If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News9 Oklahoma)   Oklahoma lawmaker wants to ban heterosexual marriages to spite gays and women who can't stop laughing at his hair   (news9.com) divider line 213
    More: Asinine, Oklahoma, lawmakers consider, Oklahoma City, opponents of same-sex marriage, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit  
•       •       •

5987 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jan 2014 at 6:53 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



213 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-01-24 08:42:55 PM  
Yet another GOP attack on the sanctity of marriage.
 
2014-01-24 09:03:14 PM  
Somebody buy that boy a comb!
 
2014-01-24 09:04:01 PM  
Baby. Bath water. For control.
 
2014-01-24 09:14:53 PM  
I would like to hear his views on Ancient Aliens.
 
2014-01-24 09:24:31 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Baby. Bath water. For control.


Stupid as his argument is, I agree with the outcome.  I've always felt thathe wholemarriage thing was a fundamental violation of the separation of church and state.  Abolish State control over a religious institution.  Just make sure you have sort of equivalency for legal purposes that is open to all.
 
2014-01-24 09:33:21 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Nadie_AZ: Baby. Bath water. For control.

Stupid as his argument is, I agree with the outcome.  I've always felt thathe wholemarriage thing was a fundamental violation of the separation of church and state.  Abolish State control over a religious institution.  Just make sure you have sort of equivalency for legal purposes that is open to all.


Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution. It has always been a legal institution. Religious ceremonies and matrimony have traditionally been performed by religious figures, but the status of being joined with another person for cohabitation and family building has been fundamentally a legal issue since it started.

There are reams of family law that use the concept of marriage to determine many things. It is a fundamental aspect of one of the biggest civil law categories in this country, and determines visitation rights, custody rights, inheritance rights, property rights, and many other things. Throwing a hissy fit because some religions don't think gay people should have legal cohabitation status and wanting to take marriage out of the law isn't throwing the baby out of the bathwater, it's throwing the baby out of the bathwater and into the trash disposal, then smashing the bathtub with a sledgehammer.
 
2014-01-24 09:56:45 PM  

Bloody William: Benevolent Misanthrope: Nadie_AZ: Baby. Bath water. For control.

Stupid as his argument is, I agree with the outcome.  I've always felt thathe wholemarriage thing was a fundamental violation of the separation of church and state.  Abolish State control over a religious institution.  Just make sure you have sort of equivalency for legal purposes that is open to all.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution. It has always been a legal institution. Religious ceremonies and matrimony have traditionally been performed by religious figures, but the status of being joined with another person for cohabitation and family building has been fundamentally a legal issue since it started.

There are reams of family law that use the concept of marriage to determine many things. It is a fundamental aspect of one of the biggest civil law categories in this country, and determines visitation rights, custody rights, inheritance rights, property rights, and many other things. Throwing a hissy fit because some religions don't think gay people should have legal cohabitation status and wanting to take marriage out of the law isn't throwing the baby out of the bathwater, it's throwing the baby out of the bathwater and into the trash disposal, then smashing the bathtub with a sledgehammer.


What you say makes sense, but you're arguing with an oxymoron.
 
2014-01-24 10:02:06 PM  
Zac Effron and Sean Astin had a kid. And let him comb his own hair.
 
2014-01-24 10:28:28 PM  

Bloody William: Benevolent Misanthrope: Nadie_AZ: Baby. Bath water. For control.

Stupid as his argument is, I agree with the outcome.  I've always felt thathe wholemarriage thing was a fundamental violation of the separation of church and state.  Abolish State control over a religious institution.  Just make sure you have sort of equivalency for legal purposes that is open to all.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution. It has always been a legal institution. Religious ceremonies and matrimony have traditionally been performed by religious figures, but the status of being joined with another person for cohabitation and family building has been fundamentally a legal issue since it started.

There are reams of family law that use the concept of marriage to determine many things. It is a fundamental aspect of one of the biggest civil law categories in this country, and determines visitation rights, custody rights, inheritance rights, property rights, and many other things. Throwing a hissy fit because some religions don't think gay people should have legal cohabitation status and wanting to take marriage out of the law isn't throwing the baby out of the bathwater, it's throwing the baby out of the bathwater and into the trash disposal, then smashing the bathtub with a sledgehammer.


I agree with your point that we shouldn't cave to religion. And even though I've never felt the need or desire to marry, nothing would stop me from supporting marriage equality. Whether or not I exercise certain rights, no one is going to tell me I don't have the same rights as every other citizen.

That said, and I expressed this badly, I honestly don't care which word we use for it. There are two "marriage"s - the legal one, and the religious ceremony. If the churches will stop farking with us if we change the word we use for the legal one, fine. As long as the same legal rights are in place, call it Legal Family, call it Joining, call it George if you like. Straight or Gay, anyone can have the same legal status. Whether a church blesses it is between the couple and the church.
 
2014-01-24 10:32:48 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I agree with your point that we shouldn't cave to religion. And even though I've never felt the need or desire to marry, nothing would stop me from supporting marriage equality. Whether or not I exercise certain rights, no one is going to tell me I don't have the same rights as every other citizen.

That said, and I expressed this badly, I honestly don't care which word we use for it. There are two "marriage"s - the legal one, and the religious ceremony. If the churches will stop farking with us if we change the word we use for the legal one, fine. As long as the same legal rights are in place, call it Legal Family, call it Joining, call it George if you like. Straight or Gay, anyone can have the same legal status. Whether a church blesses it is between the couple and the church.


I do care what word we use for it, because as long as we call it something different it will BE something different. Not to go all Plessy vs. Ferguson, but it'll be separate but equal. And history has shown that separate but equal always ends up being anything but equal.
 
2014-01-24 10:45:52 PM  

Bloody William: Benevolent Misanthrope: I agree with your point that we shouldn't cave to religion. And even though I've never felt the need or desire to marry, nothing would stop me from supporting marriage equality. Whether or not I exercise certain rights, no one is going to tell me I don't have the same rights as every other citizen.

That said, and I expressed this badly, I honestly don't care which word we use for it. There are two "marriage"s - the legal one, and the religious ceremony. If the churches will stop farking with us if we change the word we use for the legal one, fine. As long as the same legal rights are in place, call it Legal Family, call it Joining, call it George if you like. Straight or Gay, anyone can have the same legal status. Whether a church blesses it is between the couple and the church.

I do care what word we use for it, because as long as we call it something different it will BE something different. Not to go all Plessy vs. Ferguson, but it'll be separate but equal. And history has shown that separate but equal always ends up being anything but equal.


I see your point.
 
2014-01-24 10:58:59 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Bloody William: Benevolent Misanthrope: Nadie_AZ: Baby. Bath water. For control.

Stupid as his argument is, I agree with the outcome.  I've always felt thathe wholemarriage thing was a fundamental violation of the separation of church and state.  Abolish State control over a religious institution.  Just make sure you have sort of equivalency for legal purposes that is open to all.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution. It has always been a legal institution. Religious ceremonies and matrimony have traditionally been performed by religious figures, but the status of being joined with another person for cohabitation and family building has been fundamentally a legal issue since it started.

There are reams of family law that use the concept of marriage to determine many things. It is a fundamental aspect of one of the biggest civil law categories in this country, and determines visitation rights, custody rights, inheritance rights, property rights, and many other things. Throwing a hissy fit because some religions don't think gay people should have legal cohabitation status and wanting to take marriage out of the law isn't throwing the baby out of the bathwater, it's throwing the baby out of the bathwater and into the trash disposal, then smashing the bathtub with a sledgehammer.

I agree with your point that we shouldn't cave to religion. And even though I've never felt the need or desire to marry, nothing would stop me from supporting marriage equality. Whether or not I exercise certain rights, no one is going to tell me I don't have the same rights as every other citizen.

That said, and I expressed this badly, I honestly don't care which word we use for it. There are two "marriage"s - the legal one, and the religious ceremony. If the churches will stop farking with us if we change the word we use for the legal one, fine. As long as the same legal rights are in place, call it Legal Family, call it Joining, call it George if you l ...


They did do that. We called them Civil Unions. And the religious right still did it's damndest to fark with people that had them.

Sorry, they don't get to surrender. They're getting their precious institution blasted to bits because fark them, that's why. Same with contraception. Fark your religion, fark you, enjoy your soul being raped you mongoloid goat farker. These religious twits need to be put in their place. And that is under the heel of secularism.
 
2014-01-24 11:04:07 PM  

iq_in_binary: Benevolent Misanthrope: Bloody William: Benevolent Misanthrope: Nadie_AZ: Baby. Bath water. For control.

Stupid as his argument is, I agree with the outcome.  I've always felt thathe wholemarriage thing was a fundamental violation of the separation of church and state.  Abolish State control over a religious institution.  Just make sure you have sort of equivalency for legal purposes that is open to all.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution. It has always been a legal institution. Religious ceremonies and matrimony have traditionally been performed by religious figures, but the status of being joined with another person for cohabitation and family building has been fundamentally a legal issue since it started.

There are reams of family law that use the concept of marriage to determine many things. It is a fundamental aspect of one of the biggest civil law categories in this country, and determines visitation rights, custody rights, inheritance rights, property rights, and many other things. Throwing a hissy fit because some religions don't think gay people should have legal cohabitation status and wanting to take marriage out of the law isn't throwing the baby out of the bathwater, it's throwing the baby out of the bathwater and into the trash disposal, then smashing the bathtub with a sledgehammer.

I agree with your point that we shouldn't cave to religion. And even though I've never felt the need or desire to marry, nothing would stop me from supporting marriage equality. Whether or not I exercise certain rights, no one is going to tell me I don't have the same rights as every other citizen.

That said, and I expressed this badly, I honestly don't care which word we use for it. There are two "marriage"s - the legal one, and the religious ceremony. If the churches will stop farking with us if we change the word we use for the legal one, fine. As long as the same legal rights are in place, call it Legal Family, call it Joining, call ...


It's not even the case the the religious are universally opposed to marriage equality.  There are plenty of religions, denominations, and individual churches that support full marriage equality.  There are certainly some big ones that don't, but aside from the Catholics it's mainly the more fundamentalist groups that are getting into a tizzy over this.
 
2014-01-24 11:09:35 PM  
Please... proceed
 
2014-01-24 11:11:15 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: iq_in_binary: Benevolent Misanthrope: Bloody William: Benevolent Misanthrope: Nadie_AZ: Baby. Bath water. For control.

Stupid as his argument is, I agree with the outcome.  I've always felt thathe wholemarriage thing was a fundamental violation of the separation of church and state.  Abolish State control over a religious institution.  Just make sure you have sort of equivalency for legal purposes that is open to all.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution. It has always been a legal institution. Religious ceremonies and matrimony have traditionally been performed by religious figures, but the status of being joined with another person for cohabitation and family building has been fundamentally a legal issue since it started.

There are reams of family law that use the concept of marriage to determine many things. It is a fundamental aspect of one of the biggest civil law categories in this country, and determines visitation rights, custody rights, inheritance rights, property rights, and many other things. Throwing a hissy fit because some religions don't think gay people should have legal cohabitation status and wanting to take marriage out of the law isn't throwing the baby out of the bathwater, it's throwing the baby out of the bathwater and into the trash disposal, then smashing the bathtub with a sledgehammer.

I agree with your point that we shouldn't cave to religion. And even though I've never felt the need or desire to marry, nothing would stop me from supporting marriage equality. Whether or not I exercise certain rights, no one is going to tell me I don't have the same rights as every other citizen.

That said, and I expressed this badly, I honestly don't care which word we use for it. There are two "marriage"s - the legal one, and the religious ceremony. If the churches will stop farking with us if we change the word we use for the legal one, fine. As long as the same legal rights are in place, call it Legal Family, call it ...


I said the religious RIGHT didn't I?
 
2014-01-24 11:52:10 PM  
Treat married couples the same as two individuals.
Reform laws like adoption and hospital visitation where it makes sense.
Revoke needless laws like different income tax filing statuses and bonus income for married government employees.
 
2014-01-24 11:54:57 PM  
I have long held the idea that the government should only recognize civil unions (or whatever legal term works) for gay, straight, or platonic couples.  Marriage should be reserved for the individuals that want to use that term, regardless of whether they want to use it for religious or cultural reasons.  Call me crazy.
 
2014-01-25 12:07:07 AM  

Bloody William: Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution. It has always been a legal institution. Religious ceremonies and matrimony have traditionally been performed by religious figures, but the status of being joined with another person for cohabitation and family building has been fundamentally a legal issue since it started.


I think the two issues were conflated when the idea of marriage began.  It was always a contract, but the tribal rules that guided the contract originated in the common religion of the time.  The ancient Hebrews weren't counting on state approval for marriage.   Even in the US the state didn't begin to get involved until the middle 1800's.
 
2014-01-25 12:27:02 AM  
The triumph of small government.
 
2014-01-25 12:40:58 AM  
Jobs? Jobs? Jobs?
 
2014-01-25 01:16:08 AM  
Will they ban heterosexual marriage retroactively?
 
2014-01-25 01:21:50 AM  
So why can clergy perform marriages but they can't grant divorces?
 
2014-01-25 01:24:28 AM  

Lsherm: Bloody William: Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution. It has always been a legal institution. Religious ceremonies and matrimony have traditionally been performed by religious figures, but the status of being joined with another person for cohabitation and family building has been fundamentally a legal issue since it started.

I think the two issues were conflated when the idea of marriage began.  It was always a contract, but the tribal rules that guided the contract originated in the common religion of the time.  The ancient Hebrews weren't counting on state approval for marriage.   Even in the US the state didn't begin to get involved until the middle 1800's.


Difficulty: Ancient Hebrews weren't the first to practice marriage, and most cultures that pre-date them treated it more as a civil matter.
 
2014-01-25 01:32:03 AM  

grumpfuff: Difficulty: Ancient Hebrews weren't the first to practice marriage, and most cultures that pre-date them treated it more as a civil matter.


 What state was providing the marriage, or civil union, or whatever?  Was it a state or a tribe?
 
2014-01-25 01:49:07 AM  

Lsherm: grumpfuff: Difficulty: Ancient Hebrews weren't the first to practice marriage, and most cultures that pre-date them treated it more as a civil matter.

 What state was providing the marriage, or civil union, or whatever?  Was it a state or a tribe?


I know for certain marriage in ancient Egypt was pretty much a civil matter. I can't find a good cite but there's this.

Also, off the top of my head, any culture influenced by the Code of Hamurabi. Babylonian marriage, for example, was strictly a legal issue - similar to property rights. Pretty much all marriage in ancient Mesopotamia was like that.

By the way, that includes the Hebrews. They just happened to incorporate that part into their religion.
 
2014-01-25 01:49:51 AM  

grumpfuff: I can't find a good cite but there's this.


Meant to be this.
 
2014-01-25 01:50:52 AM  

grumpfuff: grumpfuff: I can't find a good cite but there's this.

Meant to be this.


Oi, that wasn't the link I wanted either, it says fark all about marriage.

I give up, I'm going to sleep.
 
2014-01-25 02:33:11 AM  
A long time ago I used to be against gay marriage but for civil unions with full rights. But then I realized the people pushing for "equality" via civil unions weren't really for equality, there was always some hangup right that coupled gays couldn't get, under the guise of protecting the faith and sanctity of marriage but it was rooted in business, specifically, denying health insurance to a spouse or spouse's biological kids. At the same time I noticed how many talking heads who referred to the sanctity of marriage were on their third or fifth wife. And then I saw my lesbian friend pursue a degree and later a career with a company not because she had any interest in it, but because that particular company extended benefits to gay spouses.

And then, finally, I was just like WHY THE F*CK ARE WE FIGHTING OVER THIS?!

goddamn.. Let's get our f*cking priorities straight, no pun intended.
 
2014-01-25 02:46:58 AM  

violentsalvation: A long time ago I used to be against gay marriage but for civil unions with full rights. But then I realized the people pushing for "equality" via civil unions weren't really for equality, there was always some hangup right that coupled gays couldn't get, under the guise of protecting the faith and sanctity of marriage but it was rooted in business, specifically, denying health insurance to a spouse or spouse's biological kids. At the same time I noticed how many talking heads who referred to the sanctity of marriage were on their third or fifth wife. And then I saw my lesbian friend pursue a degree and later a career with a company not because she had any interest in it, but because that particular company extended benefits to gay spouses.

And then, finally, I was just like WHY THE F*CK ARE WE FIGHTING OVER THIS?!

goddamn.. Let's get our f*cking priorities straight, no pun intended.


You've never heard of divide and conquer?
 
2014-01-25 06:29:14 AM  
ACLU Oklahoma executive detector.

He detects ACLU executives? That's not a very good X-Men power. I can do that too. Just look for the biggest smarmy liberal douchebag in the room.
 
2014-01-25 07:10:43 AM  
Heh. I called it
 
2014-01-25 07:12:17 AM  
Here's the problem with prohibiting all marriages. It's simply not as simple as saying the state no longer does marriages.

Marriage status impacts a lot of things that would all need to be adjusted to reflect a ban on marriage - for instance, wills and estates. When all marriages are banned, you basically screw over a major part of intestate succession - when someone dies without a will. Normally, the spouse would get a portion of the estate when someone dies without a will, but when all marriage is banned, the spouse no longer exists and is cut out of this.

Similarly, laws for joint filing of taxes need to be tweaked. There are considerations like, for instance, immigration and citizenship.

This man is a moron if he thinks he can just ban all marriage outright and it'd be as simple as a bill.
 
2014-01-25 07:16:53 AM  
The state prohibiting marriage and the state not regulating marriage, by not issuing marriage licenses etc., are quite obviously very different things.  Perhaps it is not the role of state to invade our bedrooms, what a concept?

ARTICLE AUTHOR FAIL.
 
2014-01-25 07:23:00 AM  

Lsherm: Bloody William: Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution. It has always been a legal institution. Religious ceremonies and matrimony have traditionally been performed by religious figures, but the status of being joined with another person for cohabitation and family building has been fundamentally a legal issue since it started.

I think the two issues were conflated when the idea of marriage began.  It was always a contract, but the tribal rules that guided the contract originated in the common religion of the time.  The ancient Hebrews weren't counting on state approval for marriage.   Even in the US the state didn't begin to get involved until the middle 1800's.


Of course, the rights of men and women wrt person and property have been vastly different up to the 20th Century. Even now those rights are evolving. I say questioning the State's involvement in marriage is legitimate.
 
2014-01-25 07:23:49 AM  

RexTalionis: Here's the problem with prohibiting all marriages. It's simply not as simple as saying the state no longer does marriages.

Marriage status impacts a lot of things that would all need to be adjusted to reflect a ban on marriage - for instance, wills and estates. When all marriages are banned, you basically screw over a major part of intestate succession - when someone dies without a will. Normally, the spouse would get a portion of the estate when someone dies without a will, but when all marriage is banned, the spouse no longer exists and is cut out of this.

Similarly, laws for joint filing of taxes need to be tweaked. There are considerations like, for instance, immigration and citizenship.

This man is a moron if he thinks he can just ban all marriage outright and it'd be as simple as a bill.


Exactly, just the property and federal tax implications make this a complete joke.

What representative bedhead probably means is that he wants marriage to be a completely religious ceremony again, which would be hilarious because then the married would have no legal ties to each other and the church would again be in charge of divorces.
 
2014-01-25 07:30:32 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: That said, and I expressed this badly, I honestly don't care which word we use for it. There are two "marriage"s - the legal one, and the religious ceremony. If the churches will stop farking with us if we change the word we use for the legal one, fine. As long as the same legal rights are in place, call it Legal Family, call it Joining, call it George if you like. Straight or Gay, anyone can have the same legal status. Whether a church blesses it is between the couple and the church.


That's been tried - people have attempted to use the phrase 'civil union' as a way to allow gays to get separate-but-equal rights and to placate fundamentalists.  And in response to to that offer, we get:

The Texas Constitution's gay marriage amendment, added in 2005:
(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

And Mitt Romney on the campaign trail in 2012: "I don't favor civil unions if it's identical to marriage, and I don't favor marriage between people of the same gender."

If fundamentalists were going to accept giving gays equal rights as long as it wasn't called 'marriage', then they had their chance.  They spit on it, so fark 'em.

Also, not to brag, but I called this not to long ago: that when enough courts finally beat the rule into bigots heads that they can't give rights to straights while banning them to homosexuals - well then, they'd just take their ball, go home, and ban them for everyone if that's the only way to keep the filthy homo's cooties off it.
 
2014-01-25 07:32:39 AM  

RexTalionis: This man is a moron if he thinks he can just ban all marriage outright and it'd be as simple as a bill.


I think his notion isn't to ban all marriage and send divorce notices out to every couple in his state, but to just stop the state from issuing new marriage licenses to anyone.
 
2014-01-25 07:38:22 AM  
imagizer.imageshack.us

NFA: Yet another GOP attack on the sanctity of marriage.


Don't tell the folks at I Missed It News 9
 
2014-01-25 07:40:48 AM  

Lsherm: Bloody William: Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution. It has always been a legal institution. Religious ceremonies and matrimony have traditionally been performed by religious figures, but the status of being joined with another person for cohabitation and family building has been fundamentally a legal issue since it started.

I think the two issues were conflated when the idea of marriage began.  It was always a contract, but the tribal rules that guided the contract originated in the common religion of the time.  The ancient Hebrews weren't counting on state approval for marriage.   Even in the US the state didn't begin to get involved until the middle 1800's.


Because a wikipedia article doesn't go back prior to 1830 doesn't mean that was the first laws against marriage.

The fact that the first entry is "1830 - Married women are granted the right to own property in their own name, instead of being owned exclusively by the husband, in Mississippi" makes that pretty clear, as it says that there was a law that made all property of a married woman owned exclusively by the husband.

Marriage laws have been present for the entire history of the United States. When the first settlers arrived from England, English common and statute law applied.
The oldest English law I can find referencing marriage is the Magna Carta from 1215 (regarding inheritance(. The first official Act of Parliament of England, the Statute of Merton of 1235, regulated legitimacy of children (to married couples), dowries, and the rights of widows, among other things.

In the colonies themselves Maryland enacted an anti-
miscegenation law in 1664.

In a broader perspective, civil regulation of marriage dates to, at the latest, Ancient Greece. How else does the state regulate things like legitimacy (necessary for inheritance and citizenship laws)?
 
2014-01-25 07:40:51 AM  

Lsherm: Bloody William: Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution. It has always been a legal institution. Religious ceremonies and matrimony have traditionally been performed by religious figures, but the status of being joined with another person for cohabitation and family building has been fundamentally a legal issue since it started.

I think the two issues were conflated when the idea of marriage began.  It was always a contract, but the tribal rules that guided the contract originated in the common religion of the time.  The ancient Hebrews weren't counting on state approval for marriage.   Even in the US the state didn't begin to get involved until the middle 1800's.


That is an astonishing stupid conclusion to draw from that link.  The wikipedia article 'Timeline of civil marriage in the United States' has the first example dated to 1830, and you're claiming that proves that no civil marriage laws existed in the US prior to that.  You're making the assumption that that wikipedia article lists every single application of marriage in civil laws.

This article says that anti-miscegenation laws date back to the 1660's.  Which means the United States was using the law to set the definition of marriage before there even was a United States.
 
2014-01-25 07:43:31 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Nadie_AZ: Baby. Bath water. For control.

Stupid as his argument is, I agree with the outcome.  I've always felt thathe wholemarriage thing was a fundamental violation of the separation of church and state.  Abolish State control over a religious institution.  Just make sure you have sort of equivalency for legal purposes that is open to all.


Marriage has nothing to do with religion.  It's a secular, civil contract between two people.  Because it's a contract, the civil government is there to resolve disputes.  Religion only plays a part in marriage when the people getting married want the religious ornamentation involved.  But that's not necessary.
 
2014-01-25 07:50:22 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
I think he looks kind of like Herb.

Also, just for fun.
img.fark.net
Booger!!!!
 
2014-01-25 07:50:55 AM  
Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Rather, it's a set of default rules for couples. Who gets the property when someone dies? What happens to the minor children?

A couple could negotiate these types of things beforehand, but in reality, few people would, and the society don't want to be left with the messes that would result.

The fact that 2000 years ago, religious rules rather than secular laws served the same purpose, albeit under a cloak of holiness, changes nothing.

If you think about it, marriage is pretty much the Uniform Commercial Code of sex.
 
2014-01-25 07:58:12 AM  
Go home, flyover country, you're drunk.
 
2014-01-25 08:03:53 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: There are two "marriage"s - the legal one, and the religious ceremony.


That seems to be a point that is lost on many, many people.  People think that marriage equality isn't ok because of their religious beliefs.  But they don't realize that that's not what proponents of marriage equality want----if Christians continue to disavow gay marriages, that's their business.  We want (and all we can constitutionally ask for, without risking state interference with the church)  legal marriage equality.  You know, the thing that changes your tax status, your inheritance status, and your healthcare-decision-making status.
 
2014-01-25 08:05:26 AM  
Form the Oklahoma tourism bureau:

Oklahoma the hook up state where everyone is technically single
What happens in Oklahoma isn't grounds for divorce

state motto: how you doing

 license plate: Oklahoma land of the one night stand

/don't think of it as ending marriage think of it as bring back traditional free love
 
2014-01-25 08:10:59 AM  
This is good. Let the stupid go terminal. Let the rest of America witness the lengths these farkheads are willing to go to turn back time and impose their bogotry on everyone else.
 
2014-01-25 08:11:25 AM  

Notabunny: Jobs? Jobs? Jobs?


I'm sure this will generate billions and billions of them.
 
2014-01-25 08:11:39 AM  

Bloody William: Benevolent Misanthrope: Nadie_AZ: Baby. Bath water. For control.

Stupid as his argument is, I agree with the outcome.  I've always felt thathe wholemarriage thing was a fundamental violation of the separation of church and state.  Abolish State control over a religious institution.  Just make sure you have sort of equivalency for legal purposes that is open to all.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution. It has always been a legal institution. Religious ceremonies and matrimony have traditionally been performed by religious figures, but the status of being joined with another person for cohabitation and family building has been fundamentally a legal issue since it started.

There are reams of family law that use the concept of marriage to determine many things. It is a fundamental aspect of one of the biggest civil law categories in this country, and determines visitation rights, custody rights, inheritance rights, property rights, and many other things. Throwing a hissy fit because some religions don't think gay people should have legal cohabitation status and wanting to take marriage out of the law isn't throwing the baby out of the bathwater, it's throwing the baby out of the bathwater and into the trash disposal, then smashing the bathtub with a sledgehammer.


Yeah I basically agree. Either it's religious and the government shouldn't have anything to do with it, or it's civil and it shouldn't discriminate. The problem is they want it both ways.
 
2014-01-25 08:11:42 AM  
Heh... These farking bigots just can't come to grips with the fact that they've lost this debate.

It's only a matter of time, Bigots.
 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report