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: 4
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




against federal law to gays to marry


Well, you need to show that federal law saying gays can't marry.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law barring federal recognition of same-sex marriage in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013.

So what law are you talking about?




posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Cuervo




Because Christianity doesn't own the institute of marriage. It's been around long before that Jesus fella and Moses.



if it has been around for so long why are we changing it now?


We didn't. Same sex couples have gotten married throughout history. This little blip of Christianity on human history was never the global authority of marriage. Gay marriage was around even in ancient Mesopotamia... before Christianity was even thought of.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

The stated reason for the change was to protect gov. officials from having to do something they are not comfortable with because long ago when they were hired it was illegal just like it is still against federal law to gays to marry.


This has nothing to do with someone being uncomfortable because it was once "Illegal". This is about Religious people being uncomfortable with it because of their Religion. Religion and Law are separate and this is why. No Gov. official is going to have an issue signing a certificate based upon legality. They'll only have an issue with it because of their Religious bias toward it which doesn't matter because this country is based on Law, not Religious Doctrine.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick


...but as another member pointed out marriage is older than most countries yet in todays age we feel it necessary to change it now to include same sex. That is not right.


Why not?



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis




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

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Quantum_Squirrel
did the government create it?


Our government (the US Government) created the legal institution of union in the US today, and they called it "marriage", even though the concept has existed for as long as people have been on this rock and the word has existed for many years.

They didn't create the idea of marriage, but they established what it would mean, LEGALLY.


Actually, Homo sapiens have existed about 200,000 years and marriage has existed only 8,000 to 10,000 years. I don't think even the concept pre-existed that. Marriage law is property law and, until very recently, women were the property being exchanged.
edit on 24-1-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Quantum_Squirrel
did the government create it?


Our government (the US Government) created the legal institution of union in the US today, and they called it "marriage", even though the concept has existed for as long as people have been on this rock and the word has existed for many years.

They didn't create the idea of marriage, but they established what it would mean, LEGALLY.


Actually, Homo sapiens have existed about 200,000 years and marriage has existed only 8,000 to 10,000 years. I don't think even the concept pre-existed that.

I think it probably has. Back in that time frame, it could have been like this:

"Glurga, I would like to be dedicated to only you for the rest of my life! Our tribe will watch while we share an oath."

or:

< grunt > "Glurga, you, me, mates now. No argue! Leader says we pair off."



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
But it is one of many that are coming up. At least in that bill the right to challenge it in court remains. The ones from Texas and North Carolina are far worse, not only does it not allow same sex marriage, but actually is written that it can not be challenged in a court of law, and it if is, the person who brings the challenge's it automatically loses.

Personally, I am waiting for the law suits to begin.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick
Any law that specifically that is written where one group is mentioned or the reasoning is based off of one group as the members who are putting forth these laws, starts the entire case for discrimination. After all this is the same state that put for a law to not allow for the consideration of Sharia and it lost in court. The same state that passed a law for religious displays to be put on the state grounds, and was taken to court when one religious group wanted to put up a display and was told no.

This is just another law to try to discriminate and prohibit one group from exercising their civil rights. After all what religious church actively performs same sex marriages in the state of Ok? From all accounts, and those who live in Ok, unless a person lives near a large city, it could be that a same sex couple may have a very hard time finding a minister to do such. And even then, if the law goes through, then it would be a larger hassle to get to it, arrange and even then have such in the paperwork.

Make no mistake, it is a law designed to discriminate.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Well if they do, then they would be in violation of the law, arson and ultimately the first admendment, and the freedom of worship. So now the state and its officials could be put under the scrutiny of the federal law, and possible charges against them under the civil rights act, and hate crime. And if the state could not stop such, then the Federal government could order federal troops in and put the area that such occurs under martial law, as the precedent for such has already been set, with the Little Rock 5.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
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.


Selective outrage is, by human nature, outrage itself. We aren't going around getting outraged at everything, we don't even choose what outrages us. So grow up, and shut up.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DMFL1133

Just a picture? No commentary?



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I thought conservatives were pro-business ?

what do weddings create ?

spending !!!!!

they are soooooooo dense it hurts



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Hey guys... Not to throw a wet towel over the party or nothing but me thinks that Rep. Todd Russ does not actually think the law would be passed.

The Bill was designed to make a political statement. As the story mentions, Oklahoma's residence overwhelmingly voted against Gay marriage for their state, however the Supreme Court overturned the populations vote. Hence swinging in the extreme opposite direction to appeal to the of the general population of Oklahoma, in a sense saying, lets talk about states rights.

The whole thing is Hyperbole. If the people of Oklahoma were not allowed to say no to Gay Marriage, do you really think that Rep. Todd Russ thinks he could get a law passed that outlaws marriage of anyone not Christian? Of course not... Duh.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: DMFL1133

Just a picture? No commentary?



I would probably receive the banhammer if I did.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: DMFL1133

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: DMFL1133

Just a picture? No commentary?



I would probably receive the banhammer if I did.


copy that...amigo!!!



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Punisher75

We all know that it won't pass and that it's only being done to make some kind of worthless statement to the people of OK. It's too bad for those people in OK that old Todd here doesn't spend his time doing something productive rather than waste it with Bills he knows won't pass anyway. Seems like a waste of money to me.

On a side note however, do you really think some of those Christians wouldn't be thrilled if it did pass??? Of course they would love it...duh.

I suppose exposing this kind of pointless legislation and the morons who keep trying to pass it is a statement in return.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   
There is more going on in OKC as well...

Tulsa World

OKLAHOMA CITY — State Rep. Sally Kern has filed three measures aimed at the gay community.

House Bill 1599 is dubbed the “Preservation and Sovereignty of Marriage Act.” House Bill 1598 is called the “Freedom to Obtain Conversion Therapy Act.” A third measure would allow businesses to refuse to provide services to the gay community, among others.

Kern, R-Oklahoma City, garnered national attention a few years ago when she said the “homosexual agenda” was destroying the nation and poses a bigger threat to the nation than terrorism.


Wow, Oklahoma, you kinda leave me speechless.


House Bill 1599, for example, would bar local and state employees from recognizing or granting marriage licenses to them under penalty of losing their jobs.


Speechless...



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



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Oh of course he should be doing something productive with the time and money that is being paid into the system, however that was not in fact the point of my post.
The point of my post is to reference all the talk about how evil Christians are yadda yadda yadda, and how this whole bill is something that should be at all taken as a serious threat to anyone, when in truth it has nothing to do with Gay marriage at all but rather the Feds usurping the states right to self govern.

As far as the comment "some Christians being thrilled if it was passed" really is a non issue as there are plenty of Atheist that would love to kill off all the Christians in the world, but neither has anything to do with the cost of tea in China.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join