Oklahoma State Rep. proposes banning all marriage to satisfy equal protection

[King]

If you can't beat them, join them?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lief 🗽]

He keeps using that word "realistic." I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

[Cassius]

So... The gist of this is that the state will stop performing civil marriages, which will presumably leave the job to religious organisations. Me likes... Very.

[Reginald]

1) 26 years old.
2) Edmond.
3) "Get government out of marriage!"

That about sums it up.

[Blue3]

Ugh. Why deny marriage to people who want it?

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

So basically, Oklahoma conservatives would rather destroy an institution of civil society than allow it to change.

The phrase "rule or ruin" really does sum up the Republican Party nowadays.

[badgate]

Oh, Edmond. Well done, Edmond.

[SteveRogers]

So... The gist of this is that the state will stop performing civil marriages, which will presumably leave the job to religious organisations. Me likes... Very.

What about the hundreds of legal implications that accompany civil recognition of marriage? Just toss those out the window altogether?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Reminds me of Virgina's response to desegregating the public schools.  They closed them down.  While it is possible that some state will eliminate civil marriage, I can't immagne that will last very long.

[Mechaman]

1) 26 years old.
2) Edmond.
3) "Get government out of marriage!"

That about sums it up.

Bravo good sir.  Bravo!

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

1) 26 years old.
2) Edmond.
3) "Get government out of marriage!"

That about sums it up.

Bravo good sir.  Bravo!

Can someone explain this? Isn't Edmond a suburb of Oklahoma City?

[Deus Naturae]

How would this law "ban" marriage? Sounds to me like it would just end government regulation of marriage.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

How would this law "ban" marriage? Sounds to me like it would just end government regulation of marriage.

Government doesn't regulate civil marriages; it allows them to exist. Without government, there would be no civil marriage. There would simply be a patchwork of marriages from different religious sects that had no standing in courts of law and wouldn't have a guarantee of recognition. If you wanted a divorce, you'd be at the mercy of your clergyman. If you want to marry someone of a different religion or don't have a religion yourself, you basically can't get married.

[Reginald]

Can someone explain this? Isn't Edmond a suburb of Oklahoma City?

The remark was sorta flippant. Yes, it’s a typical upper-middle class suburb (although possibly even more sprawly than usual) so residents are stereotyped as being snooty/sheltered/really conservative/etc. There's a university in downtown Edmond, which is older and not as affluent. This guy though definitely represents the various subdivisions of western Edmond*.

* Technically speaking almost all of his district is in OKC boundaries, but from what I've observed everything north of Memorial is generally referred to as Edmond.

[Deus Naturae]

How would this law "ban" marriage? Sounds to me like it would just end government regulation of marriage.

Government doesn't regulate civil marriages; it allows them to exist. Without government, there would be no civil marriage. There would simply be a patchwork of marriages from different religious sects that had no standing in courts of law and wouldn't have a guarantee of recognition. If you wanted a divorce, you'd be at the mercy of your clergyman. If you want to marry someone of a different religion or don't have a religion yourself, you basically can't get married.

If you wanted to divorce your husband, you could simply leave him (unless he tried to violently prevent you from doing so, which is another issue entirely).

There are currently religious sects that solemnize inter-religious marriages. In addition, secular marriages could still take place, there just wouldn't be a priest or government officer involved.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

How would this law "ban" marriage? Sounds to me like it would just end government regulation of marriage.

Government doesn't regulate civil marriages; it allows them to exist. Without government, there would be no civil marriage. There would simply be a patchwork of marriages from different religious sects that had no standing in courts of law and wouldn't have a guarantee of recognition. If you wanted a divorce, you'd be at the mercy of your clergyman. If you want to marry someone of a different religion or don't have a religion yourself, you basically can't get married.

If you wanted to divorce your husband, you could simply leave him (unless he tried to violently prevent you from doing so, which is another issue entirely).

There are currently religious sects that solemnize inter-religious marriages. In addition, secular marriages could still take place, there just wouldn't be a priest or government officer involved.

And how is child custody decided? Who decides who keeps the house/cars/etc?

And who would officiate a civil marriage if not a government official? If there is no specific body in charge of marriages, then we might as well just marry each other with hand puppets.

[New_Conservative]

This is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time.

[bedstuy]

Ridiculous.


But, maybe what you would have to do is go to another state to get married.  Or, perhaps you could write up a marriage contract.  So, you would actually have to pay someone to marry you so that it was a legal contract.  And, then your marriage contract would state the choice of marriage law and arbitration rules.  It would be an immense cost to the court system and people getting married, but it would be very interesting.

[PJ]

Ridiculous and unrealistic idea, as well as bigoted considering who it's coming from.

[Deus Naturae]

How would this law "ban" marriage? Sounds to me like it would just end government regulation of marriage.

Government doesn't regulate civil marriages; it allows them to exist. Without government, there would be no civil marriage. There would simply be a patchwork of marriages from different religious sects that had no standing in courts of law and wouldn't have a guarantee of recognition. If you wanted a divorce, you'd be at the mercy of your clergyman. If you want to marry someone of a different religion or don't have a religion yourself, you basically can't get married.

If you wanted to divorce your husband, you could simply leave him (unless he tried to violently prevent you from doing so, which is another issue entirely).

There are currently religious sects that solemnize inter-religious marriages. In addition, secular marriages could still take place, there just wouldn't be a priest or government officer involved.

And how is child custody decided? Who decides who keeps the house/cars/etc?

And who would officiate a civil marriage if not a government official? If there is no specific body in charge of marriages, then we might as well just marry each other with hand puppets.

That sort of thing could be negotiated via contract prior to the marriage. Items not specified in the marital contract would presumably go to whoever purchased them. Child custody could also be decided via contract. If not, the departing spouse could either negotiate a new contract (ex: I'll let you keep my x in exchange for x rights to the children) or forfeit his/her rights to the children.

I'm not sure what your mean by your second paragraph. If a couple truly feels that need some one to make their union "official" they could just get a close family member or friend to do it.

[Blue3]

Civil marriage is just a contract, in the eyes of the government. That's what we've been saying. So why not extend it to same-sex couples?

[bedstuy]

How would this law "ban" marriage? Sounds to me like it would just end government regulation of marriage.

Government doesn't regulate civil marriages; it allows them to exist. Without government, there would be no civil marriage. There would simply be a patchwork of marriages from different religious sects that had no standing in courts of law and wouldn't have a guarantee of recognition. If you wanted a divorce, you'd be at the mercy of your clergyman. If you want to marry someone of a different religion or don't have a religion yourself, you basically can't get married.

If you wanted to divorce your husband, you could simply leave him (unless he tried to violently prevent you from doing so, which is another issue entirely).

There are currently religious sects that solemnize inter-religious marriages. In addition, secular marriages could still take place, there just wouldn't be a priest or government officer involved.

And how is child custody decided? Who decides who keeps the house/cars/etc?

And who would officiate a civil marriage if not a government official? If there is no specific body in charge of marriages, then we might as well just marry each other with hand puppets.

That sort of thing could be negotiated via contract prior to the marriage. Items not specified in the marital contract would presumably go to whoever purchased them. Child custody could also be decided via contract. If not, the departing spouse could either negotiate a new contract (ex: I'll let you keep my x in exchange for x rights to the children) or forfeit his/her rights to the children.

I'm not sure what your mean by your second paragraph. If a couple truly feels that need some one to make their union "official" they could just get a close family member or friend to do it.

A marriage isn't a legally enforceable private contract though, right?  And, wouldn't this just create an enormous expense.  Even poor people would have to hire a lawyer to get married and divorces would be ridiculous trials.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This is at least more in line with my views on what government marriage should be, although total abolition of such laws without any replacement would be problematic.

[Mechaman]

Can someone explain this? Isn't Edmond a suburb of Oklahoma City?

The remark was sorta flippant. Yes, it’s a typical upper-middle class suburb (although possibly even more sprawly than usual) so residents are stereotyped as being snooty/sheltered/really conservative/etc. There's a university in downtown Edmond, which is older and not as affluent. This guy though definitely represents the various subdivisions of western Edmond*.

* Technically speaking almost all of his district is in OKC boundaries, but from what I've observed everything north of Memorial is generally referred to as Edmond.

Yeah his district is located directly to the north of Lake Hefner.  But the differences between far north SUPER SUBURBIA Oklahoma City and Edmond (TEXTBOOK SUBURBIA) are so little that your initial jibe still stands.