Oklahoma bill abolishes state marriage licenses

[Behind the Aegis]

Source: Washington Times

An Oklahoma bill that passed one legislative chamber this week rewrites the state’s marriage-licensing process, and asks clergy and notaries to sign off on new marriage papers.

The change is intended to get judges and clerks out of most or all of the marriage process.

The Oklahoma House of Representatives voted Tuesday to change state law to require couples to get a marriage certificate from an authorized member of the clergy after a formal ceremony. Couples who do not wish to have a religious ceremony may get a notarized common-law marriage affidavit.

Clerks would record these documents but no longer would issue marriage licenses. Judges who wish to officiate at a marriage ceremony may do so, but would not be required to do so.

---snip----

Once the state is removed from the equation, the center added, “no one can force another to accept their marriage, nor can they force another to reject that person’s own beliefs regarding an institution older than government.”



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/11/oklahoma-bill-abolishes-state-marriage-licenses/?page=all#pagebreak

---

It is because of "winners" like this:

dimensio • an hour ago

So now the actions of homosexuals have forced the state of Oklahoma to dismantle the traditional institution of marriage, and of course the homosexuals are blaming traditional marriage supporters for this dismantling. This is just as dishonest as a woman blaming her husband for beating her, while completely failing to mention that he would not have had to beat her had she not talked back to him.

that shit like this gets passed, or even proposed!

I KNEW something like this would happen! See, people, GLBT rights are STILL under assault!

[shenmue]

1. I never knew that "I don't like you" was a valid basis for a law

Will the Martians please invade already? 'Cause I can't take this shit anymore.

[roguevalley]

21. this ought to be awesome when someone dies

and another member of their family inherits what two people made in their lifetime because someone messed with the definition of marriage and the rights of inheritance are screwed. It happens to gay people. Maybe It should happen to straights too. Oklahoma is just about lost its fucking mind. My uncle came from there and my sister's brother-in-law and kids live there. They are certifiable.

[yeoman6987]

28. We really need a system like Italy

EVERY couple is married at the court house first and then if they want a church wedding or some other ceremony, it is done later. Seems to work well there.

[uppityperson]

2. Good god, wtf? Are they rewriting the state legal marriage statutes then? And wtf is that comment

about. Stupid ass bullshit if you will pardon my language, gays have forced the state to destroy marriage? Like a woman is responsible for getting beaten because she "talked back"? My shiny butt.

These people are really pissing me off.

And wtf? So if it isn't licensed by the state, there will be no legal protections? And nothing like filing joint on tax returns, etc etc etc? Just whateverthefuck a church wants to say? wtf?

[blkmusclmachine]

12. Another step in turning over Government functions to a hard rightwing Church.

It's called Theocracy.

[Behind the Aegis]

37. I included that quote because it shows the depraved mentality with which we are dealing.

I knew something like this might happen. But, it is still not law, and to be honest, we don't know what will happen exactly. It just shows even when we make a stride, there is someone there to remind us we aren't as equal as we think.

[uppityperson]

38. I really hope the scotus settles this this spring. I expect they might need the ntl guard like

during integration (skin color) days. I don't get people, why this is even an issue. I don't get either the gays destroyed marriage or she made me beat her arguments and have been personally involved with the second though the first through friends and family. It is just really odd to me.

[Behind the Aegis]

40. The hearings are supposed to be in April, but in all honesty, I don't know how I feel.

OK, if I am honest, I am scared. I am afraid they will either reach no decision (turn it back to the states) or side against us.

[uppityperson]

43. Yup, there is that and that is a very scary thought. I do not know how they could turn it back to

the states. It is such a non-issue for everyone except those involved for whom it is a huge thing. Why the hell would you getting married in ANY way negatively impact my marriage? It is so weird and I really thought by the time I reached 60 that more of the isms would be gone.

[cynzke]

56. How Stupid is this!

"Couples who do not wish to have a religious ceremony may get a notarized common-law marriage affidavit."

So the IDEA of this law is to protect clerks with religious objections from having to issue marriage license. But they will have to issue a NOTARIZED MARRIAGE (common law) affidavits INSTEAD. Brilliant!

[n2doc]

3. Laws written by imbeciles

They just refuse to understand that marriage confers certain rights and privileges under the law. Therefore the Government has to be involved, and attempts to avoid this will just be tossed out in court.

I'm not particularly worried about this sort of crap. Waste time if they want to. Maybe they will even piss off enough people to generate change (unlikely, but who knows?)

[MADem]

4. WHASHINGTON TIMES, lying as usual. Check that story again.

It only passed ONE legislative chamber--it's not law (yet, anyway)--but their headline makes it seem so.

Don't believe them as a source. They love to try to "scare the base" and when they're not doing that, they're energizing them with stuff like this.

And who screwed up the formatting for this thread....???????

BETTER link to story: http://kfor.com/2015/03/10/bill-that-would-abolish-marriage-licenses-passes-the-house/

There's a link to the actual legislation in the story.

[uppityperson]

15. How is "An Oklahoma bill that passed one legislative chamber this week" lying?

"An Oklahoma bill that passed one legislative chamber this week" vs "It only passed ONE legislative chamber"

Read the article before calling liar, svp.

[starroute]

5. It appears that Oklahoma marriage law is already kind of wacky

If this bill regularizes common-law marriage and puts it on the same footing at clerical marriage -- including taxes, insurance, etc. -- it might even be an improvement over what they've got now. And it sounds like clergy could officiate at same-sex marriages. So even if this is intended as an end-run around same-sex marriage, I'm not sure it would actually do any damage.

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/oklahoma/common_law_marriage_in_oklahoma

In Oklahoma, traditional marriages are established by following statutory (legal) procedures. Couples must get a marriage license and hold a formal ceremony performed by a judge, preacher, minister, priest, rabbi or other authorized dignitary. The ceremony serves to solemnize the marriage and marks the couples’ mutual intent to be married. These are commonly called ceremonial marriages, and couples that use these procedures are considered legally married.

Oklahoma is among a handful of states that still recognize non-ceremonial marriages, also referred to as “common-law marriages.” These marriages are formed through the consent of the parties who enter into the marriage, but they do not meet all the state requirements, such as a license or ceremony.

The fact is it’s hard to prove the existence of a common-law marriage in Oklahoma. Cohabitation, using the same last name, combining finances, jumping over broomsticks at a party, and other actions you might assume help to verify a common-law marriage are just pieces of a much larger puzzle. By themselves, they mean nothing.

The question of whether a common-law marriage was established typically comes up when a couple decides to divorce. Common-law spouses who want to end their relationship must use the courts to get divorced, just like people who meet the requirements of a traditional or ceremonial marriage. So, if divorcing common-law spouses can’t agree on alimony or the division of property, they’ll likely end up in court asking a Judge to decide. One spouse may deny the common-law marriage in order to avoid the division of assets or alimony.

[jberryhill]

13. Say what?

"...jumping over broomsticks at a party, and other actions you might assume help to verify a common-law marriage..."

There is a place on earth where one jumps over a broomstick at a party in order to certify a marital relationship?

[LeftyMom]

18. Google is your friend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_broom

In the context of Oklahoma the racial subtext is rather obvious unless Oklahoma has way more Welsh or Romani people than I ever would have guessed.

It's also a pretty common Wiccan/other neo-pagan thing.

[jberryhill]

19. I'm lazy tonight

Who needs Google when you can just ask DU?

Okay, but what if instead of a broom, you use a shark?

[LeftyMom]

20. I'm pretty sure that means you're married to The Fonz. nt

[jberryhill]

22. Wait, I could marry Henry Winkler in Oklahoma, but only...

...if I had a SHARK! Aha! No wonder they put Oklahoma about as far away as you can be from an ocean!

[Thor_MN]

33. I believe one could have a good claim of precedent

[jberryhill]

36. Okay but what if a shark jumps the broom?

[Thor_MN]

41. Bravo!!!

[jberryhill]

42. You made me work hard for that one

[starroute]

44. It's a Wiccan/Pagan thing

http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/handfastings/p/BroomJumping.htm

[Telcontar]

53. My best friend and his wife includes that in their backyard ceremony

[CreekDog]

61. you live in Philly and you've never heard of this?

ok.

[FiveGoodMen]

6. So only their radical clerics will have the power.

[sheshe2]

7. Well we know how well this has worked.

“Under my bill, the state is not allowing or disallowing same-sex marriage. It is simply leaving it up to the clergy,” he said.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/11/oklahoma-bill-abolishes-state-marriage-licenses/#ixzz3U8FYfy1S
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

What an ugly comment from dimensio as well. WTF

so sorry BtA.

[TexasProgresive]

8. Maybe it's time for marriage licenses to be issued by the Federal government

That way they have to be recognized by all the 50 states. Or maybe modeled on the laws governing CDL licenses.

http://www.cdlresources.org/state_law.html
The federal rules for commercial driver's licensing and commercial motor vehicles apply to each state. Nevertheless, each state has the authority to modify the regulations within certain parameters.

[DonCoquixote]

9. this is a telling quote

"This is just as dishonest as a woman blaming her husband for beating her, while completely failing to mention that he would not have had to beat her had she not talked back to him."

This tells me these people are EVIL.

[christx30]

14. That quote is absolutely terrible.

I had to read it 4 times to make sure I read it right. I don't understand how anyone can still have these attitudes in 2015 America.
The abused partner is never at fault in the abuse. 100% of the time it's the abuser. Being able to 'talk back' (though I hate that phrase, implies the abused partner is lesser, like an errant child) and be honest and share is part of adult relationships.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Yes it is. That's why I included it.

It is that mentality in which we are having to endure in regards to our equality. We have to endure these throwbacks from the Jurassic Age who seem to think they are and should be the arbiters of equality and justice, but seem to know nothing of either.

[christx30]

45. I'm glad you included it.

It makes things very simple. It makes it much easier to refute their argument when it's paired along side "women are to blame for abuse because they talk back" . It's like hearing someone say,
"The threat of global warming may be slightly exaggerated."
Ok. What evidence do you have?
"I heard from a guy at my Flat Earth Society meeting last week..."
Well, I heard everything from you I need to hear.

[Adrahil]

55. Are we sure that's not sarcasm?

I was all indignant about that quote until I saw that line, and then though, "this guy is taking the piss." That has GOT to be sarcasm.

[Jim Lane]

58. I'm sure that it IS sarcasm.

Perhaps "parody" would be a better term.

Here's another comment from the same person:

You are mistaken; allowing same-sex marriage creates a substantial potential for harm.

Consider the predictions, issued by marriage equality opponents, that harm to children and the destruction of traditional families will result from allowing same-sex marriage. Now consider that, thus far, those predictions have failed to manifest in reality, despite ample opportunity in multiple states and even other nations.

Clearly, allowing same-sex marriage has greatly harmed the credibility of marriage equality opponents, by exposing them as being either irrational or dishonest, due to their continued issuance of predictions without any justified basis.

Therefore, same-sex marriage causes harm by not causing harm.

It's this commenter's style to advance patently ridiculous arguments that pretend to support the point of view opposite to his.

[Xipe Totec]

10. asks clergy and notaries to sign off on new marriage papers? What denomination? Is Satanic ok? nt

[Skittles]

11. Oklahoma, like Texas, never misses an opportunity to embarrass itself

[tjl148]

17. Maybe I am missing something here but...

I think this is a good idea if it means gay marriage will be recognized by the state.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. That's the issue.

OK does recognize same-sex marriages after being forced to do so, which is why this bill is being introduced. Basically, you can be shut out if you can't find someone who is licensed by the state, and if I know how this might work, I can see OK revoking licenses of those who would preform GL marriages. Also, there is a possibility it could be considered "common-law" which means our marriages wouldn't be recognized in other states or by the federal government. This is shaping up as a "state's rights" issue.

[jberryhill]

26. ...so long as one can find a cooperative notary or clergy member

[Behind the Aegis]

29. I can tell you as someone who just got married, that is already tricky.

Since the judges and clerks in my county wouldn't preform our marriage, we had to look for someone who would and was liscenced by the State. Thankfully, I had a contact, who had a contact, who had a contact, and $200 later, and a short "Do you? Do you? Yes. Yes. Sign here!" and we were married! I don't know what this means now, if anything; but it could have repercussions because I know how these fuckers think.

[jberryhill]

34. ...and that's exactly what they are thinking

[Skittles]

49. CORRECT

[Behind the Aegis]

35. I can tell you one damn thing; They aren't getting MY FUCKING ring off my finger!

[uppityperson]

39. Awwwwwww

[Thor_MN]

16. A state can defer to religion? Which ones?

Buybull says something about two or three gathered in my name. So any group of two or three can issue a certificate, right?

Any any agnostic or atheist can issue a certificate, right?

[tjl148]

23. Interesting question.

Authorized clergy... not sure what is meant by that. If atheist have clergy then I'd say they could issue a certificate. But I don't believe they do. With agnostics, maybe their clergy exist, maybe they don't. Haven't made up my mind on that yet. The states (at least the ones I'm familiar with) don't have a litmus test for clergy. Get your mail order ordination if you please. So yes, if 2 or 3 want you to be their pastor, go for it. The government has no business in determining who is clergy and who isn't. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Thor_MN]

25. I thought a state could not have a litmus test for religion...

Or does declaring a particular brand "authorized" fall short of the Establishment Clause?

[LTG]

50. "Authorized Clergy"

In most states this phrase refers to clergy who are authorized to perform marriages by the religious organization which ordained them. I'm not aware of any state that has a requirement that clergy must be licensed by the state.

Some states, such as Hawaii, require out of state clergy provide a letter from the religious organization stating that the individual is authorized to perform marriages. A "license" is then issued for the performance of that particular ceremony. The standard for determining what is, or is not, a "religion or religious organization" is generally the same as the one used by the IRS.

I have no idea if any of this is true or not in Oklahoma.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Right now it is very confusing.

Most people are trying to figure out what is happening, the only thing they "know" is gays are to blame. We knew something would happen when the law got shot down in October. My husband and I were watching TV and saw a news promo about the situation, so we looked it up on the web, and the above article was the first to appear. Most people seem to be absolutely confused as to what this means, who will be "authorized", how that authorization will take place, and what will happen to those already married. What isn't confusing is this is backlash to GL people in the state of Oklahoma gaining marriage EQUALITY!

[SheilaT]

31. Okay, so ignoring the "problem" of two men or two women getting married,

what will this do to "normal" heterosexual couples? Will all marriages now be only common-law marriages? And what is Oklahoma law on common-law marriages, anyway?

Lots of people, by the way, completely misunderstand common-law marriages. Each state has its own laws regarding that, and these days most states don't recognize common-law marriage. A lot of people seem to think that just because you've lived together for some length of time, you're now in a legal common-law marriage. Basically, that's not true almost everywhere.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. That's the problem; no one knows!

It is VERY confusing and now even "straight" marriages may be in jeopardy. Of course, we (GLBT) will be blamed for daring to want equality. The bill is a damn mess and very confusing. Even the newscasters are a bit perplexed.

[PersonNumber503602]

52. Oh okay, so this isn't just me being dense?

[PoliticAverse]

54. There are two types of marriage the new law allows 'common law' is only one

you can also file a 'certificate of marriage', see:

http://www.ecapitol.net/viewtext.wcs?HB1125_HFLR~55th

[Zorra]

46. Here ya go, BtA: Universal Life Church ~ Become an Ordained Minister Online

I have a few old friends who are ordained ministers in the Universal Life Church, and who do weddings

http://www.themonastery.org/

[L0oniX]

60. ULC minister here.

[Maraya1969]

47. There are plenty of gay clergy to sign these certificates. Plus you can get a clergy licence online

I think

[Behind the Aegis]

48. There are not a pletora here in OK.

Also, I don't know what the process is for getting "right" with the state of Oklahoma before you can be counted as an official.

[PersonNumber503602]

51. I am a bit confused as to what they are trying to do.

I'm going to assume that it's something ignorant and illogical, but I'll have to revisit after I get some sleep.

[Amishman]

57. maybe I am reading this wrong, but it sounds like a win for gay rights to me

The new paperwork is reworded in ways that sound supportive of gay marriage. The new documents say 'spouse 1 and spouse 2', and not husband and wife.

If notaries can sign marriage documents and government clerks are required to accept them, it looks to me like a major barrier is being removed.

I am reading this more as Oklahoma sees the writing on the wall and is giving up, but is trying to do it in a backhanded way as to not formally officially support gay marriage.

Again, correct me if I am wrong about this but it sounds like this is a step in the right direction. Obviously formal acceptance would be better, but in a place like Oklahoma that might still take a while.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. *if* government clerks are required to accept them

The phrase 'common law marriage' normally rings alarm bells. I don't think the Oklahoma legislators know, or care, if the 'common law marriages' are going to be recognised as marriages outside Oklahoma.