Marriage, there are limits

[Gob]

In what has been described as a not-so-covert attack on gay marriage, a bill banning non-religious people from marrying and requiring all marriage licences be approved by a member of the clergy has been passed in Oklahoma.

The bill, which was approved by the Oklahoma state House last week and will now go to the state Senate for consideration, would restrict marriage only to people of faith.

But while it might seem on the surface like an assault on atheism, critics are saying that it is same-sex unions that the bill is not-so-stealthily attacking. By making the clergy – not judges and court clerks – the sole marriage licence issuers, it will be more difficult for gay marriages to take place.

‘Marriage was not instituted by government,’ said Rep. Dennis Johnson, who backed the bill.

‘It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage.’

Rep. Todd Russ, who sponsored the bill, told KSWO-TV that it stemmed from his personal opposition to marriage equality, saying same-sex marriage laws were ‘stuck down our throats’ by the Supreme Court despite Oklahoma voting ‘overwhelmingly’ against it.

Troy Stevenson, head of the LGBT advocacy group Freedom Oklahoma, said that the community would ‘fight back’ against the ‘discriminatory legislation’ – but added that there was a silver lining.



‘There are… 160 members of the clergy who have publicly declared their willingness to marry LGBT people [in Oklahoma],’ he said

[Guinevere]

Anybody who thinks the South is bad ought to spend some time in Oklahoma. The most intolerant people I'be ever met are from that state.

Pretty sure this legislation violates both the establishment and free exercise clauses of the first amendment. Even if it passes, it won't last long.

[MajGenl.Meade]

How very silly of the Oklahoma legislature.

[rubato]

How very sillysadistic of the Oklahoma legislature.

fixed

[Sue U]

These people are idiots. First they pass a law to forbid use of sharia in Oklahoma, now they make sharia the basis for marriage. Oh, they mean only Christian sharia.

[Lord Jim]

There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage.’

Yeah, I've seen this "argument" before...

A couple of problems:

First, are they also proposing that the state get out of the business of granting state mandated benefits and privileges to married couples, (tax benefits, guaranteed hospital visitation rights, etc.) ?

Second, are they also proposing that the state get out of the divorce business? Henceforth in Oklahoma, when there's a divorce, will couples go to their local minister or rabbi to decide on property division and child visitation rights?

If the answers to these questions are "no", (and I highly suspect that is the case) then the state remains intrinsically and inseparably "involved in marriage", and their argument is a hollow and disingenuous one...

[Big RR]

Absolutely Jim. Personally, what I would like to see is for religious institutions to get out of involvement with marriage; marriage is a contract entered into by two people and is the business of the state. Ideally, all couples who desire to marry should do so in a civil ceremony; if they also want to do so with some sort of religious acknowledgement, this could be separate and any restrictions on such would be entirely up to those religious institutions, just like with the RC church and divorce/annulment--one may be civilly divorced and still not unmarried in the eyes of the church, which requires its own procedures to be followed for any annulment.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I would go a little in the opposite of your proposal BigRR.
The state involve itself only with "civil unions" and let the churches do the "marriage" thing. But the two are so intertwined it's hard to seperate at this point.

[Long Run]

I hope their stupid universities lose early in the NCAA brackets (at least so I have a better chance to win). I'm with old'r: states = civil union/civil contract; religions = marriage according to their tenets.

[Big RR]

How about states with marriages as they always have (they're the ones who issue marriage licenses) and religious institutions with religious unions/contracts or whatever they want to call it? Marriage is a legal definition, not a religious one.

[BoSoxGal]

Marriage is a legal definition, not a religious one.

Therein lies the argument - at least with the conservative religious folks.

[Econoline]

"Civil marriage" is pretty much synonymous with "civil union"; I don't think there's much chance that they can be linguistically separated from each other. In the past I've suggested that the word "matrimony" be used to refer to religious marriage, in order to differentiate that kind of marriage from the civil kind.