Anyone else seeing a "pattern" in the GOP/TP thought process? ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Oklahoma Lawmaker Wants To Ban All Marriages
By Nicole Flatow on January 25, 2014 at 12:04 pm

In response to a federal court ruling that Oklahoma’s same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional discrimination, a state lawmaker says he wants to skirt the equal protection argument by banning all marriages in the state.

“[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all,” Rep. Mike Turner (R) told News 9. He said the idea has the backing of other conservative lawmakers, and could be achieved through a shell bill he filed in the state legislature, intended to adapt to any court rulings on same-sex marriage.

A federal judge invalidated the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage earlier this month, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark June decision that held the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. “[Courts] must be wary of whether ‘defending’ traditional marriage is a guise for impermissible discrimination against same-sex couples.” U.S. District Judge Terence Kern wrote. The case will now be appealed to the federal appeals court, so Turner says he will wait until the appeal is over to make any final determinations about how to handle his shell bill.

The move not only mimics one by Utah county officials after another federal judge invalidated that state’s same-sex marriage law. It also mirrors tactics used in the Jim Crow south to resist the U.S. Supreme Court’s order that states desegregate schools in Brown v. Board of Education. As part of a “massive resistance” campaign urged by Virginia Sen. Harry F. Byrd, the Virginia legislature ordered the closure of schools subject to a desegregation order. When that tactic was invalidated by courts, one county went so far as to shut down its public school system entirely from 1959 until 1964.

Oklahoma tried a similar tactic in November to avoid granting military benefits to same-sex spouses, by stopping spousal benefits for all married couples at state National Guard facilities. But the state remained in technical compliance because couples could obtain National Guard IDs from federal facilities in the state.

And after a federal judge invalidated Utah’s same-sex marriage ban last month, one Utah county closed its clerk’s office, meaning no one could obtain a marriage license.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/25/3205541/oklahoma-lawmaker-ban-marriages-revival-jim-crow-tactic/

Anyone else seeing a "pattern" in the GOP/TP thought process?

Their what?

I can name very few GOP people that don't absolutely make me sick today. And there isn't a one of the TP people I would give the time of day much less think about voting for them.

Maybe he is right. Why should government be involved in marriage at all. That could be reserved for the religious segment of the population. Any two people who want to share their lives could enter into some kind of government sanctioned civil contract.

Any two people who want to share their lives could enter into some kind of government sanctioned civil contract.

They already do. It's called marriage.

oskar576 wrote:

[/i]

Not really. Whether opposite or same sex, there is still a sexual element to marriage. Why does that have to be. How about two friends or two family members who want to have a non-sexual civil relationship which confers the same benefits as sexually oriented civil unions.

Explain, please.

If the state is going to confer benefits based on marriage status at all, then the state has to have a marriage definition more formal than just two humans announcing that they're married. The question is whether the state needs to be conferring those benefits, and why.

So is there a good reason for the state to do that?

What is the difference between a husband and wife of the same or opposite sex and a daughter living with and caring for her ill and aging mother. One couple may have sex and the other not but, otherwise, they do pretty much the same things.

I think this guy is an ass. However, I do think there are some problems on both sides. There is the legal contract and then there is the religous aspect for those who want it. They should be totally separate. If people want to do the religious ceremony it's fine with me. It should have no legal implications. It should be totally up to the people and the churches and the state should stay out of it. The legal is about contracts. Who does the person want to make decisions for them if they become unable to. Who should get the kids. Who gets what when they die. If they split up who gets what. Contracts can be between all sorts of people. More and more we are seeing situations like jim mentioned with caregivers. The tax system is recognizing the need to consider that relationship. grampa is right, marriage needs to be legally defined for the contracts. It should have nothing to do with the religious definition. Should there be benefits given to a partner by the state in any marriage? If there are children and the pair decides one will stay home to care for them should it not be part of their contract between themselves what happens if they split etc. I think there should be some serious work done on this issue. With some of the "marriages" I've seen, I cringe at the thought of benefits being given to one based on the work of the other. Hubby and I got married because we had decided that we loved and trusted each other enough that we wanted the other to make the decisions etc if needed. Also, as was needed recently, we wanted to make sure that there was no question about visitation etc if hospitalized. Some still have problems accepting that a black might be married to a white. There was no religion involved because we're atheists. I know you don't want to read my rant about traditional weddings. Anyway, that's my view.

Actually jeff was just talking about this yesterday in the car. Partnership government; marriage church.

gramps - I think the answer to your question is yes and Medicare and SS benefits. Remembering we won't all be young and healthy our whole lives and care for the very elderly is incredibly expense.

Jeff wasn't really addressing love as a reason for partnership, but need. I NEED your insurance. Why should government care about the religious aspects of this at all?