OK House passes bill restricting marriage to people of faith

[Adam Griffin]

Didn't see a thread on this yet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[badgate]

*Vomits*

[SteveRogers]

Like a four-year-old who'd rather break their toy than let the gay kid play with it.

Also, this new system seems like a nonsensical way to accomplish what they're trying to do. The libertarian cop-out was always "Switch away from government-recognized marriages and instead give everyone civil unions wholly severed from religious marriage ceremonies." Oklahoma kind of went the other way with it, didn't they?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The title of this thread and the description of this bill don't match.  While the intent of the bill according to the linked article matches the title, the effect doesn't unless you're worried that the affidavits of common law marriage would be treated differently.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Conservatives are such friggin babies.  Unfortunately they are babies with the power to make life hell for others. 

[Comrade Funk]

The Party of Stupid

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There's nothing here about restricting marriage to people of faith. There isn't even a requirement to have a minister in the final version that passed.  If you have two witnesses or a judge you can get married and file a certificate.  Does this get the state out of marriage in any significant way?

[Badger]

So the people arguing gay matrimony undermines the institution of marriage, just passed a bill undermining the legal institution of marriage. Got it.

[IceSpear]

So the people arguing gay matrimony undermines the institution of marriage, just passed a bill undermining the legal institution of marriage. Got it.

That argument, just like the "Bible sez" argument, is merely a vaneer for "ewwwwwwww gross!"

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

So the people arguing gay matrimony undermines the institution of marriage, just passed a bill undermining the legal institution of marriage. Got it.

That argument, just like the "Bible sez" argument, is merely a vaneer for "ewwwwwwww gross!"

Like I said.  Babies.  Whining, bigoted, douchey babies. 

[Cassius]

So the people arguing gay matrimony undermines the institution of marriage, just passed a bill undermining the legal institution of marriage. Got it.

That argument, just like the "Bible sez" argument, is merely a vaneer for "ewwwwwwww gross!"

Like I said.  Babies.  Whining, bigoted, douchey babies. 

I think the vast majority of the whining in this thread has been done by the opponents of this bill.

[Sumner 1868]

I guess even marriage needs to be privatized now. Interesting.

[© tweed]

no chance of surviving in the courts, right?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

So the people arguing gay matrimony undermines the institution of marriage, just passed a bill undermining the legal institution of marriage. Got it.

That argument, just like the "Bible sez" argument, is merely a vaneer for "ewwwwwwww gross!"

Like I said.  Babies.  Whining, bigoted, douchey babies. 

I think the vast majority of the whining in this thread has been done by the opponents of this bill.

Passing the bill was, itself, a form of whining.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

no chance of surviving in the courts, right?

Why not?  Is there any inherent reason why marriage needs to require a license as opposed to just a certificate?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

no chance of surviving in the courts, right?

In its initial form, no.  In its current form, probably not.  Not all religions have equal opportunity to have their marriage ceremonies recognized, and there is the question of whether those affidavits of common law marriage will be considered equivalent.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

no chance of surviving in the courts, right?

In its initial form, no.  In its current form, probably not.  Not all religions have equal opportunity to have their marriage ceremonies recognized, and there is the question of whether those affidavits of common law marriage will be considered equivalent.

How so? 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

no chance of surviving in the courts, right?

In its initial form, no.  In its current form, probably not.  Not all religions have equal opportunity to have their marriage ceremonies recognized, and there is the question of whether those affidavits of common law marriage will be considered equivalent.

How so? 

From the article linked in the OP:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, the de facto status of ministers as government agents might well cause hackles for sects such as the Jehovah Witnesses.

[RINO Tom]

Bizarre.

[Ebsy]

Pretty blatantly unconstitutional.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The title of this thread and the description of this bill don't match.  While the intent of the bill according to the linked article matches the title, the effect doesn't unless you're worried that the affidavits of common law marriage would be treated differently.

Go drink at the fountain for black people ernest.  The water is still the same!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The title of this thread and the description of this bill don't match.  While the intent of the bill according to the linked article matches the title, the effect doesn't unless you're worried that the affidavits of common law marriage would be treated differently.

Go drink at the fountain for black people ernest.  The water is still the same!

Using your clumsy analogy, it would be like if a bill requiring separate water fountains were described with the headline OK House passes bill restricting water to white people.  That'd only be true if the fountains for black people were broken, which is a legitimate concern, and one I addressed.  Even then, your analogy assumes atheists would both have difficulty finding a preacher to marry them and that they would want one, which is why your analogy to segregated water fountains doesn't really work.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

The Party of The Constitution™ continues to be terrible