

Marriage under God ? Wow!

sbh says

They could have passed legislation banning any government from building water fountains in public places. No water fountains in parks, state capitols, monuments, state or federal. Then they could have passed the defense of private water fountains rights act.

Libertarianism has been a great boon to the conservative movement. After 2003, I began to hear "the government should have no business in the matter of marriage" from many a white male libertarian. It was the moment when they saw they were going to lose - that they couldn't have the state force this belief of thiers on others.

I have quietly hoped that hating birth-control might lead to the end of tying health insurance to the employer, but we shall see.

Why don't more businesses move to Oklahoma, with its low taxation and small government (unless you want to sell cold beer, or alcohol on Sundays)?

HydroCabron says

Why don't more businesses move to Oklahoma

You mean like this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uPdkhMVdMQ

From http://watchdog.org/64814/ok-surgery-centers-cash-only-approach-offers-transparency-efficiency-affordability

"As a practical matter, the center’s approach leads to patient bills that can be laid out, with all costs listed, on a single page. The actual cost of the center’s procedures is sometimes one-tenth, and often around one-sixth, of the price at a traditional hospital.

The Reasontv video, shown at the Capitol briefing, highlighted some of the most dramatic price differentials, including for a “complex bilateral sinus procedure.” At the Surgery Center, the all-inclusive price is $5,885. At nearby Integris Hospital the price in 2010 was $33,505 – but that did not include either the surgeon’s or the anesthesiologist’s fees."

Can Voodoo faith have their marraiges too?

well, it is kind of interesting.

why exactly is the state involved in marriages at all?

why exactly is the state involved in marriages at all?

Inasmuch as there are tax benefits/penalties, spousal rights, and estates/trusts tied up in this stuff, the state gets itself involved.

so why should any of that be the province of the state?

so why should any of that be the province of the state?

It's a fair question, and Dan has pointed out also that the recognition of marriage discriminates against single persons, but that isn't the issue Russ is trying to address. Russ is trying to favor religious marriage, and create a burden for atheists (who would have to file affidavits of common law marriage). Russ hides that behind protecting the purported religious bias of unnamed clerks against same-sex couples. Basically Russ is trying to present himself as either a Christian martyr or Christian champion, a latter day David (without mentioning David's relationship with Jonathan).

As for why the state should pay attention to marriage at all, thousands of federal and state government program decisions hinge on the recognition of marriage. These programs have proliferated for more than a century in all of the western countries. Each program has its own reasons. For example, Social Security provides spousal benefits on the theory that both spouses contributed to the earnings on which Social Security taxes were paid, i.e. the earning spouse who went to work every morning and the 'non-earning' spouse who made breakfast and dinner and kept house, clipped coupons, put literally the food on the table, etc. A larger reason for that is to prevent elderly widows from ending up homeless wards of the state. Really a lot of government policy, including especially marriage, is motivated by the desire to prevent people from becoming homeless wards of the state. Joe Six Pack went to work five days a week, but drank all his money every weekend, so he had no savings and died of liver failure, now what do we do about the widow Jane? Social Security provided an answer to that question, but it needed to be limited in a way that could be administered efficiently: if they were married, Jane may be eligible for Social Security based on the taxes Joe paid during the marriage.

so why should any of that be the province of the state?

because it is a big cash cow for the state. Just imagine the billions of dollars in budgets that would have to be slashed if the state got out of the marriage/alimony/child support business. How many employees would have to find a real job ?? How many judges won't egt their 200k+ a year pensions. How many divorce lawyers would lose their income. how many feminazis would have to practice what they preach and get a job.

Philistine says

why exactly is the state involved in marriages at all?

Inasmuch as there are tax benefits/penalties, spousal rights, and estates/trusts tied up in this stuff, the state gets itself involved.

I don't think this law prevents same sex couples from getting the same benefits.

Mark says

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.

StupidLaw.

lostand confused says

As long as divorce and outsized child support laws are not done by the state-fine. Mormons, the gay church, the demonic churches, can all have their weddings there by the religious laws??

Atheists too. Don't they say atheism is a religion?

sbh says

I'm an atheist, married for 25 years to a woman who is agnostic. I don't see what the dog in the fight is for unless it's all about limiting the rights of others through a contorted misrepresentation of oneself.

Those religious idiots are fighting a losing battle.

lostand confused says

so why should any of that be the province of the state?

because it is a big cash cow for the state. Just imagine the billions of dollars in budgets that would have to be slashed if the state got out of the marriage/alimony/child support business. How many employees would have to find a real job ?? How many judges won't egt their 200k+ a year pensions. How many divorce lawyers would lose their income. how many feminazis would have to practice what they preach and get a job.

Very true. In fact federal and state government would have to dole out much much more welfare support cash for divorced wives if the judge couldn't simply slap all the financial burden onto the man (and in some cases onto the woman). That again would bring the government even faster towards bankruptcy. That's why less and less men get married, but fear not, the institution of marriage can be saved by an influx of gay couples eager to pick up the slack. Now on average theirs is far less often based on monogamy (see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0), but sadly we're in the process of dismantling any cultural traditions in the name of cultural marxism anyways. And in that case I'd vote for the only fair solution, to abolish government sponsored marriage altogether since it is nothing else but yet another government program these days. Just have civil unions and let couples get married by the churches of their faith for their spiritual marriage license.

sbh says

Mell, how may votes do you think the libertarians would loose if the faux libertarians were weeded out? By faux libertarians I'm talking about the conservatives that cleave to libertarianism as a tactical front against the Democratic party. You're pretty much a purist without the conservative social agenda, and we can disagree about how pure Rand Paul is in that respect, but what is your assessment of the libertarian foothold within the opposition party.

It's definitely a too small part of pure Libertarians for now, so they depend to a certain degree on one of the major parties support and people sympathizing with them without being true Libertarians (like many Republicans). But even the Libertarian party itself had candidates such as Dennis in San Francisco who were sympathetic towards the bailouts, so there aren't many purist candidates either, Ron Paul was probably one of the very few. Rand is definitely less purist than his dad, but it's still good enough for me. I'd rather have the new president enhance relations and commerce with Russia than with Iran, and Rand definitely has some good ties to Russia.