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: 13
35
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Let us be real here.

The biggist voice in this thread against what is happening is one person using multiple accounts to post similar opinions and never tells the truth that this debate was started by a few gov. employees that have been working for yrs at their job in okla. and now to keep their job they are being forced into doing things they did not sign up for.

Revamping civil union laws ends this debate nd more people win in the end.

People aren't agreeing with you, so you're jumping on the sockpuppet excuse. Nice. Maybe just own up & admit no one thinks this is as huge an issue as you seem to think.

When all the feathers are settled back down, it's one of those "why fix what ain't broke" things. The government doesn't need to "rename" a legal contract to make the religious feel better, and the religious can learn to get over themselves.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
You know my stance on this, being a gay man and all, but honestly, that's a both sides of the coin type thing.

There are plenty of intolerant LGBT people who refuse to come to the middle with conservatives to put this issue to rest. We are arguing over a technically, that doesn't change a damn thing, other than how much it hurts your feelings on either side.


Intolerance swings in all directions and their points all tend to be irrational and irrelevant. I dislike an intolerant gay person bashing non-gays or a woman feminist bashing men just as much as I dislike the big name bigotry as well.


Case in point, Marriage/Civil Unions

With your quote in mind. Who cares what intolerant people want?

Canada has Marriage/Civil union laws that are equal but labelled differently. Works just fine for us, and nobody has their panties in a bunch over it.

~Tenth


I'm not as well versed with y'alls religious landscape as I am the US'. How fervent is your religious right?

I really just question the need to create a separate term for the same thing. It seems to me, that allows room for division when we should be coming together on this, but if it works who am I to question it?
edit on 26-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

I think you should reread that post and see what it says. You replied to it but did not address the content.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Nyiah

I think you should reread that post and see what it says. You replied to it but did not address the content.

Are you referring to civic employees not wanting to marry people who utilize the government service? They should lose their jobs, part of the work entails upholding laws for all there. For christ's sake, this isn't a pick & choose your customers private business setting.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I'm not as well versed with y'alls religious landscape as I am the US'. How fervent is your religious right?


Well this was done federally and the provinces were just told to follow suit. NB, the province I lived in, tried to have it appealed so many times, that they actually ran out of legal appeals.

Our religious right is very strong, but they do mostly keep to themselves because they know in a fight against something like this, they would loose.

But so would the LGBT on the other side, if they were pushing for what they want in the US.


It seems to me, that allows room for division when we should be coming together on this, but if it works who am I to question it?


I think that's the crux, that the perception is that it will be different, somehow less valuable etc. But a marriage is only as important as you think your own is, it's not defined by anybody else. Legally or otherwise.

But let's take the whole pot thing for example, me and you are eye to eye on that one. Many people said it would ruin Colorado. That's not the case right?

So I see it much the same as the pro LGBT crowd stating equal but different is not the same. Yes it is silly, it's only not the same if you allow a difference of words to harm your feelings.

Same for the religious folks who claim the same thing too though.

~Tenth



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah




Are you referring to civic employees not wanting to marry people who utilize the government service?


deadeyedick knows that isn't even an issue in this he just made it up to make a case. It is a false premise. This Oklahoma bill is just about religious control and is as un-American as you can get.

The only issue that has anything to do with gov employees has to do with state Rep. Sally Kern who filed a bill that, if passed, would make it legal for the state to terminate the salary of any public employee who issued a same-sex marriage license.

The bill submited by State Rep. Todd Russ clearly has sectarian motivations for proposing the bill, which violates the First Amendment. The bill would violate the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment by disenfranchising all marriages performed by non-religious celebrants and, possibly, religious celebrants who aren’t Christian or Jewish.

When he was asked about the fact his bill would restrict marriage to people of faith. Concerning non-believers he said.

“They don't have a spiritual basis for a marriage and don’t want to have a clergy member or a priest or someone involved in the spiritual aspect, then they can file an affidavit of common-law marriage.”

The guy is a prick and the only reason he even has a gov. job is because he ran unopposed the last three elections. That needs to be remedied next election.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

So the answer that is best for everyone in your mind is to force people to do things they are against or quit and to abolish all church power and the foundation of the country rather than to embrace a change that would eliminate all the problems assioated with the lgbt marriages by creating a civil union that would replace gov. marriage and let churches decide on an individual basis what marriages they would perform.

Your current stance is contridictory to your first post to me here. Perhaps you should only post when you are drinking? they say that drinking allows us to share our true feelings beyond the social constrains of the social pressures that shape us when we are sober.

Also you did not adress the weakness of the argument that creates the need for members to post like opinions under different accounts to try to give the view of popular opinion. It is border line mental to do such and even greater is the problem many have in even adressing what is taking place in the thread. I guess we only see what we want to see.
edit on 26-1-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

You guys do realize that there are denominations that would be happy to recognize gay/atheist couples?

On the theoretical level, I'm cool with getting the government out of marriage. Why should we let them dictate who can and can't get married? Don't restrict who can marry who, but pull the ability of government officials to marry people. Then let the churches and religious groups fight it out. There won't be much fighting, because everyone will go off to their own corner and get married by their denomination/sect/neighborhood.

If people want to let the government know they are married, they can send them a Christmas card.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Here have a read.
okla.

If you search county clerk gay marriage then you will find that all across the country the new laws are forcing the hand of current employees and in many cases causing them to choose between their christian views and their job.

A civil union law by the federal gov. would eleminate all the fighting but for most it is a war against religion and not a battle for equal rights for the most people possible.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

Here have a read.
okla.

If you search county clerk gay marriage then you will find that all across the country the new laws are forcing the hand of current employees and in many cases causing them to choose between their christian views and their job.

A civil union law by the federal gov. would eleminate all the fighting but for most it is a war against religion and not a battle for equal rights for the most people possible.
In all honestly, it should be a war against religion. Marriage should be a right for every single U.S. Citizen, no matter which set of naughty bits you fancy. And honestly, only the fundie christians believe in discriminating against "them gays" anyway. Most moderate christians I know are like "If they wanna be miserable in marriage like the rest of us, let 'em."

I don't understand why people still cling to these archaic worldviews. Have a religion is one thing, it's fine. You can practice whatever religion you like. But the practicing of that religion should NEVER be done at the expense of the freedoms of others.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Nyiah

I think you should reread that post and see what it says. You replied to it but did not address the content.

Are you referring to civic employees not wanting to marry people who utilize the government service? They should lose their jobs, part of the work entails upholding laws for all there. For christ's sake, this isn't a pick & choose your customers private business setting.


I am all for a private individual in a private business setting picking and choosing with whom or why they do business, however, I do agree with you--a taxpayer funded public servant has to follow the law and treat all taxpayers equally or find another line of work.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

Here have a read.
okla.

If you search county clerk gay marriage then you will find that all across the country the new laws are forcing the hand of current employees and in many cases causing them to choose between their christian views and their job.

A civil union law by the federal gov. would eleminate all the fighting but for most it is a war against religion and not a battle for equal rights for the most people possible.
In all honestly, it should be a war against religion. Marriage should be a right for every single U.S. Citizen, no matter which set of naughty bits you fancy. And honestly, only the fundie christians believe in discriminating against "them gays" anyway. Most moderate christians I know are like "If they wanna be miserable in marriage like the rest of us, let 'em."

I don't understand why people still cling to these archaic worldviews. Have a religion is one thing, it's fine. You can practice whatever religion you like. But the practicing of that religion should NEVER be done at the expense of the freedoms of others.


It should be a "right" only in that all consenting adults should have the right to engage in any contractual obligation they wish.

IMHO, the state should get out of the marriage business entirely and should recognize no union at all save whatever civil contracts the parties wish to draw up. The state's only role in this should be the maintenance of neutral and objective courts to settle disputes between citizens.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

If you search county clerk gay marriage then you will find that all across the country the new laws are forcing the hand of current employees and in many cases causing them to choose between their christian views and their job
.


That is a weak excuse.

What if a town building inspector, tasked with issuing building permits, finds out the homeowners who just applied are Adam and Steve? Does it go against his Christian views that because these two dudes live together that he cannot grant them a permit to build a new residence?





edit on 26-1-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Ok. I can see your point here. I haven't waded too deeply into this issue, though I have always been for equal marriage rights. You bring up an interesting way to think about things that I hadn't considered yet.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Nyiah


originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: Nyiah



I think you should reread that post and see what it says. You replied to it but did not address the content.


Are you referring to civic employees not wanting to marry people who utilize the government service? They should lose their jobs, part of the work entails upholding laws for all there. For christ's sake, this isn't a pick & choose your customers private business setting.




I am all for a private individual in a private business setting picking and choosing with whom or why they do business, however, I do agree with you--a taxpayer funded public servant has to follow the law and treat all taxpayers equally or find another line of work.


You may also agree that in creating such laws that cause employees to make that choice may not be the best option. If another solution is found that would be better? I get the need to follow orders but at the same time there should be the need to find common ground. Continuing on this path only fuels hate.

Q. Why are we doing this wrong?
A. Because it is our job to follow orders and hope that those above us find a better way.

You can do both.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

Here have a read.
okla.

If you search county clerk gay marriage then you will find that all across the country the new laws are forcing the hand of current employees and in many cases causing them to choose between their christian views and their job.

A civil union law by the federal gov. would eleminate all the fighting but for most it is a war against religion and not a battle for equal rights for the most people possible.
In all honestly, it should be a war against religion. Marriage should be a right for every single U.S. Citizen, no matter which set of naughty bits you fancy. And honestly, only the fundie christians believe in discriminating against "them gays" anyway. Most moderate christians I know are like "If they wanna be miserable in marriage like the rest of us, let 'em."

I don't understand why people still cling to these archaic worldviews. Have a religion is one thing, it's fine. You can practice whatever religion you like. But the practicing of that religion should NEVER be done at the expense of the freedoms of others.


It should be a "right" only in that all consenting adults should have the right to engage in any contractual obligation they wish.

IMHO, the state should get out of the marriage business entirely and should recognize no union at all save whatever civil contracts the parties wish to draw up. The state's only role in this should be the maintenance of neutral and objective courts to settle disputes between citizens.
To remove government from marriage would open the door for more blatant discrimination.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: deadeyedick



If you search county clerk gay marriage then you will find that all across the country the new laws are forcing the hand of current employees and in many cases causing them to choose between their christian views and their job

.




That is a weak excuse.



What if a town building inspector, tasked with issuing building permits, finds out the homeowners who just applied are Adam and Steve? Does it go against his Christian views that because these two dudes live together that he cannot grant them a permit to build a new residence?











I see you trying to make a point but the example is not relevant to the issue of legally binding two people together in marriage.

I could give an extreme example of county clerks being forced to kill people or quit. it is just not equatable in either example



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

Here have a read.
okla.

If you search county clerk gay marriage then you will find that all across the country the new laws are forcing the hand of current employees and in many cases causing them to choose between their christian views and their job.

A civil union law by the federal gov. would eleminate all the fighting but for most it is a war against religion and not a battle for equal rights for the most people possible.


Great article because it doesn't give your claim a single iota of credibility. The only one claiming clerks had concerns is the sack of crap Rep Todd Russ who is more than willing to violate both the 1st amendment and 14th amendment with his bill so thinking he would lie about something like that is an easy leap especially being the politician, ex-banker he is. Great morals that one?

Your article does say:



We spoke with some at the Oklahoma County courthouse who told us they had no problem with issuing same-sex marriages, they just do what the law says.


The one in that state who is trying to hurt the clerks is co-conspirator Rep. Sally Kern trying to pass a bill that would make it legal for the state to terminate the salary of any public employee who issued a same-sex marriage license.

If Rep Todd Russ gave a damn about the clerks he would be trying to shut down Rep. Sally Kern.

This has nothing to do with concern to clerks it is just about religious control and is un-American.
edit on 26-1-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I think that is narrow minded and false. It would do the opposite.

The free market will reflect the views of the people. Money has that effect.

If church a does not want to marry folks then church b wil. Same with the bakers and so on...



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

Here have a read.
okla.

If you search county clerk gay marriage then you will find that all across the country the new laws are forcing the hand of current employees and in many cases causing them to choose between their christian views and their job.

A civil union law by the federal gov. would eleminate all the fighting but for most it is a war against religion and not a battle for equal rights for the most people possible.
In all honestly, it should be a war against religion. Marriage should be a right for every single U.S. Citizen, no matter which set of naughty bits you fancy. And honestly, only the fundie christians believe in discriminating against "them gays" anyway. Most moderate christians I know are like "If they wanna be miserable in marriage like the rest of us, let 'em."

I don't understand why people still cling to these archaic worldviews. Have a religion is one thing, it's fine. You can practice whatever religion you like. But the practicing of that religion should NEVER be done at the expense of the freedoms of others.


It should be a "right" only in that all consenting adults should have the right to engage in any contractual obligation they wish.

IMHO, the state should get out of the marriage business entirely and should recognize no union at all save whatever civil contracts the parties wish to draw up. The state's only role in this should be the maintenance of neutral and objective courts to settle disputes between citizens.
To remove government from marriage would open the door for more blatant discrimination.


Directly the opposite. No politician or law would say who may or may not get married. The only role of the state would be to enforce civil contracts. If Adam and Steve, or Adam and Susan, or Adam, Steve, and Susan wanted to get married for a period of 10 years and made up a contract to that effect, the only thing government should do is make sure the contract they made is enforced.

So what if the Mormon Church does not want to marry gays, it is not the government's purview to make them.




top topics



 
35
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join