Video: Oklahoma proposing to “ban” all marriages?

posted at 9:31 am on January 26, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

What happens when the federal judiciary tells states that they can no longer define the terms of marriage? One state might just take itself out of the marriage business. News9 in Oklahoma reported on Friday that a legislator has a bill standing by that would, in News9′s reporting, prohibit all marriage to comply with the equal-protection rulings handed down in a recent challenge to their traditional definition of marriage:

News9.com – Oklahoma City, OK – News, Weather, Video and Sports |

What News 9 reports and what Mike Turner is saying are two different things, I think:

State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma.

The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it’s an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it’s what Oklahomans want.

“[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all,” Turner said.

Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.

“Would it be realistic for the State of Oklahoma to say, ‘We’re not going to do marriage period,’” asked News 9′s Michael Konopasek.

“That would definitely be a realistic opportunity, and it’s something that would be part of the discussion,” Turner answered.

There is a big, big difference between “prohibiting all marriage,” as Michael Konopasek reports it for News9, and having the state stop certifying marriages, as Turner appears to be proposing here. An action does not have to be certified to be allowed, nor are all non-government-certified actions illegal. What Turner describes in this interview sounds less like making marriage itself illegal than just changing the law to stop issuing marriage certificates and performing nuptials.

That’s not a new idea, although it has yet to be tried. I’ve proposed this for almost six years at Hot Air, starting with a brief mention about narrowing the agenda in order to expand the base in May 2008 (and a longer, more detailed arguments in May 2009 and again in August 2010). Nor is Oklahoma the first state to propose it. In March 2009, California voters submitted a referendum to end the certifications of marriage as one reaction to the controversy over Proposition 8.

How would that work? Instead of providing certification for a particular cohabitation arrangement, the state would remain neutral entirely. Those wishing to get “married” would go to their church, whose rights to define it according to their own doctrine would be safe from government mandates on definitions, since the state wouldn’t care at all. Cohabiting couples can and should get partnership agreements signed to control their shared property, and the state would enforce those just as it does other contracts, without any interest in the sexual practices between the pair (or trio, or …). Laws regarding age of consent would still apply. It’s the ultimate “get the government out of the bedroom” approach.

Conservatives have resisted this as a danger to family cohesion, but that ship has more or less sailed anyway. Thanks to a very large shift in public opinion, government will redefine marriage in a way that will eventually force churches and associated businesses to comply against their own religious beliefs — as we have seen in some cases with wedding-related vendors such as bakeries. Don’t think that churches, synagogues, and other religious venues will long be immune, either. The imposition of the HHS mandate shows what happens when government wants to coerce people to comply with their social agenda.

If I had my preference, it would be to keep marriage to the one-man-one-woman definition for reasons I outlined in 2012 relating to family structure and the protection of children. Barring that, then marriage should be a private affair, and government should limit itself to the enforcement of civil contracts. Turner has the right idea, and it will be as interesting to see how that unfolds as marijuana legalization in Colorado.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Not Over HT L2G

Bmore on January 28, 2014 at 9:17 AM

TheMightyMonarch on January 27, 2014 at 7:57 PM

If this is your position then understand that laws like Obamacare was passed under God’s authority. That means that no one has the right to rebel against the law, including Republicans attempt to repeal it.

antifederalist on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

If this is your position then understand that laws like Obamacare was passed under God’s authority. That means that no one has the right to rebel against the law, including Republicans attempt to repeal it.

antifederalist on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Because laws have never been passed and then repealed?

Murphy9 on January 28, 2014 at 10:57 AM

TheMightyMonarch on January 27, 2014 at 7:57 PM

If this is your position then understand that laws like Obamacare was passed under God’s authority. That means that no one has the right to rebel against the law, including Republicans attempt to repeal it.

antifederalist on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Sorry, nope. We appeal to our authority (in this case our Congressional representatives) to repeal the law. Even if we didn’t have representation we would still appeal, especially regarding a law we find immoral.

We are not Catholics here, where any new papal pronouncement must be considered as new revelation from God. Just because a law is passed does not mean God approves. He ordains what He wills but that also includes allowing people to act on their sin.

TheMightyMonarch on January 28, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Sorry, nope. We appeal to our authority (in this case our Congressional representatives) to repeal the law. Even if we didn’t have representation we would still appeal, especially regarding a law we find immoral.
We are not Catholics here, where any new papal pronouncement must be considered as new revelation from God. Just because a law is passed does not mean God approves. He ordains what He wills but that also includes allowing people to act on their sin.
TheMightyMonarch on January 28, 2014 at 11:04 AM

That’s not hat Romans 13 says. It says nothing about representative democracy. It says that we must all unconditionally submit and obey. Also, I wasn’t aware that US representatives were our authorities. If your representative is a governing authority, if he/she came to your house and ordered you to be in bed by 9:00 pm, would you do it?

antifederalist on January 28, 2014 at 12:09 PM

This is the libertarian pov anyway. Marriage is a contract between 2 people. No more, nothing less. The state has no reason to compel people to marry, or to stay married.

If your personal beliefs clash with this, dont get married.

Shambhala on January 28, 2014 at 12:52 PM

That’s not hat Romans 13 says. It says nothing about representative democracy. It says that we must all unconditionally submit and obey. Also, I wasn’t aware that US representatives were our authorities. If your representative is a governing authority, if he/she came to your house and ordered you to be in bed by 9:00 pm, would you do it?

antifederalist on January 28, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Let’s see…in that ridiculous, simplistic scenario, I have my Congressman forcing himself into my house to make me to go to bed. If he wasn’t scared off by my 12-gauge, I’d call the cops and ask them to please remove this obviously deranged man from my home. Still appealing to authority. See how that works?

Add to that the fact that I don’t want to shoot anyone, and would rather him leave. At worst I’d prefer to wound the poor bugger and witness to him while we wait for the cops to haul him away.

And the text does not say to unconditionally submit and obey. It says to be subject to the governing authorities (ESV). Be careful about reading your own presuppositions into the text, especially a translation.

As for appealing, escaping, and resistance, we have plenty of examples throughout the Bible when each was appropriate for the situation. They usually carried consequences (Daniel in the lion’s den being a vivid example), but they are examples of when it is acceptable to resist authority when we are commanded by them to violate God’s laws.

TheMightyMonarch on January 28, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Not Over HT L2G

Bmore on January 28, 2014 at 9:17 AM

.
Very good ….. carry on.

listens2glenn on January 28, 2014 at 11:07 PM

Even if this is true, then this means that the Holy Spirit was telling this to Romans circa 20 AD – not Americans 2014.

So Jesus’ ministry was only for people living in Judea between 30-33 AD?

TheMightyMonarch on January 29, 2014 at 2:28 AM

wow that’s just insane…

Murphy9 on January 29, 2014 at 4:11 AM

Didn’t Jesus specify a difference between man’s traditions and god’s commands?

Yes He did, and He was spectacularly unimpressed with the traditions of man (Matt 15:1-9, Mark 7:8).

Can’t the letters be considered man’s tra[d]itions?

The epistles had two things going for them (apostolic authorship and authority), and therefore they are the inspired Word of God. The apostolic office did not continue after they all passed, which is partly where we get the justification for Sola Scriptura. The idea of the office of apostle continuing is how we ended up with the Roman Catholic church as well as the bizarre mysticism of the Charismatic/Penecostal movement.

Reliance on man’s traditions is how Roman Catholicism got so far off track (and how they arrived at ridiculous notions like papal infallability and Mary as co-redemptrix). We use some traditions as well as the writings of some Christians to help us understand the Scriptures, but they are not considered inspired. Any non-Scriptural source must always be compared to Scripture to verify agreement and consistency.

So yes, Christ’s teachings as well as the apostolic writings are considered the inspired Word of God and therefore relevant to the entire church throughout the age, not just the people they were originally written to. If you look at the content of the epistles there’s really nothing there that would suggest that it’s only for one specific audience, and the consensus by the early post-apostolic church that these were relevant, God-inspired writings supports this.

Could a canadian christian participate in the violent overthrow of the US government, and could an American christian participate in the violent overthrow of the Canadian government – without these being sins?

I’d argue that they can’t, since it involves violence being done to another without justification. Scripture is clear that we place ourselves in subjection to the governing authorities, and other passages are fairly clear that we have the options of appeal, escape, and resistance, the latter of which is permissible only when believers are compelled by authority to violate God’s laws.

The Israelites attempted violent overthrow several times without the permission of God, and it typically did not end well for them. We also have plenty of examples of them engaging in war at the command of God. This was to further God’s plans for His people as well as exact judgment on wicked nations.

TheMightyMonarch on January 29, 2014 at 3:28 PM

This is the libertarian pov anyway. Marriage is a contract between 2 people. No more, nothing less. The state has no reason to compel people to marry, or to stay married.

If your personal beliefs clash with this, dont get married.

Shambhala on January 28, 2014 at 12:52 PM

A contract is only valid if there is a third party enforcement mechanism. This is one of the principle roles assigned to our constitutional system of government. I thought the Libertarian POV was to get the government out of marriage. That can’t happen if marriage is contractual. Unless of course you believe that under libertarianism contracts are enforced by private action. I beleive that would be called anarchy.

jerryofva on January 29, 2014 at 3:29 PM

This is an excellent point. The state recognition of marriage does not matter. What matters is that homosexual advocates hope to use state recognition of marriages between two men or two women to force other people to accept homosexuality as normal.

This is absolutely key. If you look at the last 40+ years of the gay rights movement, it has been a continual encroachment on Judeo-Christian beliefs on homosexuality. It started by appeals to the authorities to merely be left in peace, followed by tolerance, followed by acceptance, and now we are moving into the territory of “You will embrace us and we will use the power of the state to force you to.”

We even see the media now pushing forward the idea that this is somehow the preferred lifestyle. And I thought it had nowhere else to go after the perversion of marriage.

I can’t help but wonder where things would be today if they had been satisfied at “leave us in peace”. Although you could pretty much say that about every government encroachment into the lives of its citizens.

TheMightyMonarch on January 29, 2014 at 3:40 PM

A contract is only valid if there is a third party enforcement mechanism. This is one of the principle roles assigned to our constitutional system of government. I thought the Libertarian POV was to get the government out of marriage. That can’t happen if marriage is contractual. Unless of course you believe that under libertarianism contracts are enforced by private action. I beleive that would be called anarchy.

I’d call it privatization of civil disputes. If there is violence done to person or property let the local authorities mediate or prosecute on behalf of the defendant. If two people can’t stand each other anymore and want out of their arrangement, an argument can be made for private arbitration, either by the church whose authority both parties have subjected themselves to, or an independent mediator.

It is a type of contract, yes. But contracts can be drawn up and mediated by local government or private arbitration if the parties involved wish to do so. In the Christian’s case, the preferred option might be to involve the church when a serious dispute in a marriage arises. I’d personally want my pastor involved if there was a serious problem with my marriage, and the last thing I’d want is to subject me and my family to the hell of the family courts.

TheMightyMonarch on January 29, 2014 at 3:50 PM

This is absolutely key. If you look at the last 40+ years of the gay rights movement, it has been a continual encroachment on Judeo-Christian beliefs on homosexuality. It started by appeals to the authorities to merely be left in peace, followed by tolerance, followed by acceptance, and now we are moving into the territory of “You will embrace us and we will use the power of the state to force you to.”

TheMightyMonarch on January 29, 2014 at 3:40 PM

.
In a previous thread on this subject, I raised a lot of eyebrows, and got a complaint sent to the Hotair staff about my statement that “using government to force society to accept homosexuality as “normal”, is worth going to civil war over. That sentiment hasn’t changed within me in the least.
.

We even see the media now pushing forward the idea that this is somehow the preferred lifestyle. And I thought it had nowhere else to go after the perversion of marriage.

I can’t help but wonder where things would be today if they had been satisfied at “leave us in peace”. Although you could pretty much say that about every government encroachment into the lives of its citizens.

TheMightyMonarch on January 29, 2014 at 3:40 PM

.
The dominant media-culture will agree with whatever they perceive as being more closely in line with the “One World Government” movement.

I honestly believe that the “normalizing” of homosexuality is just another one of MANY ‘tools’ being used to destablize and destroy the U.S.

Once that is accomplished, the One World leaders will turn against homosexuals with the same intensity as Vladmir Putin. But for now, they are useful idiots.

listens2glenn on January 29, 2014 at 6:05 PM

LMFAO

Murphy9 on January 30, 2014 at 12:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4