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: 17
35
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

As we see that is not a simpler solution. if it were then it would be so without bloodshed.

Your solution seeks to force churches to recognize lgbt marriages.

The problem stems from the marriage act long ago incorporating religion into unions.

The federal gov. should only recognize the union and not the implications that come with marriage.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

That logic can twist you dizzy.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

County Clerks don't "perform marriages", they process paperwork. That's their job. Whether or not "God" blesses the union is none of their concern.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
As we see that is not a simpler solution. if it were then it would be so without bloodshed.


Just out of curiosity, where is this bloodshed?


Your solution seeks to force churches to recognize lgbt marriages.


No, it does not. It compels each state to treat marriage, and the legal benefits around it, equally.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

Your solution seeks to force churches to recognize lgbt marriages.


No one is forcing churches to accept or recognize anything.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




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




I'm a lover, not a fighter.

My hubby, oops sorry... my co-habitant partner gets sent to the doghouse until he realizes that he was in the wrong and apologizes profusely with a fresh new bottle of Crown Royal and a big bow tied around it for good measure.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
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 ?




To get the recognition from entities like insurance companies and government they would need the county clerk to issue a civil union cert. saying they are legally bound with all the benefits currently givin through marriage laws. This could extend to any two people and possibly more...

To get the back yard to recognize them as being married they would need to consult mother earth in the ceremony.

One would be a legal doc. and the other a matter of belief and faith that is only as good as the amount of faith they personally put in it.

They could even have athiest marriage ceremonies where they choose a represenative to envoke to power of humanity to recognize their marriage.
edit on 26-1-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
...and apologizes profusely with a fresh new bottle of Crown Royal and a big bow tied around it for good measure.


Damn. Let him know I am a bit pissed off at him and need some bottled apologizing.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




The problem stems from the marriage act long ago incorporating religion into unions.


When did that happen? Can you give me an example of the rites and rituals required of the priest during a wedding ceremony in the Bible? What vows did they exchange? I know the bride wasn't required to say "I Do"!

I'm pretty sure the first religious intrusion in to the marriage contract was the Catholic Church.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: deadeyedick



Your solution seeks to force churches to recognize lgbt marriages.





No one is forcing churches to accept or recognize anything.




it has already been to court over that in other states. I think the scotus may have ruled in the matter.

Yes they have trued and may have succeeded in doing so. I am not sure of the outcome.

It ties is with the ones trying to get bakers to bake them a gay cake.

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



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

I am sure in the state of Oklahoma they raised hell when slavery was abolished as well.

As to clerks quitting well I am sure in this job market their positions would be filled easily maybe even by someone who is gay.

As to them filing discrimination suits well they can try and one may be heard after that the rest judges would dismiss before they ever made it to court.

2 or 3 years later gay marriage will not even be an issue anymore.
edit on 26-1-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

it has already been to court over that in other states. I think the scotus may have ruled in the matter.


Link the case(s).



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




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




I'm a lover, not a fighter.

My hubby, oops sorry... my co-habitant partner gets sent to the doghouse until he realizes that he was in the wrong and apologizes profusely with a fresh new bottle of Crown Royal and a big bow tied around it for good measure.

Ahhh, a marriage- sorry, a "civil union" that stays in harmony. You know it's surprising. When you look at straight divorce rates, as a percentage they are MUCH higher than same-sex divorce rates. I wonder why.

Not saying I'm considering batting for the other team. I do like me some men.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

funny you mention slavery. The bloodshed is what we should be trying to avoid.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




To get the back yard to recognize them as being married they would need to consult mother earth in the ceremony.


As long as the union is recognized by an imaginary, invisible entity, and someone qualified to say so, says so, then, and only then is that "union" a marriage. LMAO!



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

i can tell you when it happened. It was cases in the first state to pass marriage reform. as i stated i can not remember what state.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Wasn't a church it was a privately owned wedding business (not a church, not a nonprofit, a public business).


www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: deadeyedick








To get the back yard to recognize them as being married they would need to consult mother earth in the ceremony.





As long as the union is recognized by an imaginary, invisible entity, and someone qualified to say so, says so, then, and only then is that "union" a marriage. LMAO!




the same goes for the act of binding two people together. They do not actually put chains on you they are invisible.
Other than tax breaks and insurance and penelaties there is not much to the act that is not invisible.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

I did not ask for some anecdotal BS, I said provide a link, otherwise you are full of it.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

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.



Yeah, I read something about that a while back as well. A few states like Oklahoma seem to be hard core holdouts and a bit backwards. Kind of strange though because I did basic training at Fort Sill and for a state that is all holier than though I would hear about all the whore houses the state turned a blind eye to for one reason or another. They sure can be selective cherry pickers on what they consider sinful.
edit on 26-1-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
35
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join