It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

lawmakers declare ‘all-out assault’ on marriage for same-sex and atheist couples in Oklahoma

page: 1
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+20 more 
posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
www.rawstory.com...




Oklahoma Republicans are fighting the legalization of marriage equality in their state with a number of bills restricting same-sex or atheist couples from being able to wed.

The Daily Oklahoman reported that, under one bill submitted by state Rep. Todd Russ (R), only “an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination” would be allowed to sign marriage certificates.

The measure, House Bill 1125, would bar county judges from performing weddings, and local clerks would not be allowed to issue marriage licenses. Couples are also allowed to file affadavits for common law marriages if they do not want their weddings performed by a church official. However, as KSWO-TV reported, Oklahoma does not currently recognize common law marriages.


Atheist too.....?

Legislating morality...now that's a good idea!
Coming from the party that is constantly complaining about too much legislation.
What's the word for that...starts with an "H"




“Bills like this aren’t really about religious freedom, but about control,” the statement read. “Russ and his allies in the legislature want to legally enforce a definition of marriage that has spiritual significance to them, and they find the idea that marriage means other, equally important things to different people intolerable. State legislatures, however, don’t exist to pass doctrinal mandates.”


perhaps Sinclair Lewis had it right when he said....

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross"
edit on 24-1-2015 by olaru12 because: %#^hr67



+28 more 
posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12


Jebus H Christ, why do people still want to be on the other side of this?

Let them get married!


+21 more 
posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: olaru12


Jebus H Christ, why do people still want to be on the other side of this?

Let them get married!


The Right claims to champion freedom but deep down they want a Theocracy so bad they can taste it.
Total control in the bedroom, our bodies, and every facet of our lives....

God help us!
edit on 24-1-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)


+13 more 
posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Let me get this straight.

Because I don't buy into any particular religion's mythology, I should be barred from ever being married? Really? The gays not deserving the same legally protected rights under a marriage contract is bad enough, but atheists are bad now, too?

Maybe the Oklahoma republicans backing this should just piss off & mind their own P's & Q's.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Great another banker turned politician wants to legislate morality by pulling some sneaky backhanded crap. He was the only choice on the ballot where he was elected he ran unopposed since 2010.

Under his plan, a religious official would be required to sign a couple’s marriage certificate so separation of church and state how does that work again?

If that does go through we are going to need some more churches of the flying spaghetti monster in Oklahoma to perform marriages.
edit on 24-1-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
This comment will be unpopular, i am an atheist before i speak

This actually makes more sense to have atheists included , same sex because its not approved of in close minded ancient religions

why does it have to be marriage? why not civil partnerships , state marriage's etc ...

If they say no on the grounds that is against their Religion then surely not believing in the religion at all should also barr someone? under the same grounds?

I am not in favor of this but i am gonna play devils advocate on the church side with this one..
It makes more sense than most of the arguments made previously.

Q


+3 more 
posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

Cause why does it need to be called something different?

I saw a great picture of a church sign, it may have been fake but it was from an episcopalian church.

Said something to the nature of " Ya don't let same sex marriage ruin the sanctity of your 3rd or 4th marriage"

Divorce is against their religion, should they not add divorces to this?



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12




Legislating morality...now that's a good idea!


Mean like that 'fair share' snip ?

Mean like how we ended up with the ACA ?

Mean like how we ended up with 70 years of gun control ?

There's more.

Oh yeah I see the GD hypocrisy.

I love the EPIC double standard.

When it comes to 'gay' rights. Marriage equality.

Then the same people feigning outrage of that are silent.

On gun owner rights,banker rights,corporate rights etc.

Call me apathetic to gay 'rights'.

Because it is nothing more than GD selective outrage.


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

Ask the government, why it's not called the same thing.

What it boils down to is pretty simple.

The Government, created a service, called marriage. It provides benefits to people who enter into this contract, or service with the state and or Fed Gov.

Under US law, without any kind of SCOTUS ruling or anything, the gov CANNOT discriminate against people when it comes to Services offered by said government.

If they want to keep offering Marriage, and collecting their taxes and giving benefits etc, then they have NO choice to allow any law abiding, consenting party of two adults, to participate.

Regardless of religion, gender or sexual orientation.

So it does need to be called the same thing, because you are accessing a government service.

~Tenth



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quantum_Squirrel
This comment will be unpopular, i am an atheist before i speak

This actually makes more sense to have atheists included , same sex because its not approved of in close minded ancient religions

why does it have to be marriage? why not civil partnerships , state marriage's etc ...

If they say no on the grounds that is against their Religion then surely not believing in the religion at all should also barr someone? under the same grounds?

I am not in favor of this but i am gonna play devils advocate on the church side with this one..
It makes more sense than most of the arguments made previously.

Q


Why stop with just homosexuals and atheist? Perhaps they should include Jews, Gypsys, poles, physically and mentally disabled and all those religiously inferior. Does this sound familiar?



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Wait. You mean people actually live in Oklahoma? all this time I thought it was just like an empty space that someone decided to name to keep it from feeling lonely.

I joke. But really, this proposal is not intended to succeed - its proponents certainly won't cry if it DOES, but it's simply there to clog up the pipes, throw some more money at themselves, and give 'red meat" to their hateful base, while knowing that it'll be knocked down in the courts (as it should) - which lets these same nutjobs cater to their bases by howling about "legislating from the bench."



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
More distraction from the pertinent problems facing mankind...including Oklahomans.....
This # has got to go.........



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

There is no greater force than an idea whose time has come.

- Victor Hugo


This isn't a battle worth fighting. It is going to happen and besides who logically wouldn't agree that letting their fellow Americans get married is the right thing to do...especially when it comes to their rights as a married couple? That being said...I still reserve the right to find the idea of two men together in a sexual way disgusting.
edit on 2015/1/24 by Metallicus because: eta



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus




That being said...I still reserve the right to find the idea of two men together in a sexual way disgusting.



I agree with this as well, I can't stand when movies or shows throw in two dudes kissing.
Not cause I think they are throwing an agenda at me, just don't like to see it.

As for women, I am a pig and I'll leave it at that



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Maybe the only answer for you folks is to elect nothing but atheists and agnostics into public representative positions.

That seems to be the only way you're ever going to get a truly secular government running the show.

Radical theists in your country seem to have an agenda on their hands and it looks like their willing to go to any lengths to try to make it come to fruition. They're probably hoping that if they pound hard enough and long enough, something will eventually give.

These people are desperate and it's up to you to get them out of any type of position where they can have any sort of influence on the rest of the country.

These people are slowing chipping away at your freedoms... Even when they're not succeeding in getting their theocratic laws passed, they continue to succeed by clogging up the pipelines (as one other poster pointed out) which results in your country falling behind other 1st world nations when it comes to progressing forward in a 21st century world.

Just my $.02



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Ma'am, I am forced to agree. I scarcely consider most lawmakers human. More of an embodiment of greed. I have faith, though. Some day people will realize how ridiculous it is chastise a person for race, creed, religion, or sexual preference. I had hoped that we had entered into an age of such understanding. However, now the politicians need to divert our eyes from the crimes they are committing and hiding from us. SOOOOOO here we go again with gay bashing, Islam bashing, hell even atheist bashing.



a reply to: CranialSponge




posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   


“Oklahoma voted overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage, and yet the Supreme Court stuck it down our throats,” Russ said, referring to the high court’s decision last October not to intervene after a federal court judge struck down Question 711.

Voters approved the marriage equality ban at the polls in November 2004, but District Court Judge Terence C. Kern criticized it as being “an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit.”

Looks like the State Legislators are just satisfying the voters ?





Russ said the bill was designed to protect officials from being put in a position where they had to condone same-sex marriages.

Maybe some "officials" think it would be against their freedom of religion ?



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

The Government, created a service, called marriage. It provides benefits to people who enter into this contract, or service with the state and or Fed Gov.

Under US law, without any kind of SCOTUS ruling or anything, the gov CANNOT discriminate against people when it comes to Services offered by said government.

If they want to keep offering Marriage, and collecting their taxes and giving benefits etc, then they have NO choice to allow any law abiding, consenting party of two adults, to participate.

Regardless of religion, gender or sexual orientation.

So it does need to be called the same thing, because you are accessing a government service.

~Tenth


Not true.

The government legally defined the status called "marriage" as between a man and woman.

Any man is free to participate. Any women is free to participate.

There is no discrimination against any individual.

What's limited is the choice of who one can marry. One cannot marry two people at the same time. One cannot marry an immediate family member. One cannot marry their dog.

Limiting the definition is not excluding anybody from participating in the service, just their choice.

Not saying I agree. Just pointing out the legal argument.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

And making laws is how you express your freedom of religion?
Come on now, I know you know that is not the way,

I don't see why they need to make a law so they don't have to condone it, that is just ridiculous
edit on thSat, 24 Jan 2015 15:45:25 -0600America/Chicago120152580 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge


These people are slowing chipping away at your freedoms... Even when they're not succeeding in getting their theocratic laws passed, they continue to succeed by clogging up the pipelines (as one other poster pointed out) which results in your country falling behind other 1st world nations when it comes to progressing forward in a 21st century world.




That's the whole Idea to turn back the clock and not progress into the 21st century. The Christian Right wing see's Science, Technology, education, and progress as something inspired by Satan himself and to be avoided at all cost. They are a strong political force, extremely well funded and supported by some very strong media influences like Rush Limbaugh and the Fox network. They said "it can't happen here" but I see disturbing signs everywhere. Even the direction of ATS confirms what I see in the future. In the not to distant future, I see people sneeking across your border to escape a new Holocaust.

I pray that the above is just the ranting of a mad paranoid but if you listen to the voices of the hate filled Right on ATS and AM radio; I think you will see what I mean.


edit on 24-1-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join