A federal judge ruled last week that Oklahoma’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. But that doesn’t mean that Okie Republicans are taking the news lying down. They have a brilliant idea.
OKLAHOMA CITY – 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.
This is near-perfect example of taking-your-ball-and-going-home. If the courts rule that gay people can be married, then the only thing to do is to ban marriage altogether. Or, more precisely, the idea is to prevent the state from issuing marriage licenses. Don’t let straight people have legally-recognized marriages if it means that gay people can have them, too.
This is petulance defined.
Sounds good to me. Marriage isn’t liberal, it’s not progressive. Why do conservatives love marriage so much? Well aside from its heterodominance, it’s a perfect way to elevate certain persons (usually wealthier), and to get rid of the state as a means for universal benefits.
“Why do you need health care from the government? Get married and transfer it between spouses. Social security for the olds? Family! Move in with your children. Singles be damned.”
And then we have the shaming of single parents, mothers in particular.
I like this site:
Against Equality
If this is the way the cons want to go, bring it on.
It’s a perfectly sensible way to encourage men to take financial responsibility for their children. And there are gowns.
Why should the marital arrangement of the parents have anything to do with a man’s responsibility to his kids? A man should always be responsible for his kids. And you can still have a wedding, with all the lovely clothes and a killer party. We just don’t need the government to give us permission to do so.
Not only do I not want marriage equality, I think the integration of gay people into religious life is a huge mistake. LGBT christians are a lost and self-loathing cohort who will, sooner or later, be led to celibacy by their “brothers and sisters in christ”.
“We believe in a traditionally Christian sexual ethic: that God created human beings male and female, and that all sexual intimacy outside of a faithful, lifelong marital union of a man and woman is contrary to His plan. But we also believe that marriage is not the only way of life God calls us to, and so we seek to explore different ways of serving God in celibacy. And Christ-centered friendship is, we believe, essential to that task.”
http://spiritualfriendship.org/
I know a whole lot of (perfectly well-adjusted) kids who grew up in LGBT families. To a person they would think you’re a complete idiot. They’d have a point.
You probably know a few, too – but you can’t tell, because they’re the same range of human accomplishments and frailties as any other “cohort.” They just have the good sense not to tell you who their parents are.
I guess I should have stated that I am gay and have no intention of getting “married”. I find the whole thing sort of silly. I neither need nor desire affirmation from the government or some yahoo proclaiming that god used to hate gay people, but doesn’t anymore…. as long as we are celibate.
Don’t know how to rate your comment. it is sarcasm isn’t it?
No… I’m just not interested in having my personal life managed by religious fanatics or lawyers.
I agree. A marriage, even in religious terms, is something people choose for themselves. It never should have become a legal situation. Get the government out of it, and let us arrange our lives as we like.
For historical reasons the state had to regulate inheritance among illiterate warlords. The Catholic Church came up with a grand compendium of rules in the Middle Ages to avoid dynastic wars which were common in the Middle East and just incidentally (of course! how else?) got the Church rich and powerful converts who acknowledged the power of the Church to make rules for them and their subjects.
Today, European governments are abandoning this Medieval concept of legitimacy as modern science makes possible proof positive of paternity and inheritance laws (except in the USA) make transference of huge wealth and power very difficult, if not impossible.
The tax laws (disclosure I benefit from them mightily and have for decades) that dispense tax breaks based on the traditional dad and stay at home Mom should be abolished.
Also note the derivation of “clerk” from “cleric”. The Church also kept the warlords’ books!
What this shows is that, for conservatives, equality before the law is The Problem.
Conservatism in every time and place — even when it was the only political paradigm that had ever been thought of and long before the word “conservatism” was ever coined — has always been based upon two-tier citizenship: groups whom the law protects but does not bind, and groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
This is the eternal essence of conservatism and its ethical obscenity.
Note that it does not matter at all which groups or which laws.
Conservatism only exists as a response to society changing for the better.
Always and forever.
Conservatism and reaction are not quite the same thing. Depending upon one’s perspective, simply changing the identities of the in groups and the out groups may look like “society changing for the better”, and there is just as likely to be reaction against that sort of thing as against attempts to establish the rule of law.
It all comes back to “The King Can Do No Wrong”. Even when the King was an individual, the umbrella of his impunity was almost always extended to his family, friends, and other proxies. Today the King is a faction. The faction is typically supported by a party; the party is typically supported by a propaganda machine; and the propaganda is typically based on a pseudophilosophy.
Hahaha. Of course the wealthy can all go get married out of state, same places they get their abortions perhaps. While the right screams about how marriage is being destroyed they are bent on doing whatever they can to destroy it–the decline in marriage really is a kind of crisis, you know, and the chief reason is that working class people can’t afford to get married under government austerity and declining wages.
Hold on now… I think this is a great idea. Let’s leave “Marriage” a religious term describing the covenant enforced within the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc. and create civil unions as a legal structure open to any group of people who wish to pool their resources for their common good of each other, children, elderly, etc. Let the religious fanatics have their marriage and give everyone a way to take advantage of the legal benefits of communal living.
That’s a fine idea in theory, and it may even be workable in the future. But right now, whether we like it or not, people place a lot of meaning in the word “marriage” and being able to call each other “husband” or “wife.” The term “partner” or “civil union” just doesn’t have the same significance for the vast majority of people.
People in favor of marriage equality want the recognition that their relationship is as meaningful as a heterosexual marriage. We really are redefining marriage, and having everybody opt for a different term is going to feel like settling for second best.
If you want to work on getting the term “marriage” out of government, that’s fine. But it’s a completely different issue from gay rights.
I thought the same thing, but I work with two guys who each have been living with their respective female “whatever” for 20+ years. One couple has kids and the other doesn’t. I don’t think this is as far-fetched as we might think.
And no one knows what you or I call our wives/husbands etc.
You can still say you are married. That will just be a relationship term rather than a legal one.
Ok. But while you are trying to take the term “marriage” out of all government documents, what are we to do with same-sex couples who want all the same benefits in the meantime? I say let’s get marriage equality before the law first and then we’ll figure out the government’s role in marriage later because that’s a much bigger (and separate) issue.
Which is exactly the reason I’ve supported gay marriage for years. No one here is saying we should abandon support for marriage equality in favor of the superior solution. It’s possible to do multiple things at the same time and this story even shows it might be possible.
I heard Howard Dean say the same thing in a speech. It made sense to me.
There is this wall, I know you know of it, that separates church and state. “Marriage”, is a church thing.
No fear.
yes yes yes yes
this is the end goal because marriage is meaningless in our society. if you care about it do it in your church or a nondenom secular thing or whatever but there’s no reason for the gov to be involved. purely social position.
Rather than “petulance,” the first term I thought of was “bed-wetting.” But that has two meanings, doesn’t it?
So, if you don’t need a marriage license to be married in OK, does this mean that any yahoo with a valid internet license can perform a single sex marriage in OK that will be JUST as legal as one performed by the Southern Baptists, the Catholics or the Satanists???
The “take-your-ball-and-go-home” comment was what the white folk down south did after Brown v. Board of Education. In Georgia they closed all the public schools.
Then the whites opened private academies for white kids.
I was stationed in
georgia in the Navy in 1964. No public schools still.
So Booman…. surprised at all by the strength of anti-marriage sentiment in your readership?
I’m not.
Taken to its logical conclusion, things like marriage are as anachronistic as capitalism or bastardy laws.
Or, if you want to smack a libertarian in it’s stupid fucking face, just point out that state recognition of marriage is in fact a tax on single people. That is, single people have to pay a tax to be single, relative to married people.
The libertarians I’ve spoken about it to agree with me. Not that I’ve spoken to too many about it.