Saturday, January 25, 2014

Okie Conservatives Contemplate Preventing All Marriages...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


This individual has often contemplated the reason(s) the state should have anything to do with marriage. I was always just a bit puzzled as to why the state, being secular and not involved with religious rites in any way, would concern itself with marriage.

Putting that aside for a different discussion on a different day I must say I was amused to find that Oklahoma conservatives have put forth the idea of banning ALL marriages in the Okie state.

What is not at all surprising is that this move is a back alley maneuver by sate conservatives to keep same sex unions illegal in the state. Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond) admitted as much.

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

Article below the fold.

Via: Memeorandum

11 comments:

  1. I am completely with you on the first paragraph (I guess Jersey sees that as "Big Daddy State Conservatism"). The rest...what you describe of others... is so weird.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wait until the Oklahoma bridal shops and diamond stores weigh in.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who says that Neanderthals (especially those who are still a little wet behind the ears like this dude) can't think outside the box?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The state is involved and will continue to be involved because civil marriage is a civil contract and the state is quite properly involved in contracts.

    It's simple. i don't see why libertarians don't get it.
    Nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ducky: The person not getting it here is you. The problem is the state treating it as anything other than a contract.

      Delete
    2. Well yes Ducky, of course. Marriage is a contract between three entities. A man and a women (were talking traditional, conventional religios marriage) , and their God.

      Civil marriage, usually performed by a JP (Justice of the Peace) can be argued is a contract between a couple (either straight or gay/lesbian) and the State. Which is why many religous individuals have no issue with civil same sex unions but oppose same sex marriage performed in a "House of the Lord. I fail to understand why progressives fail to get it.

      Now to the point of the post. Why do YOU think Okie consevatives like the guy in the video are putting forth this idea?

      For the record, me and the misses were "married" by a JP, or put another way agent of the state. #2 for the record, I'm libertarian (but not a LP or Republican party member) and have no personal belief same sex couples should be married, but I'm an atheist, many deeply religous individuals simply believe this wrong, on religous grounds. While I disagree I respect their right to believe as their religous values guide them.

      Perhaps the issue of same sex marriage in a "House of the Lord" should be left to the Church to decide.

      Delete
    3. Correction next to last paragraph... "have no personal belief that same sex couples shoult NOT be married, ..."

      Delete
    4. I don't believe that any state requires that marriage, same sex or not, be performed in a "House of the Lord". It is up to the individual church.

      Delete
    5. RN said: "Correction next to last paragraph..."

      I've been reading you enough, and surely Jerry has also, to know what you meant in your statement, despite the mistake.

      Delete
  5. "Marriage is a contract between three entities. A man and a women (were talking traditional, conventional religios marriage) , and their God."


    God doesn't do contracts. If anyone believes that, then we have to conclude God is lousy at them, since in the part of the country (the Bible Belt) where he is most revered, his "contracts" are the most broken.

    As for this Oklahoma nut legislator, his proposal was good for a couple of loud HARDY-HAR-HARS. .

    Now someone should tell him to go back to eating paste. That's less harmful than his legislative ideas, and it amuses the groundhogs.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You missed the point Jerry, I think. I must not be stating my point clearly enough perhaps?

    Or is it partisan lines confine, religous or secular?

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.