Oklahoma is Banning Atheists from Getting Married

[leibowde84]

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.

It would end up that the State would be forced to not treat married couples any differently than single adults. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that, but it would be inevitable.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think that is going to happen, though. Marriage has an important social function that is not about to be left aside.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

It could even be a conspiracy of gay marriage proponents to pretend to be conservative, & stealthily introduce a law which makes gay marriage equal to straight marriage in all ways. Those sneaky gays!

 

[Harmonious]

Think about it logically though. Do atheists really need to get married? Can't they just have immoral relations with each other. Those immoral atheists. How dear they be so immorally immoral. Marriage is sacred and atheists are immoral. They have no morals. They should be banned from marriage. And from eating crackers w/wine. And from pretending to be moral. That's what they are. Immoral, moral-pretending devils. They're the devils. They should move to NJ. All of them. And live in ghettos on big swathes of ice. With goals and hockey sticks.

Is this your opinion or others' ?

They should be banned from eating crackers and drinking wine, and need to move to New Jersey, and... please don't tell me that there was a breath and a heartbeat when you took this seriously.

 

[Harmonious]

This is a prime example of why separation of church and state is required.

You, too.

 

[Harmonious]

It could even be a conspiracy of gay marriage proponents to pretend to be conservative, & stealthily introduce a law which makes gay marriage equal to straight marriage in all ways. Those sneaky gays!

Creative.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Well, sure it "bans" atheists from getting married. If you ignore that it explicitly allows judges as well as clergy to perform marriages.

So for atheists and members of clergy-less religions like myself, our rights to marriage in Oklahoma are only restricted if you choose to willfully ignore the fact that judges can perform the marriage ceremonies.



All this really is, is conservative lawmakers realizing they would be forced to legalize gay marriage, and thus they chose to do so on their own terms by removing most of the government from the process of marriage. Now they have gender-neutral marriage contracts that can be officiated by either a priest or a judge if you have no priest. They did it this way because they think it'll protect them from the largely fictional fear of having their clergy "forced" to marry gay people.

Not really a big deal. Either way gay marriage is legal.

 

[Harmonious]

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.

Actually, it wants to do away with licenses altogether. There are usually two parts of the marriage that gets filed away by the government: 1) the license (before the wedding), and 2) the certificate (after the wedding) that is proof that the wedding took place.

This bill looks like it wants to do away with the "before marriage" part. It's one less step of bureaucracy. That can only be to the good.

There are two sections of the bill to pay attention to, that I think we'll find relevant to this discussion.

Section 7, Subsections A-C, that describe the duties of the preacher, minister, priest, rabbi, or ecclesiastical dignitary.

And then there is Subsection D that states:

Marriages between persons belonging to the society called Friends or Quakers, or the spiritual assembly of the Baha'is, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which have no ordained minister, may be solemnized by the persons and in the manner prescribed by and practiced in any such society, church, or assembly.

I wonder if the part that I underlined actually means that atheists, who have no ordained ministers, may also be solemnized by the people and the manner in whichever they so choose.

At least, that would make sense to me.

 

[Muffled]

"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.

I believe if marriage is going to be considered a religious activity it falls under the first amendment right of free exercise of religion which means the Oklahoma law would be unconstitutional.

I can see such a law being constrictive to gays in Oklahoma where I believe there are probably fewer apostate churches.

If marriage is considered a community activity ie: it affects how one fits into the community, then it ought to be defined by the community and therfore would not be unconstitutional although it might be on shaky ground on non religous constituional rights.

 

[Muffled]

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 believe if the clergy doesn't recognize you as one of their own you will automatically fall into that category no matter what you believe and an atheist member of the flock will be considered a beleiver.

 

[Muffled]

Think about it logically though. Do atheists really need to get married? Can't they just have immoral relations with each other. Those immoral atheists. How dear they be so immorally immoral. Marriage is sacred and atheists are immoral. They have no morals. They should be banned from marriage. And from eating crackers w/wine. And from pretending to be moral. That's what they are. Immoral, moral-pretending devils. They're the devils. They should move to NJ. All of them. And live in ghettos on big swathes of ice. With goals and hockey sticks.

I thought one ought to prefer Sodomachusetts myself but maybe NJ is the stinkpot of the country in more ways than one, eh?

 

[Smart_Guy]

I believe if the clergy doesn't recognize you as one of their own you will automatically fall into that category no matter what you believe...

Shouldn't that be... infidel?

 

[Pudding]

They should be banned from eating crackers and drinking wine, and need to move to New Jersey, and... please don't tell me that there was a breath and a heartbeat when you took this seriously.

I just ask to verify.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Should atheists be banned from saying "oh my god"?

 

[Revoltingest]

Should atheists be banned from saying "oh my god"?

Can we say, "Oh, your god!"?

 

[jonathan180iq]

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.

Good humor is lost on so many people...

 

[jonathan180iq]

Should atheists be banned from saying "oh my god"?

Can we say, "Oh, your god!"?

I think anyone who ever says a phrase like this must specifically state which God he is referring to.
He must also make a declaration, before the statement, of which interpretation and of which holy book is particular version of God comes from.

For example:
"Oh my, Abrahamic deity of the protestant inclanation, most prominently Baptist but liberal enough to use the Common English Bible!!"

 

[Revoltingest]

I think anyone who ever says a phrase like this must specifically state which God he is referring to.
He must also make a declaration, before the statement, of which interpretation and of which holy book is particular version of God comes from.

For example:
"Oh my, Abrahamic deity of the protestant inclanation, most prominently Baptist but liberal enough to use the Common English Bible!!"

Are they covered if I exclaim, "Ye gods!"?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Are they covered if I exclaim, "Ye gods!"?

That's not too bad... Certainly easier on the tongue.

 

[Jainarayan]

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.

Sarcasm is expressed by the gay gene. If you don't have the gay gene, your sarcasm is epic fail.