Oklahoma is Banning Atheists from Getting Married

[philbo]

I tried to be as openly sarcastic as I can without writing *this is sarcasm* in big red letters all over my post. I guess I wasn't successful.

Worked for me.. at least, I was about 90% sure it was sarcasm. But sometimes it *is* difficult to tell

Last week, Ireland quite suddenly legalised ecstasy and ketamine,

They didn't "suddenly legalize" those drugs (amongst others), they suddenly realized, after a Court of Appeal ruling, that the way they had been banned was unconstitutional, so technically they've been legal all along.

I wonder if there're any convicts serving time for offences involving any of these drugs who're presumably going to be able not just to get out of jail but sue for wrongful arrest.. which might be why there's been the "inadvertently legalized" spin, to try and pretend that it has only just happened

 

[LuisDantas]

(Darn. I so hate the cult of law that has taken hold of our societies. When I think of the waste of otherwise good time spent on making, then repealling, then insisting on all manners of silly or destructive initiatives...)

In this case, there is an apparent intent to redress the concept of marriage as if it were more of a religious than a civil matter. See for instance B.1 on page 8 here, or just look for occurrences of the word "counseling".

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 INT/hB/HB1125 INT.PDF

Page 9 is even more explicit. The intent is clearly to redefine the decision to allow marriages towards "preachers of the Gospel" and Rabbis as opposed to judges.

This is just silly and should not ever have been presented. It will be a sad loss if it is approved. It is already a sad loss that time will be spent considering it.

 

[serp777]

I hadn't full realized how ignorant and stupid the Oklahoma governing body was until this point. The voters must also be a complete disgrace to any kind of intelligence for voting these incomprehensibly foolish people into office. Besides the fact that its unconstitutional, they don't have the moral authority to make such decisions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Wait, how can atheists be distinguished from non-atheists? Do ID's over there have a "belief" field?

Or do they just ask them?

I guess we have supernatural powers. I have long suspected that, but the evidence has so far been surprisingly elusive...

 

[JoStories]

I tried to be as openly sarcastic as I can without writing *this is sarcasm* in big red letters all over my post. I guess I wasn't successful.

I knew it was and thought the post was very successful.

 

[JoStories]

I hadn't full realized how ignorant and stupid the Oklahoma governing body was until this point. The voters must also be a complete disgrace to any kind of intelligence for voting these incomprehensibly foolish people into office. Besides the fact that its unconstitutional, they don't have the moral authority to make such decisions.

Keep in mind that this is a state that still calls Blacks 'colored' and will openly denigrate gays.

 

[Revoltingest]

"It's been a good month for completely absurd law changes. Last week, Ireland quite suddenly legalised ecstasy and ketamine, and this week Oklahoma has seen fit to restrict marriage to people of faith."
read more

That good ol' Land of the Free is up to it again, separating Church from State!

Although, in fairness, the article sounds a little contrived and I think this is more to do with the backlash against Gay Marriage than it does Atheists.

Looking at some other articles on the new law....
Oklahoma bill would put an end to marriage licenses | News OK
Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |
Marriage Bill Would Not Eliminate State Involvement | Public Radio Tulsa
.....it doesn't appear to ban atheist or gay marriages at all.

 

[leibowde84]

First they considered the possibility of cancelling state marriage altogether. Whatever happened to that proposal?

Canceling "state marriage" would make absolutely no sense. In this context, state marriage is the only thing that people are concerned about (with same sex marriage as well). Holy Matrimony, or religious marriage, is not at risk at all, and has no impact on tax status or other legal classifications/status. What on earth would "canceling state marriage" help?

 

[Revoltingest]

Canceling "state marriage" would make absolutely no sense. In this context, state marriage is the only thing that people are concerned about (with same sex marriage as well). Holy Matrimony, or religious marriage, is not at risk at all, and has no impact on tax status or other legal classifications/status. What on earth would "canceling state marriage" help?

I can't speak to the "help" aspect, but cancelling state marriage would make marriage a private contract. The law apparently still allows registering marriages, but just doesn't have the state involved in licensing it.

 

[leibowde84]

I can't speak to the "help" aspect, but cancelling state marriage would make marriage a private contract. The law apparently still allows registering marriages, but just doesn't have the state involved in licensing it.

Yeah, but isn't the whole point that people want the same tax benefits as married couples get? If we make marriage a private contract, how would this be done?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, but isn't the whole point that people want the same tax benefits as married couples get? If we make marriage a private contract, how would this be done?

That remains to be seen...there might be complexities to resolve at the state & federal level.
Lawmakers making laws are a dangerous bunch....especially when they're in a hurry.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can't speak to the "help" aspect, but cancelling state marriage would make marriage a private contract. The law apparently still allows registering marriages, but just doesn't have the state involved in licensing it.

I admit I did not carefully check the text, but what I did read seems to say that it wants to make changes to OK law so that it takes either a licence from a Christian or Jewish priest or a statement of cohabitation for a marriage to be approved.

Private contracts are not a good substitute for proper marriages IMO. Way too easy to simply arbitrarily challenge in other jurisdictions, for one.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yeah, but isn't the whole point that people want the same tax benefits as married couples get? If we make marriage a private contract, how would this be done?

I think that is already done, that there are already these contracts.

I think the point of this law is to safeguard the emotional aspect of marriage. To have some credibility that people who are married are in love and care for each other. The church can provide that credibility the state cannot provide it anymore. The law causes people to personally invest in the credibility of marriage, by leaving marriage as a matter for the people and not the state.

Would you want the state to make a law which establishes friendship? Ofcourse not, so it is very reasonable to leave the state out of establishing marriage also.

.

 

[LuisDantas]

Marriage law is mainly to ensure certain kinds of access and mutual co-responsibility, as well as official recognition of those privileges, isn't it?

 

[Revoltingest]

I admit I did not carefully check the text, but what I did read seems to say that it wants to make changes to OK law so that it takes either a licence from a Christian or Jewish priest or a statement of cohabitation for a marriage to be approved.

That requirement is not clear....I suspect invention by the writer.

 

[LuisDantas]

That requirement is not clear....I suspect invention by the writer.

It seemed clear enough from my reading of pages 8 and 9 of the PDF. Have you checked them?

 

[leibowde84]

I think that is already done, that there are already these contracts.

I think the point of this law is to safeguard the emotional aspect of marriage. To have some credibility that people who are married are in love and care for each other. The church can provide that credibility the state cannot provide it anymore. The law causes people to personally invest in the credibility of marriage, by leaving marriage as a matter for the people and not the state.

Would you want the state to make a law which establishes friendship? Ofcourse not, so it is very reasonable to leave the state out of establishing marriage also.

.

But, how would tax incentives be managed and distributed. Without State recognized marriage, there would be no ability for tax incentives, which, obviously, must be based on the States recognition of a marriage. The reasoning behind the same-sex marriage movement (among other things) was that it is unreasonable to deprive homosexual couples of the same tax benefits that other married couples get. There cannot be tax incentives without some kind of state approval process, as the state is not going to ever just "take a Church's word for it" that it's legit ... nor should it.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seemed clear enough from my reading of pages 8 and 9 of the PDF. Have you checked them?

It's interrupted my watching of the 3 Stooges, but yes.
See subsection E on page 10.
We heathens needn't hire clergy.

 

[Revoltingest]

But, how would tax incentives be managed and distributed. Without State recognized marriage, there would be no ability for tax incentives, which, obviously, must be based on the States recognition of a marriage. The reasoning behind the same-sex marriage movement (among other things) was that it is unreasonable to deprive homosexual couples of the same tax benefits that other married couples get. There cannot be tax incentives without some kind of state approval process, as the state is not going to ever just "take a Church's word for it" that it's legit ... nor should it.

The fed never required that Mrs Revolt & I prove we're married.
We just filed our taxes that way.
IRS audits could complicate things...there is great variation in each agent's interpretation of the tax code.

Btw, instead of tax incentives, we faced increased taxation.
There's a tax penalty applied when both spouses earn income.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But, how would tax incentives be managed and distributed. Without State recognized marriage, there would be no ability for tax incentives, which, obviously, must be based on the States recognition of a marriage. The reasoning behind the same-sex marriage movement (among other things) was that it is unreasonable to deprive homosexual couples of the same tax benefits that other married couples get. There cannot be tax incentives without some kind of state approval process, as the state is not going to ever just "take a Church's word for it" that it's legit ... nor should it.

It basically amounts to a namechange now, calling state marriage a private contract. I think you will see men who are not gay but businesspartners get this private contract also, and gradually the state will provide less acknowledgement of this private contract as requiring any different treatment from the state.