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

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.

Not really, because without a government recognition of it, marriage is rendered meaningless since it’s whatever you claim it is and whatever you want it to be. A man and a woman is as equally married as a kid and his cupcake. It’s idiotic relativism run amok.

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2014 at 9:35 AM

If only it were that simple. It’s not. All you are doing is dropping the name. Many of the traditions, many of which have a basis in religion, are still being kept. I would say this is fine if the state recognizes all domestic partnership contracts as written by the parties and enforces them as such. They do not and will not. If a couple goes to divorce court with a pre-nuptial agreement which in effect eliminates a no fault divorce and holds a cheating partner to substantial financial losses you can be sure it will be tossed. If it were a business partnership they would be enforced. Also, there are many things I can contract for with an employee that is not allowed in marriage. If I contract with an independent contractor to cook my meals and clean my house every day and they fail to do so I can end the contract and not pay them. Not so in a domestic partnership. By the same token I can have other contracts with a set time limit, say 10 years, not so with domestic partnership. Currently I am on the hook for child support for all children that issue from a marriage EVEN after I have shown through DNA the child is not mine. Unless I can get my ex wife to cough up a name so the state can put the real father on the hook for child support the state will force me to keep paying. A real contract will allow for not only stopping the support but suing for damages for the fraud which has been perpetrated.

You want the state out of marriage then by all means let’s do so but let’s not pretend dropping the name accomplishes that. And after that is done I expect the state to enforce a domestic partnership contract at divorce which states the woman must wear a burqa, walk 10 feet behind the man, and never leave the home without his permission or face divorce if that is what she consensually agrees to in signing a domestic partnership contract.

Rocks on January 26, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Your lede grammar is terrible. “Oklahoma” is NOT proposing to ban all marriages. The ban is proposed by an idiot DEMOCRATIC state congress critter who does not represent the state and any way.

Put a separator after Oklahoma and learn grammar. Your lede writer probably graduated from Harvard.

Old Country Boy on January 26, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Yes, get the state out of the marriage business.

It should be a private matter between people and churches and communities.

commodore on January 26, 2014 at 9:37 AM

I don’t know; this seems to me a bit of an extreme to go to just to keep the Kardashian sisters out of the state.

radjah shelduck on January 26, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Wouldn’t this give the Federal government an opening g to step in and issue licenses?

How else can it give marriage tax breaks, etc., required by federal law?

kcewa on January 26, 2014 at 9:42 AM

Ban everything to make life easier.

Bishop on January 26, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Dude, it’s time to update the hairstyle. The Bay City Rollers left town 40 years ago.

jaywemm on January 26, 2014 at 9:45 AM

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.

That’s what Virginians voted for to make that Constitutional amendment that the rogue AG, riding a mandate of 900 more votes than his opponent, decided was wrong because his kids told him so.

I’m willing to see the Commonwealth leave the marriage business too.

Happy Nomad on January 26, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Ban everything to make life easier.

Bishop on January 26, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Arguably, the state has more of an interest in issuing licenses to have children than they do in the marriage business. Why does the state have a stake in marriage?

Happy Nomad on January 26, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Everyone files single and no unlimited spousal deduction!

What’s not to like?

WryTrvllr on January 26, 2014 at 9:50 AM

…Judges would have nothing…to overturn?

KOOLAID2 on January 26, 2014 at 9:52 AM

This has been the best option for a long time.

Simply take marriage away from the government entirely.

End of discussion.

Karmashock on January 26, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Yes, but look at all the new contract law that will be needed.

WryTrvllr on January 26, 2014 at 9:55 AM

How else can it give marriage tax breaks, etc., required by federal law?

kcewa on January 26, 2014 at 9:42 AM

Why is it the government’s business to provide tax breaks and benefits solely due to the exercise of an individual’s right to privacy? (Yes, marriage has already been determined to be a privacy right by SCOTUS.)

If government has no business defining marriage, then it has no right to grant special benefits to married individuals. Such treatment would violate the equal protection of single individuals.

blammm on January 26, 2014 at 9:56 AM

Arguably, the state has more of an interest in issuing licenses to have children than they do in the marriage business. Why does the state have a stake in marriage?

Happy Nomad on January 26, 2014 at 9:49 AM

What does the state do if someone has a child without a license?

The state has the same stake in marriage as they always did and it the primary reason the state forcibly took it over from Churches to begin with and that is to hold men financially responsible for their wives and children along with how they treat them at divorce. None of that will change, even if the people entering the domestic partnership agrees to it by consent. The state didn’t get involved in marriage, and assign tax benefits etc. to that to promote it, for procreation. They did it because men were being scumbags to their ex wives and children and Churches were going along with it the same way they do now in other countries.

Rocks on January 26, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Divorce lawyers hardest hit.

meci on January 26, 2014 at 9:58 AM

without a government recognition of it, marriage is rendered meaningless

What else,, or isn’t there anything that has meaning if it isn’t recognized by the State?

Sorry, I don’t choose to give them that much authority.

If the State refused to issue a death certificate,, you aren’t really dead?

wolly4321 on January 26, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Legal question;

How would this affect the legal doctrine that a husband or wife cannot be be compelled to testify against their spouse in a court of law? Logically, if the state no longer “recognizes” marriage as a legal contract per se, this protection could be set aside as irrelevant. It would however probably require granting the testifying partner immunity or at least require them to be handled as a hostile witness.

Second legal question;

Divorce. If marriage is no longer enforceable by the state as a civil contract, what does this do to divorce law? I could see every marriage requiring a pre-nuptial agreement, at the very least.

Perhaps not such a bizarre idea, as such “contractual” marriage proceedings were quite common in the past, notably in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Perhaps in the future, too;

“I am Sir Nikkolay Trask; I bring my cousin and liege-lord, Lucas, Lord Trask, Baron of Traskon. He comes to receive the Lady-Demoiselle Elaine, daughter of Lord Sesar Karvall, Baron of Karvall mills, and the sanction of your Grace to the marriage between them.”

Sir Maxamon Zhorgay, Sesar Karvall’s henchman, named himself and his lord; they brought the Lady-Demoiselle Elaine to be wed to Lord Trask of Traskon. The Duke, satisfied that these were persons whom he could address directly, asked if the terms of the marriage-agreement had been reached; both parties affirmed this. Sir Maxamon passed a scroll to the Duke; Duke Angus began to read the stiff and precise legal phraseology. Marriages between noble houses were not matters to be left open to dispute; a great deal of spilled blood and burned powder had resulted from ambiguity on some point of succession or inheritance or dower rights. Lucas bore it patiently; he didn’t want his great-grandchildren and Elaine’s shooting it out over a matter of a misplaced comma.

-Space Viking by H. Beam Piper, Analog Science Fact- Science Fiction, November 1962, p. 18

Of course, such marriages were duly confirmed by the liege-lord, for exactly those reasons. But the Church (whichever one was considered to be in authority) was generally considered the primary “agent”.

Oh, and forget legal “recognition” of “common law” marriage s a separate and distinct legal entity, to0. I’m pretty sure that all marriages would technically be “common law” under such a “neutral” statutory construct.

I strongly suspect that this sort of “movement” might end up reminding everyone exactly why we instituted marriage as a legal state-sanctioned contract to begin with.

/keep in mind I’m criminal law, not civil

clear ether

eon

eon on January 26, 2014 at 10:00 AM

What else,, or isn’t there anything that has meaning if it isn’t recognized by the State?

Sorry, I don’t choose to give them that much authority.

If the State refused to issue a death certificate,, you aren’t really dead?

wolly4321 on January 26, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Unlike marriage, which comes down to a formal recognition of devotion and responsibility and which inculcates a culture dedicated to same principles among the broader society, being dead is merely a state of being. While marriage is designed to accomplish the aforementioned results in order to provide for a stable upbringing for children, no purpose is accomplished through death unless it be tied to the execution of the guilty for capital crimes. Otherwise, it is simply the end of life.

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2014 at 10:01 AM

If the State refused to issue a death certificate,, you aren’t really dead?

wolly4321 on January 26, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Works for Harry Reid, he’s been dead for years, it’s only the embalming fluid which makes him so lifelike.

Bishop on January 26, 2014 at 10:03 AM

They did it because men were being scumbags to their ex wives and children and Churches were going along with it the same way they do now in other countries.

Rocks on January 26, 2014 at 9:57 AM

I’m sorry but I don’t find “men are pigs” to be a compelling case why the state should be involved with granting permission for marriage. And it isn’t even true- some of the nastiest creatures on the planet are divorced or divorcing females.

Happy Nomad on January 26, 2014 at 10:04 AM

no purpose is accomplished through death unless it be tied to the execution of the guilty for capital crimes. Otherwise, it is simply the end of life.

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Except for the death tax. There is nothing for which a grubbing government won’t find a taxable purpose.

Bishop on January 26, 2014 at 10:05 AM

I’m sorry but I don’t find “men are pigs” to be a compelling case why the state should be involved with granting permission for marriage. And it isn’t even true- some of the nastiest creatures on the planet are divorced or divorcing females.

Happy Nomad on January 26, 2014 at 10:04 AM

While I agree with Rocks’ contention that you have a lot of deadbeat men, and you need to compel them into behaving responsibly, I’m curious: got Wendy Davis on the brain?

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Not really, because without a government recognition of it, marriage is rendered meaningless since it’s whatever you claim it is and whatever you want it to be. A man and a woman is as equally married as a kid and his cupcake. It’s idiotic relativism run amok.

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2014 at 9:35 AM

But that is already happened WITH state recognition, and it has led adoption agencies, bakers and photographers getting banned. Make it a private ceremony where private entities can choose whether to participate, because right now it is being used as a bludgeon for some small “poor” minority group to use the power of the state to make everyone love them.

BTW, the state has done more to kill marriage than any other entity including the idea that marriage is not about procreation.

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Except for the death tax. There is nothing for which a grubbing government won’t find a taxable purpose.

Bishop on January 26, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Hahaha! Franklin said the only things certain in life were death and taxes. With the death tax, you get two for the price of one!

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2014 at 10:07 AM

If the State refused to issue a death certificate,, you aren’t really dead?

wolly4321 on January 26, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Ugh. If you only knew how hard it can be to prove that someone is actually dead. Or for that matter, to prove that they’re still alive after a certification of death has been made after a “decent interval” (seven years used to be standard) in absence of an actual corpse.

Contrary to TV, DNA evidence doesn’t always guarantee it, either way.

/been there, done that

clear ether

eon

eon on January 26, 2014 at 10:08 AM

They did it because men were being scumbags to their ex wives and children and Churches were going along with it the same way they do now in other countries.

Rocks on January 26, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Working in family law though, I can tell you that marriage means absolutely nothing to most people. Divorced several time, women having babies with other men while they are married to another.

And the state now has a mechanism for taking care of dead beat dads and moms(and yes, they exist in huge numbers), because out of wedlock births have become so prevalent. Heck, the only thing the state really pays attention to in a divorce, and the parties can’t waive or sign away is child support.

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:09 AM

without a government recognition of it, marriage is rendered meaningless

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Wow. We need government recognition of institutions in order to give them meaning.

How wonderfully progressive of you…

JohnGalt23 on January 26, 2014 at 10:09 AM

But that is already happened WITH state recognition, and it has led adoption agencies, bakers and photographers getting banned. Make it a private ceremony where private entities can choose whether to participate, because right now it is being used as a bludgeon for some small “poor” minority group to use the power of the state to make everyone love them.

BTW, the state has done more to kill marriage than any other entity including the idea that marriage is not about procreation.

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:07 AM

1.) Marriage is meant about offering an example for what the ideal is. There was far less of a need for adoption agencies in the days before no-fault divorce, when divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births were in the single digits as percentages of the population.

2.) Regarding bakers and photographers being compelled to serve gays, I agree with you that it’s bad. But the solution isn’t to capitulate to the left and try to work within their framework, which is ever-changing and will never be hospitable to conservatives. The solution is to offer upfront resistance and beat them on the merits with the broader American electorate, and kick left-wing judges off the bench. Otherwise we’re just slouching into a worse civilization, while patting ourselves on the back for not being active participants.

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Let’s just get rid of the state. Communities could hire private companies to plow the roads, and remove garbage (aka my senators).

vityas on January 26, 2014 at 10:11 AM

eon on January 26, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Your honor, my client is only mostly dead.

Bishop on January 26, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Wow. We need government recognition of institutions in order to give them meaning.

How wonderfully progressive of you…

JohnGalt23 on January 26, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Institutions are by their nature social constructs. Social constructs involve societies, and societies are formally structured and defined by coming together and establishing a set of laws through their governments. A society is not wholly separable from its government is ludicrous. After all, our country is the United States of America.

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Your honor, my client is only mostly dead.

Bishop on January 26, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Hotblack Desiato doesn’t count as a precedent.

I hope.

cheers

eon

eon on January 26, 2014 at 10:14 AM

I don’t need no stinkin’ Government to tell me what marriage is. Who here does?

rhombus on January 26, 2014 at 10:14 AM

^ “A society is not wholly separable from its government is ludicrous.” should read “A society is not wholly separable from its government. That would be ludicrous.”

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2014 at 10:15 AM

This is a view that regards marriage as little more than hands-off regarding sex, and taking on an obligation for child-rearing in the event of children.

Is that all that marriage means to you?

Just think of all the new things that must be and will be sued for under this. Just the simple matter of dispute resolution – a must in every contract – must now be precisely and exhaustively spelled out, or remanded to the courts. If something (grounding the kid, time out, restricting privileges, etc.) isn’t covered in the contract, it’s subject to court challenge – and there will be advocates to challenge it.

Truly, is that all that marriage means to you?

Conservatives have resisted this as a danger to family cohesion, but that ship has more or less sailed anyway.

What ship? The straw-man that media creates? The 50% divorce rate (which drops below 30% when you stop counting repeated divorces by the same people)? The hedonistic shenanigans of of the glamour set?

ss396 on January 26, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM

You are more optimistic than I am. I think the “optimal” marriage encouraged by the state went out the window a long time ago, and won’t be coming back. I think instead of turning the tide on gay marriage, we are heading to polygamy and incest. When you say the state can’t regulate who gets married based on loooooove; then all those institutions deserve legal protections as well.

Truly, I was an optimist too for awhile, but after California passed a law giving children three or more parents if needed; I suddenly knew we were through the looking glass. It is no longer about society or the future; it is about ego stroking some individual’s ID because they felt bad about themselves as a child because of who they liked to sleep with.

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:16 AM

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:16 AM

It’s not so much that I’m an optimist as it is that I think that the only way to ever be effective is to provide a stark contrast, with steadfast principles and clear definitions. If we try to keep half-a-loaf, we may get that half-a-loaf, and then as we work our way into an intellectually muddled mess defending something which we’re not wholeheartedly into anyway, the left will move in for the kill and take the full loaf.

If the left is going to move us into incest and polygamy, make them fight for every inch.

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2014 at 10:20 AM

I’m sorry but I don’t find “men are pigs” to be a compelling case why the state should be involved with granting permission for marriage. And it isn’t even true- some of the nastiest creatures on the planet are divorced or divorcing females.

Happy Nomad on January 26, 2014 at 10:04 AM

You forget the state took over marriage mostly in the late 19th century. I don’t offer that as permission but an explanation why it happened. Many of these men were not deadbeats either. There are many examples of prominent men tossing their wives out on the street with little more then a suitcase full of clothes after many years of marriage so they can have a younger one.

The permission you speak of is granted when one of the parties goes for a divorce which the state is compelled to take on because the other party may be violating the others civil rights. Marriage licenses are licenses for a state officiated divorce based on a pre-constructed contract in state law. If I fail to get a license and a church marries me I am still married. Even if I don’t go to church and my wife and I decide we are married we are. A marriage License means the state will legally force others to recognize that fact and the state will agree to dissolve it in court, supposedly equitably. The problem which has arisen since the 60s in the state has placed their pre-contructed contract ABOVE what was agreed to consensually by the 2 parties.

Rocks on January 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM

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.

Go for it! Put this dumb argument to the test. Would love to see the so-called libertarians live in their make-believe world.

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM

What a can of worms he’s trying to open. There’s more at stake here than preventing SS marriage. There’s the matter of record keeping for future generations, divorce and child support to consider. I don’t think the SC would allow this to stand as it doesn’t allow for equal protection but then so little does anymore.

Kissmygrits on January 26, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Go for it! Put this dumb argument to the test. Would love to see the so-called libertarians live in their make-believe world.

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM

And what do you think would exactly happen if marriage certs. were no longer given out.. Oh noes, the gays might not get their tax breaks. Seriously, what big deal do you think would happen? Every thing that marriage does legally can be done in a private contract.

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Working in family law though, I can tell you that marriage means absolutely nothing to most people. Divorced several time, women having babies with other men while they are married to another.

And the state now has a mechanism for taking care of dead beat dads and moms(and yes, they exist in huge numbers), because out of wedlock births have become so prevalent. Heck, the only thing the state really pays attention to in a divorce, and the parties can’t waive or sign away is child support.

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Yes, that’s true but that is mostly because of no fault divorce. Would women be having babies with other men as much if it meant they would lose a significant portion of their half of the property at divorce because of it? Probably, but I think the numbers would be far lower. Would so many children be born out of wedlock if dads knew that they could get married and not lose half of everything they own even if his wife is pregnant with another man’s baby 5 years later?

Rocks on January 26, 2014 at 10:28 AM

And what do you think would exactly happen if marriage certs. were no longer given out..

A family court system even larger and more gummed up than it currently is. A lack of marriage certificate does not mean that the end of longterm relationships would not lead to a struggle over resources. Marriage offers, at the very least, guidelines for how those proceedings should occur. How would the state handle the end of relationships, especially with kid involves? Carefully drawn up contracts might be a solution, but what about people who don’t do that?

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Valentines day coming up. Didn’t that have something to do with State sanctioning?

wolly4321 on January 26, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Every thing that marriage does legally can be done in a private contract.

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM

How does hospital visitation policy work then? Who is to say that hospitals will honor people who have drawn up contracts between each other? They currently aren’t compelled to. Wouldn’t ending marriage law force lawmakers to simultaneously write regulations about how key industries had to deal with contractually joined individuals?

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Yes, that’s true but that is mostly because of no fault divorce. Would women be having babies with other men as much if it meant they would lose a significant portion of their half of the property at divorce because of it? Probably, but I think the numbers would be far lower. Would so many children be born out of wedlock if dads knew that they could get married and not lose half of everything they own even if his wife is pregnant with another man’s baby 5 years later?

Rocks on January 26, 2014 at 10:28 AM

If you saw what some of these out of wedlock Dads paid in child support then marriage probably would have been cheaper. I agree no-fault divorce was one of the catalysts, but now it is culturally ingrained into people how disposable marriage is.

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Rocks on January 26, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Domestic abuse is a major reason why we need no fault divorce. Are you under the illusion that spousal abuse has magically disappeared?

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:33 AM

So let me get this straight. This means that in a private ceremony, the Oklahoma cowboy could marry his horse?

TarheelBen on January 26, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Rocks on January 26, 2014 at 10:28 AM

.
Domestic abuse is a major reason why we need no fault divorce. Are you under the illusion that spousal abuse has magically disappeared?

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:33 AM

.
How ’bout “recognition of God?”

listens2glenn on January 26, 2014 at 10:36 AM

How does hospital visitation policy work then? Who is to say that hospitals will honor people who have drawn up contracts between each other? They currently aren’t compelled to. Wouldn’t ending marriage law force lawmakers to simultaneously write regulations about how key industries had to deal with contractually joined individuals?

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:31 AM

First, because of gheys most states have laws on the books addressing the hospitalization policies. What “key” industries are you talking about? Tell me something lib, what is the difference between two lesbians living together with children and sharing their property, and my mom and my sister doing the same? One has sex. Why does a sexual relationship rate equal protection in the law, but not my mother. Why is sex so important?

A family court system even larger and more gummed up than it currently is. A lack of marriage certificate does not mean that the end of longterm relationships would not lead to a struggle over resources. Marriage offers, at the very least, guidelines for how those proceedings should occur. How would the state handle the end of relationships, especially with kid involves? Carefully drawn up contracts might be a solution, but what about people who don’t do that?

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:29 AM

BTW, courts deal with kids from broken relationships all the time. The only time a court deals with these unwed couples is because they break up. If both parties are amicable and supporting each other, the court never gets involved. Furthermore, the Court would not get anymore gummed up now then it would then. Those that wanted to end their relationship would still go through the Court, those that stayed committed wouldn’t. You honestly think that if my hubby of 22 years suddenly found out our marriage wasn’t valid that it would change anything for us? No, because marriage isn’t a cert. It is a mind set.

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Domestic abuse is a major reason why we need no fault divorce. Are you under the illusion that spousal abuse has magically disappeared?

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Domestic Abuse is one of the reasons to FIND fault in a divorce.

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:40 AM

How ’bout “recognition of God?”

listens2glenn on January 26, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Weirdly enough. Recognition of God didn’t seem to do much to lower domestic violence rates prior to no-fault divorce. But no-fault divorce did decrease divorce rates.

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Weirdly enough. Recognition of God didn’t seem to do much to lower domestic violence rates prior to no-fault divorce. But no-fault divorce did decrease divorce rates.

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Are you high?

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:41 AM

How does hospital visitation policy work then? Who is to say that hospitals will honor people who have drawn up contracts between each other? They currently aren’t compelled to. Wouldn’t ending marriage law force lawmakers to simultaneously write regulations about how key industries had to deal with contractually joined individuals?

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Don’t forget Credit. How does credit work in this marriage license free world?

Rocks on January 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM

it decrease domestic violence rates that is.

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Sounds interesting. Marriage existed before the state and without the state.

gwelf on January 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM

It’s nice to see lingered freak out over government lot being able to regulate sometime and as a result lose some of its power to control private institutions.
He’s doing a good job – unintentionally – of demonstrating exactly why the state is too involved in marriage.

gwelf on January 26, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Domestic abuse is a major reason why we need no fault divorce. Are you under the illusion that spousal abuse has magically disappeared?

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:33 AM

As already pointed out spousal abuse is a fault in a divorce. No-fault divorce actually achieves the opposite of your stated need. By abuse I assume you don’t mean assault which is covered under law now whether you are married or not.

Rocks on January 26, 2014 at 10:46 AM

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:39 AM

+1000

gwelf on January 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM

A family court system even larger and more gummed up than it currently is. A lack of marriage certificate does not mean that the end of longterm relationships would not lead to a struggle over resources. Marriage offers, at the very least, guidelines for how those proceedings should occur. How would the state handle the end of relationships, especially with kid involves? Carefully drawn up contracts might be a solution, but what about people who don’t do that?

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:29 AM

BTW, I forgot to tell you how special I thought it was that you cared about the family court system. I mean it isn’t like the whole Court system will have to be overhauled just to accommodate a small minority group and their narcissistic whims. No, that won’t gum up or screw up family courts at all.. (See private sperm donation and Kansas for example.)

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:48 AM

melle1228 is really knocking it out of the park.

gwelf on January 26, 2014 at 10:48 AM

melle1228 is really knocking it out of the park.

gwelf on January 26, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Thanks, I get sick of the argument that we need the state. The state has ruined marriage, and now the state is just using marriage as a means of controlling its enemies ex. social conservatives and the Church.

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Second, states that adopted unilateral divorce laws saw a large decline in rates of domestic violence (and also spousal homicide), while other states actually saw domestic violence rates rise. In research with Betsey Stevenson, we suggest that the decline in domestic violence may declined by as much as a third following the adoption of liberalized divorce laws. The logic for this result also seems quite powerful: If a woman is empowered to leave an abusive marriage even against the objection of her abuser, she may leave. Or he might get the message, and cease being so abusive. Or perhaps, the threat of divorce prevents violence from being used during everyday conflict resulting in less relationships escalating to abusive situations. We suspect that all these explanations describe what happened in states that previously changed their laws.

http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_no-fault-divorce0306.msp

Now. You may not agree with their explanation for why domestic abuse and spousal homicide rates declined in states with more liberal divorce laws. But the fact is, that they did.

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Well, the Family Law lawyers will love it.

BKeyser on January 26, 2014 at 10:57 AM

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:54 AM

How many of those domestic abuse cases were male/female married partners? Domestics can be father/son, mother/daughter, brother/brother and male partner/male partner, among others, none of whom are married.

BKeyser on January 26, 2014 at 11:01 AM

without a government recognition of it, marriage is rendered meaningless since it’s whatever you claim it is and whatever you want it to be. A man and a woman is as equally married as a kid and his cupcake. It’s idiotic relativism run amok.

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Bwahahahahahahahahaha

Government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government!

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 26, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Tell me something lib, what is the difference between two lesbians living together with children and sharing their property, and my mom and my sister doing the same? One has sex. Why does a sexual relationship rate equal protection in the law, but not my mother. Why is sex so important?

EXACTLY!! I notice that livelikeaperv hasn’t answered that question.

BeachBum on January 26, 2014 at 11:02 AM

The answer is to have a parallel civil union law that keeps everything the same way as it is now, except calls the relationship a civil union, and does not call it a marriage. Have the state no longer issue marriage certificates; instead, gay and straight couples each can apply for and receive a civil union.

Then, couples can choose to go to a church, if they wish, and obtain a marriage, if they so desire.

It keeps the two concepts separate, and churches decide who they will marry and who they will not marry. But everyone has the same package of legal rights, because straight and gay couples both would have civil unions.

Revenant on January 26, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Libertarians have been suggesting this for over a decade. We suggested that socons get on board much earlier than this. States can easily recognize contractual arrangements between private persons. The State can still determine what is in the “best interests of the child” in any ‘divorce’ or separation or termination of contract, and this is simply the best way to protect churches from having to perform SSMs.

It is a win-win and a no-brainer.

Firefly_76 on January 26, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Went out on a date with a guy that brought his froo froo dog. Said it was his “real girlfriend”.

I suppose they should get married.

I, ____ take you, Freckles. To be my lawfully wedded wife.

/Obamaland.

Key West Reader on January 26, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Now. You may not agree with their explanation for why domestic abuse and spousal homicide rates declined in states with more liberal divorce laws. But the fact is, that they did.

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 10:54 AM

You are conflating 2 entirely different things. The granting of a divorce AND the finding of fault in such along with possible penalties for that fault. No one is suggesting an abused spouse be forced to stay married to someone unless they can show fault. If you want to divorce someone you should be able to at any time. What I am talking about is that no fault divorce has come to mean you can cause many faults in a marriage, even abuse and infidelity, and as long as it never rises to a criminal level you will suffer no penalty. If the intent here, as stated in the original post, is to reduce marriage to a simple domestic partnership contract then the idea that there is no penalty for violating that contract should go out the window. Is there any other part of contract law where the concept of no fault would be allowed? Judges would laugh you out of court.

Rocks on January 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Tell me something lib, what is the difference between two lesbians living together with children and sharing their property, and my mom and my sister doing the same? One has sex. Why does a sexual relationship rate equal protection in the law, but not my mother. Why is sex so important?

Well the fact that you described one partnership as two adults joined in the care of children, and one mother-daughter relationship. Those are different if, for no other reason, than 2 is a different number than 3 or 4. But if two relatives wanted to get married it wouldn’t bother me…

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 11:10 AM

The answer is to have a parallel civil union law that keeps everything the same way as it is now, except calls the relationship a civil union, and does not call it a marriage. Have the state no longer issue marriage certificates; instead, gay and straight couples each can apply for and receive a civil union.

Then, couples can choose to go to a church, if they wish, and obtain a marriage, if they so desire.

It keeps the two concepts separate, and churches decide who they will marry and who they will not marry. But everyone has the same package of legal rights, because straight and gay couples both would have civil unions.

Revenant on January 26, 2014 at 11:02 AM

That’s pretty much my choice as a resolution to this whole thing. Let all secular state marriages be called civil unions, and let religious unions be called marriage. There’s only one issue tho…religious marriage would still have to be state-recognized for legal purposes.

And what happens to state benefits for married couples, such as tax breaks? Are they for everyone, gay and straight unions, and religious and secular unions? Or should the state do away with benefits altogether?

There’s no really easy answers…but again, your points are rather spot-on as the best path. Oklahoma’s proposed ban on all marriages is nonsense. But hey, a statue of satan isn’t as bad as SSM :/

JetBoy on January 26, 2014 at 11:16 AM

The answer is to have a parallel civil union law that keeps everything the same way as it is now, except calls the relationship a civil union, and does not call it a marriage. Have the state no longer issue marriage certificates; instead, gay and straight couples each can apply for and receive a civil union.

Then, couples can choose to go to a church, if they wish, and obtain a marriage, if they so desire.

100% the right answer.

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 11:23 AM

if two relatives wanted to get married it wouldn’t bother me…

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 11:10 AM

No doubt, this will follow state sanctioned homosexual “marriage”.

If the Feds insist on perverting the definition of marriage, the states should get out of the marriage business. All of these relationships, including custody, can be reduced to a simple matter of contract.

TitularHead on January 26, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Start by eliminating all state-conferred benefits that advantage married couples over individuals. In the interest of simplicity we can start by eliminating the income tax. This makes the equal protection argument a non-issue.

Marriage can and should be a voluntary arrangement between two willing individuals. Disputes can be handled by private arbitration, the church (if you belong to one), and failing that, the civil courts.

If two homosexual people wish to have a marriage ceremony and call themselves married, I have no problem with that from a liberty standpoint. Of course I have a moral objection, but that should not be in the purview of the state because it does not involve the violation of the rights of others. I may be allowed to point out the immoral behavior and the listener is free to ignore me.

TheMightyMonarch on January 26, 2014 at 11:30 AM

if two relatives wanted to get married it wouldn’t bother me…

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 11:10 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myhnAZFR1po

JetBoy on January 26, 2014 at 11:30 AM

The answer is to have a parallel civil union law that keeps everything the same way as it is now, except calls the relationship a civil union, and does not call it a marriage. Have the state no longer issue marriage certificates; instead, gay and straight couples each can apply for and receive a civil union.

Then, couples can choose to go to a church, if they wish, and obtain a marriage, if they so desire.

100% the right answer.

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 11:23 AM

You mean 100% a farce. Marriage isn’t just a word. Marriage confers respectability which is exactly why gays have pushed so vociferously that their unions be called that and nothing else. Why exactly should “everything the same way as it is now” legally if it’s not marriage? Why would anyone enter into such a civil union if the only thing it guarantees is that you will lose half of everything you own if you decide to end it? Why wouldn’t I just go to Church and get married and ignore the civil union altogether?

Rocks on January 26, 2014 at 11:38 AM

You mean 100% a farce.

The above has never been tried. So how do you know it wouldn’t work?

Marriage isn’t just a word. Marriage confers respectability which is exactly why gays have pushed so vociferously that their unions be called that and nothing else.

Are you about to repeat the lie that gays aren’t satisfied with civil unions? Because:

1. No state with civil unions offered people federal benefits.
2. Dozens of states banned both same-sex marriage *and* civil unions and domestic partnerships in their Constitutions. If it were just about marriage, why would those states do that?
3. If social cons really cared about protecting marriage, why didn’t they push for civil unions with full federal benefits instead of opposing marriage equality?

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 11:45 AM

I don’t need the government to define marriage for me.

Philly on January 26, 2014 at 11:47 AM

To protect inheritance rights, joint ownership of property, etc., I prefer “civil unions.” The state issues civil union certificants. Marriage is the province of churches.

polarglen on January 26, 2014 at 11:58 AM

“Legal question;

How would this affect the legal doctrine that a husband or wife cannot be be compelled to testify against their spouse in a court of law?”

eon on January 26, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Marriage will still be a legal civil contract and, as such, must be recognized by the courts.

timberline on January 26, 2014 at 12:00 PM

The quote above say ” Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond).” The graphic says “D.”

He is “R.”

His website touts “STRONG CONSERVATIVE VALUES.”

Note: There is a Mike Turner, U. S. Representative from Oiho. Not the same person.

The OK Mike Turner is a millennial. There is hope.

davidk on January 26, 2014 at 12:01 PM

How do you define the civil union? Are there any limits?

If grandma has a taxable estate, say $10MM, can she simply form a civil union with her granddaughter, before she kicks the bucket, to pass on her estate and avoid the death tax?

TitularHead on January 26, 2014 at 12:03 PM

The above has never been tried. So how do you know it wouldn’t work?

Actually, it has been tried in Europe. Except theirs is a parallel system, civil unions for all and marriage for straights. In recent times Civil Unions have come to dominate but for 2 very key reasons. One is a Civil Union can be dissolved in a single day with a registered letter. Marriages require a divorce. 2nd there is no stigma of divorce with a civil union. Couples are forgoing the respectability of marriage in return for never having to face the stigma of divorce. If the civil unions in Europe followed the same rules as marriage as is being suggested here people would probably opt out entirely as we are seeing here in the US.

Are you about to repeat the lie that gays aren’t satisfied with civil unions? Because:

It’s no lie. It’s the main basis of the arguments and rulings which have been used to overturn state setups of civil unions and marriage across the country.

1. No state with civil unions offered people federal benefits.

No state can offer federal benefits for anything. That is why they are called federal benefits.

2. Dozens of states banned both same-sex marriage *and* civil unions and domestic partnerships in their Constitutions. If it were just about marriage, why would those states do that?

Because they saw no benefit to recognizing a same sex union at all and prior to the invention of laws by some activist judges legally they aren’t required to.

3. If social cons really cared about protecting marriage, why didn’t they push for civil unions with full federal benefits instead of opposing marriage equality?

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Because these very same full federal benefits for civil unions would be used to force the government to call a same sex union marriage just as they have been used in state after state. There is nothing barring the federal government from recognizing civil unions now with it’s own set of benefits, even DOMA allows for that. DOMA simply prescribed the federal government from calling it marriage.

Rocks on January 26, 2014 at 12:08 PM

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 …).

This is the biggest lie of all in the argument for homosexuals getting married. There already exists a method for this. Its called a Power of Attorney. You give your partner legal authority over your affairs, and just like the legal effects of a marriage, they can open, use, and close your bank accounts, visit you in the hospital, etc..

So why doesn’t this get any mention? There’s 2 reasons:

1) You have to trust your partner literally with your life. Most homosexual couples are together not out of love or a willing, life-long commitment to each other, but because they’re hip and cool. Take the sex and public controversy (attention) out of it, and the same-sex marriage fad will die off.

2) Making it known would defeat the strongest emotional argument they have. “Wait….you mean you don’t actually have to be married to have a 100#-100% legal relationship?”

BobMbx on January 26, 2014 at 12:09 PM

The Progressive-LGBT alliance is laughing up their sleeve, check check, out loud at Ed and the Oklahoma Legislature. The 100 year Progressive war on marriage is coming to its conclusion and their victory will be ushered in by their hated opponents.

Let me reiterate, Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a civil institution. I had some faux Libertarian clown on a PJ media thread keep bringing up both Roman and medieval village marriages as counter example except each example was independent of religious sanctification. If the state withdraws its certification from marriage it no longer has any legal standing. In other words it doesn’t exist. All this theorizing on what we call “the right” is no more intelligent and well reasoned as their mirror image on the left. Both show a degree of ideological tunnel vision that prevents them from taking in the big picture. Both the Progressive-LGBT alliance and the faux Libertarians are first order thinkers who are incapable of anticipating the train is about to run them over.

Here are a few things for Ed and co to think over:

What happens to existing marriages? Are they now null and void. That is an important question for tax purpose, property ownership and inheritance.

Does the age of consent exist? If the state has no interest why can’t 12 old cohabit with a 30 year old? How about two 10 year olds?

What is the legal status of individuals coming together to form “a corporate marriage?

How do disputes between cohabitants get resolved without involving the state?

These are a lot more questions then these four.

Bottom line, If the state doesn’t sanction, marriage does not exist. If you truly want to get the state this facet of “human relations” than by all mean keep the state out of law and out of the courts. I get it: Libertarians for honor killings.” How cool is that?

jerryofva on January 26, 2014 at 12:10 PM

3. If social cons really cared about protecting marriage, why didn’t they push for civil unions with full federal benefits instead of opposing marriage equality?

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 11:45 AM

What are federal benefits for being married?

BTW, the correct new hot term is “marriage inequality”. Check your Junk folder for the memo. Basically, the memo says “2014 is the year of inequality….use it to frame every topic.

BobMbx on January 26, 2014 at 12:14 PM

I, ____ take you, Freckles. To be my lawfully wedded wife.
To have and to eat…
/Obamaland.

Key West Reader on January 26, 2014 at 11:04 AM

I added stuff for clarity.

Lanceman on January 26, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Do it. There’s no reason for the government to bless people’s relationships. Child laws are already built up at this point that marriage (in government’s eyes) is nothing more than a side-effect of child bearing (and a rare side-effect these days anyway).

But funny how everyone preaching sexual freedom and government out of the bedrooms suddenly wants government to have total control over it… But then they know the reality of the situation.

Skywise on January 26, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Well the fact that you described one partnership as two adults joined in the care of children, and one mother-daughter relationship. Those are different if, for no other reason, than 2 is a different number than 3 or 4. But if two relatives wanted to get married it wouldn’t bother me…

libfreeordie on January 26, 2014 at 11:10 AM

NO, NO, NO, we have been told repeatedly by the gay lobby that marriage has NOTHING to do with children, so try again. BTW, my mom and my sister are raising my niece together, so that isn’t it either.

The lesbians have sex, so sex should make the state sanction their relationship. IT IS THE ESSENCE of letting the government into the bedroom..

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 12:21 PM

What are federal benefits for being married?
.

BobMbx on January 26, 2014 at 12:14 PM

The biggie is the unlimited marital deduction. That was the basis of the SC case with the elderly lesbians. The surviving lesbian objected to paying the estate taxes. My recollection is that the decedent left a relatively sizable estate, which was subject to the death tax over 50%.

TitularHead on January 26, 2014 at 12:23 PM

What happens to existing marriages? Are they now null and void. That is an important question for tax purpose, property ownership and inheritance.

They continue to exist under a private partnership.

Does the age of consent exist? If the state has no interest why can’t 12 old cohabit with a 30 year old? How about two 10 year olds?

Yes, because the age of consent has less to do with marriage and more to do with contract law.

What is the legal status of individuals coming together to form “a corporate marriage?

Can be done privately.

How do disputes between cohabitants get resolved without involving the state?

The state is already involved in these spats. The Courts are full of single people who merged their property and their children. Futhermore, private contract would be a means to give those cohabitating some protections. And make it an actual penalty when you violate the contract unlike no-farce marriages.

These are a lot more questions then these four.

Bottom line, If the state doesn’t sanction, marriage does not exist. If you truly want to get the state this facet of “human relations” than by all mean keep the state out of law and out of the courts. I get it: Libertarians for honor killings.” How cool is that?

WOW, so my marriage doesn’t exist because I can’t find the paper it was written on.. Wow, just wow..

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 12:25 PM

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

The government really should get out of the marriage business.

Because the way the government does it, it is little more than legalized discrimination against the non-married.

And the socialists have hijacked it to promote and socially engineer their version of a Utopian Worker’s Paradise. So the less the government is involved the better.

farsighted on January 26, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Do it. There’s no reason for the government to bless people’s relationships. Child laws are already built up at this point that marriage (in government’s eyes) is nothing more than a side-effect of child bearing (and a rare side-effect these days anyway).

But funny how everyone preaching sexual freedom and government out of the bedrooms suddenly wants government to have total control over it… But then they know the reality of the situation.

Skywise on January 26, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Bingo!

melle1228 on January 26, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Lib – you are so full of shite to claim you support Jetboy’s position.

You’ve railed against civil unions incessantly because of inequality. When anyone here has proposed how to legally remedy those issues, you’ve always blown it off and changed what the SSM contention was about.

Facts are, civil unions were legal in Cali and four couples sued because it made them “feel” second-class.

But they didn’t sue to recalibrate civil unions for equality. They sued for the title of marriage.

If you’re changing your stance now, you must be worried about the constant overreach by prog activists.

budfox on January 26, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4