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: 16
35
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

So much time and money could be saved if we could put the war on religion aside and help the most people not just our talking points.


Then why are people, with fundamental religious bents, trying to pass laws post facto?




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

So then why the hell are people trying to argue against a solution that would do that.

Civil unions that are equal to marriage does just that. It removes the church and marriage issue from government.

I think you will find that even though it is i who says this it does not render the solution to be like me.

It allows the government to not force either side.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Civil unions that are equal to marriage does just that.


This fails to address post facto retardedness like the legislator in the Original Post.

There are also only a handful of states with civil unions and the Federal Government (while I am loath to give them more authority) will need to enforce equality and reciprocity through all states.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Religion has the problem they need to get over themselves. Marriage never belonged to religion so why do we need to appease a bunch of whiny crybaby religions?

Here is a thought. How about government officials deal with issues like fixing their state deficits instead of proposing legislation that is unconstitutional and if passed destined to cost their states even more.

I wonder if this Rep has ever claimed they wanted less government interference funny how Reps are so selective with that claim.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

Civil unions that are equal to marriage does just that.



If they were equal they'd ALL be called marriage.

Setting anything apart, be it by name or something else ---- makes it less then equal. Unless it's by personal choice, such as Covenant Marriage. Some states offer Covenant Marriage.

1. PLAYGROUND: Kid asks other kid, "Are your parents married?" Other kid responds: "No, they have a Civil Union". First kid: "Oh, they're not as good as us, we're married".

2. PLAYGROUND: Kid asks other kid, "Are your parents married?" Other kid responds: "Yes, they have a Covenant Marriage". First kid: "Oh, a religious marriage". Great, let's go play.


edit on 26-1-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




So then why the hell are people trying to argue against a solution that would do that.

Civil unions that are equal to marriage does just that. It removes the church and marriage issue from government.


Ah, now I get it.

What you're saying is that when two people say their vows in front of a minister under the roof of a church and sign a legally binding contract, it's a marriage.

When two people say their vows in front of a Justice of the Peace under the roof of a courthouse and sign a legally binding contract, it's a civil union.


If religion isn't involved, it's not a marriage... therefore it should not be using the word 'marriage'... because it's not.

Gotcha.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: deadeyedick

Civil unions that are equal to marriage does just that.





This fails to address post facto retardedness like the legislator in the Original Post.



There are also only a handful of states with civil unions and the Federal Government (while I am loath to give them more authority) will need to enforce equality and reciprocity through all states.


No it did not.
If fedral laws are made making civil unions the same as a marriage then this idiot in the op does not have a problem.

Again the marriage law puts God in government and a civil union law would not.

The county clerks would not have an argument against unions because God is found in the marriage that would be handled by the churches on a chrch by church basis.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

That's my opinion as well. Why try to exclude others from something they already had the right to do, when the religious people could easily create something to rise above it all, like a "Covenant Marriage" or a "Sacramental Marriage", to make their religious status much more specialer and more in your face than LGBTs and us ordinary heathen folk that can only have secular marriages?


edit on 26-1-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

If fedral laws are made making civil unions the same as a marriage then this idiot in the op does not have a problem.


Then why the two monikers?


Again the marriage law puts God in government and a civil union law would not.


No, the marriage law has nothing to do with God as you can be married by a Pagan priest and still be considered legally married.


The county clerks would not have an argument against unions because God is found in the marriage that would be handled by the churches on a chrch by church basis.


And what of the gay couples who believe in God, got married in a church that accepts gay couples and now needs the local clerk to countersign to make their certificate official.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: deadeyedick



Religion has the problem they need to get over themselves. Marriage never belonged to religion so why do we need to appease a bunch of whiny crybaby religions?



Here is a thought. How about government officials deal with issues like fixing their state deficits instead of proposing legislation that is unconstitutional and if passed destined to cost their states even more.



I wonder if this Rep has ever claimed they wanted less government interference funny how Reps are so selective with that claim.


Perhaps and any step to further seperate church and state should be good for all.

The reason the government officials are dealing with this is because right now it is affecting many people.

They could go back to their holes if we passed a federal civil union law.

Then we couls find a reasonabl solution for other problems without getting caught up in the war on religion in politics.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

I'm still a bit confused though...

What if two people have their ceremonious joining ritual performed in their backyard (no church, no courthouse) in front of a Justice of the Peace...

Would that be called a marriage ? Or a civil union ?




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: deadeyedick








So then why the hell are people trying to argue against a solution that would do that.



Civil unions that are equal to marriage does just that. It removes the church and marriage issue from government.





Ah, now I get it.



What you're saying is that when two people say their vows in front of a minister under the roof of a church and sign a legally binding contract, it's a marriage.



When two people say their vows in front of a Justice of the Peace under the roof of a courthouse and sign a legally binding contract, it's a civil union.





If religion isn't involved, it's not a marriage... therefore it should not be using the word 'marriage'... because it's not.



Gotcha.



Close except the one saying that is the marriage act that is federal law since 38'



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: deadeyedick




So then why the hell are people trying to argue against a solution that would do that.

Civil unions that are equal to marriage does just that. It removes the church and marriage issue from government.


If religion isn't involved, it's not a marriage... therefore it should not be using the word 'marriage'... because it's not.



Except, the state license, which is a contract, says Marriage right on it.

It's a legal state document/license? If you want a state business license, where fo you go? To City Hall.

Atheists have been getting married all along. Where was the uproar that they couldn't use the word marriage?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


The rights of the union would be givin by the government and the blessing from God would come through the church or whatever one would want to recognize as blessing or whatever would give them peace of mind that they are married.
edit on 26-1-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




The reason the government officials are dealing with this is because right now it is affecting many people.


So far that is a claim by a banker turned politician I don't believe him.

Even if it is affecting many people so what. I am sure the end of segregation, women's rights, and allowing mixed races to marry also affected many people.

It is a good thing we have a constitution.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I am not gonna search for you but i did search before and found this to be the case all around the country and not just okla.
google county clerk force to perform marriage

or something like that

Surely you do not believe that in the state of okla there are no county clerks rasing hell about gay marriage in every way they can phathom.
quitting and filing discrimination suits would be just some of what we will see.

My goal is too find a solution that people can except before things turn bloody



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

The rights of the union would be givin by the government and the blessing from God would come through the church or whatever one would want to recognize as blessing or whatever would give them peace of mind that they are married.


The rights of marriage are already given by the government and legal system. The simpler solution would be to let anyone who wants to get married, get married.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee




Atheists have been getting married all along. Where was the uproar that they couldn't use the word marriage?


But see... atheists haven't been getting "married" all these years according to the logic getting tossed around in this thread.

Apparently, they've been having "civil unions".

So I've learned something new today.... I'm only civilly unionized with my husband spouse co-habitant partner of the opposite sex.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: deadeyedick




The reason the government officials are dealing with this is because right now it is affecting many people.

Even if it is affecting many people so what. I am sure the end of segregation, women's rights, and allowing mixed races to marry also affected many people.


There is something in government called "Social Majority" (or something like that).

In other words, you can't just force a new concept on society. It takes time for people to adjust. So, you move this new idea along slowly getting society used to the idea. Then when you have a social majority in favor, you can make it law.

I read about this years ago.

Today statistics claim the U.S. has a society majority in favor of marriage equality.


edit on 26-1-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
I'm only civilly unionized with my husband spouse co-habitant partner of the opposite sex.


Is your union civil or do you ever want to hit him with a shovel?




top topics



 
35
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join