by Rick Green Modified: January 21, 2015 at 9:16 pm •  Published: January 21, 2015

The Cordell Republican says he wants to protect court clerks from having to issue licenses to same-sex couples. He doesn't want these workers put in the position of having to condone or facilitate same-sex marriage.

Under his plan, a religious official would sign a couple's marriage certificate, which would then be filed with the clerk. Marriages would no longer be performed by judges. If a couple did not have a religious official to preside over their wedding, they could file an affidavit of common law marriage.

More at:

http://newsok.com/article/5386633

I'm kind of torn on this one.

As long as anyone can marry and have a legally recognized marriage in the 50 states and worldwide, same sex, opposite sex, whatever, I'm fine with it.

I always thought the Government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business anyway.

However, the intent is what bothers me. This is an end run around legalization of same sex marriage which seems to be an inevitability given the case that will be heard in SCOTUS. If it is used to discriminate against same sex couples it's bad, and I hope it gets struck down, or not passed in the first place.

Ok so if you did a common law affidavit of marriage could you get divorced the same way?

Uff why over think things.

Always pass the discrimination buck.

Will see need Jessica to keep us in the loop.

"A religious official" means what exactly, now?  So atheists would have to settle for a common law marriage?  Sounds like separate but equal to me. 

What about pagans, Rastafarians or Pastafarians for that matter?     

This is getting ridiculous. It's clearly an attempt at getting around what is coming. While I agree with not making anyone do something that is against their religion the clerks work for the government and must follow whatever new laws are passed. If they are unwilling to do the job they were hired for there are plenty of unemployed people willing to take their spot.

Quote from: Jill F on January 22, 2015, 05:36:24 PM
"A religious official" means what exactly, now?  So atheists would have to settle for a common law marriage?  Sounds like separate but equal to me. 

What about pagans, Rastafarians or Pastafarians for that matter?   

This is where I think it won't fly. Restricting marriages to religious people is clearly a violation of the 1st amendment.

But re-reading this it doesn't seem like it would get rid of marriage. It would only make it not the government's duty to license it. Marriage would happen in a church or a private commitment ceremony or just two people deciding they'd get married. For those religious they submit the religious marriage certificate and have it filed with the clerk. Those without will file a common law marriage affidavit with the clerk.

Either way still a recognized marriage. Just not issued by the government.

If it lets people marry regardless I'm fine with it. But the intent is what bothers me. It's an ugly workaround to recognizing equal rights for gay couples.

Why do people insist on electing officials who waste so much taxpayer money pissing in the wind like this?

Quote from: Jill F on January 22, 2015, 06:12:59 PM
Why do people insist on electing officials who waste so much taxpayer money pissing in the wind like this?

He has to play to his base. In NJ they (both parties) file a ton of nonsense bills every year that never even make it to committee so they can crow that they "did something." Some even get passed even though they know it will be vetoed.

Quote from: mrs izzy on January 22, 2015, 05:31:49 PM
Will see need Jessica to keep us in the loop.

Sorry Izzy I was unconscious from face palming myself all day. This is one of two other bills put into play by conservative Christians freaking out that we evil abominations have made a deal with the devil to condemn mankind to hell. Our capitol building is going nuts and guess what? Now you have to have proof of post op status for a gender change. Yup! I got one of the best pictures I have ever taken on my DL with a "M" in the gender box. I was so angry because the Federal Government put a "F" as my new gender and on my Medicare card and The State of Jokelahoma says I am not. Just another example how our politicians want us in the dark ages while they thumb their noses at the Federal Government. I am sick of it all. 

IMO, should be done everywhere. State has no business deciding who is and isn't allowed to be married.

That being said, this is a really dumb reason to do this. But oft we come to the right conclusions for the wrong reasons.

The amusing thing about marriage licenses in the United States as I understand it is that they really took off in order to "save traditional marriage" from the Mormons.  As best I can make out, the Edmunds-Tucker Act (the most draconian U.S. law I can think of, incidentally) required them really so we could document when the Mormons were engaging in polygamy and prosecute them for it.

   

I kind of chuckle at the whole same-sex marriage paranoia.  Do they think as soon as the vows are done, they're going to start doing it right on the JP's desk?  Are they naive enough to think these people aren't already having "omg horrible sinful sex"?  I just don't particularly get the argument.  These people are already living as married couples with all the same things heteros have.  They just want legal/social protections for what they already have.