HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Oklahoma House passes bil...

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:23 PM

Oklahoma House passes bill restricting marriage to people of faith



A bill that would restrict the right to marry to people of faith and would mandate all marriage licenses be approved by a member of the clergy was approved by the Oklahoma state House on Tuesday.


House Bill 1125, sponsored by Republican State Representative Todd Russ, is a radical measure that would end secular marriage licenses in the state. In addition, the bill would bar all judges and other secular officials from performing marriages in Oklahoma.

Russ claims the radical legislation is motivated by his desire to protect court clerks from having to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Russ says he doesn’t want these workers put in the position of having to condone or facilitate same-sex marriage.

Under the legislation, atheists and others not wanting to be married by a religious official could file an affidavit through the court clerk’s office claiming a common-law marriage.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/03/oklahoma-house-passes-bill-restricting-marriage-to-people-of-faith/

116 replies, 14059 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 116 replies Author Time Post
Reply Oklahoma House passes bill restricting marriage to people of faith (Original post)
Lordquinton Mar 2015 OP
COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #1
riversedge Mar 2015 #3
SheilaT Mar 2015 #6
Lordquinton Mar 2015 #9
SheilaT Mar 2015 #14
Lordquinton Mar 2015 #20
SheilaT Mar 2015 #23
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #48
atreides1 Mar 2015 #83
SheilaT Mar 2015 #89
riversedge Mar 2015 #12
COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #15
olegramps Mar 2015 #63
cbayer Mar 2015 #65
riversedge Mar 2015 #2
riversedge Mar 2015 #4
blkmusclmachine Mar 2015 #97
LiberalLovinLug Mar 2015 #105
sinkingfeeling Mar 2015 #5
okasha Mar 2015 #7
skepticscott Mar 2015 #10
trotsky Mar 2015 #13
shenmue Mar 2015 #8
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #11
cbayer Mar 2015 #16
trotsky Mar 2015 #17
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #18
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #24
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #25
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #27
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #28
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #29
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #33
okasha Mar 2015 #35
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #36
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #37
okasha Mar 2015 #38
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #41
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #42
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #43
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #44
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #45
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #46
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #47
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #49
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #50
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #51
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #52
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #53
okasha Mar 2015 #55
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #56
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #58
okasha Mar 2015 #60
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #77
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #84
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #64
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #67
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #69
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #70
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #71
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #72
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #73
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #74
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #75
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #76
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #79
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #80
okasha Mar 2015 #109
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #110
okasha Mar 2015 #111
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #112
okasha Mar 2015 #113
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #114
okasha Mar 2015 #115
phil89 Mar 2015 #82
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #85
okasha Mar 2015 #54
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #57
okasha Mar 2015 #59
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #61
okasha Mar 2015 #66
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #68
skepticscott Mar 2015 #22
Beartracks Mar 2015 #88
cbayer Mar 2015 #90
djean111 Mar 2015 #19
Panich52 Mar 2015 #21
Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #26
guillaumeb Mar 2015 #34
Jamastiene Mar 2015 #30
demwing Mar 2015 #81
arcane1 Mar 2015 #31
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #32
riqster Mar 2015 #39
Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #40
valerief Mar 2015 #62
still_one Mar 2015 #78
vkkv Mar 2015 #92
stone space Mar 2015 #86
JimDandy Mar 2015 #87
Beartracks Mar 2015 #91
Fantastic Anarchist Mar 2015 #93
lark Mar 2015 #94
blackspade Mar 2015 #95
douggg Mar 2015 #96
jmowreader Mar 2015 #98
Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2015 #99
cbayer Mar 2015 #102
catrose Mar 2015 #100
longship Mar 2015 #101
FiveGoodMen Mar 2015 #103
cbayer Mar 2015 #104
penndragon69 Mar 2015 #106
cbayer Mar 2015 #107
pinto Mar 2015 #108
okasha Mar 2015 #116

Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:34 PM

1. Wow. Oklahoma has just invented "Separate but equal". Wow! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:38 PM

3. even common law marriges I think

7 years?? not equal to an official marriage certificate in the eyes of the law--takes too long. Unless something has changed with time required by states. ???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:47 PM

6. I just did a fast look-up of common law marriage in Oklahoma,

 

and there's not time span requirement. Here's a cut and paste of what I found:

The general conduct of both parties during their relationship will provide most of the evidence necessary to establish a common-law marriage. Relevant evidence may include:

the fact that the couple has lived together for a period of time (cohabitation)
joint income tax returns
joint financial accounts or credit cards
jointly-held assets or debts (a home, car, mortgage, or other loans)
life insurance policies and retirement or pension plans that list the common-law spouse as a beneficiary
using the other common-law spouse’s last name
medical records which list the common-law spouse as next of kin
testimony from third parties regarding how the couple introduced each other in the community and at social gatherings
cards, presents or other evidence of celebrations marking the anniversary of the common-law marriage
notes or other writings that include language such as “husband” or “wife,” and
family photos showing the couple wearing wedding banks.


Most states don't recognize "common-law marriage" and the requirements vary a lot from state to state.

More to the point, it's not going to be very long before a couple who wants to get married without sanction of clergy challenges this law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:03 PM

9. so non religious have to prove they are in it together

Doyou have to pass any test for a marriage license? Or can anyone over... 15? Get married to whoever they want, (of the oppisite gender and Christian)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:21 PM

14. You might want to research Oklahoma marriage laws a little more deeply.

 

What I posted was some of the things Oklahomans could use to prove a common-law marriage, at a time when they wanted to divorce. Most people don't understand that it's not just some automatic legalization of the relationship after some specific period of time. Usually they think seven years.

I keep on knowing couples who lived together for a long time, often decades, never married, and then were shocked, totally shocked when one died and the surviving partner had no legal right to anything, especially if the deceased had children who simply wanted to take over whatever property, money, and valuables there were. People will airily say, "Oh, we don't need a piece of paper." Guess what? You really do.

The LGBT community has long understood that denying them the legal right to marry was denying them a lot of basic rights, and fortunately most states are now allowing them to marry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 06:44 PM

20. so tons of hoops for nothing binding

Gotcha. Although with this law won't all marriages be considered non legally binding?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:07 PM

23. I have no idea.

 

I'm not in Oklahoma and I'm honestly not following this very closely.

I hope the good people of Oklahoma unelect all these idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:19 PM

48. The "good people" of Oklahoma have been re-electing these idiots for quite a while. nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:59 AM

83. The "good" people of Oklahoma

Are the idiots!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #83)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 01:07 PM

89. I'll just say I don't live in Oklahoma

 

and there are any number of states, most of which are south of the Mason-Dixon line, I will never move to. I honestly don't understand why people stay in a place or in a religion that denies various categories of people basic human rights, or proclaims one group to be inferior to another. But that's just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:10 PM

12. thanks for the look up. But wil take time and energy to pull




together those docs.

and yes--the courts will be involved if this stupid passes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:49 PM

15. Sure. Making the 'second class citizens' be classified as

"common law marriages" opens up a nightmarish legal can of worms for anyone who gets that designation. Aside from the fact that, at least in this century "common-law marriage" is viewed as a far inferior relationship to legal "marriage". It's a mean-spirited, discriminatory tactic that IMO will not withstand any constitutional challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 10:50 AM

63. This is exactly the opposite of what should be the case.

In other countries, such as the Netherlands, legally binding marriages are performed by the state. The couple obtains the necessary license and by affirming with their signature that they enter a legally binding marriage. If they wish to have a religious ceremony that is up to them and the various church requirements and has no legal standing. A marriage is a legal binding agreement that is solely subject to the laws of the state it has no place being officiated by religious ministers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olegramps (Reply #63)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 10:56 AM

65. I think this is ideal.

Make it soley a legal matter and make any religious aspect a choice that a couple can make.

Everyone should have exactly the same rights under the law. Whatever they think or believe about god's involvement should be individually chosen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:36 PM

2. my head is swirling on this STUPID

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:41 PM

4. "The bill is a naked attempt to force Christian theocracy upon the citizens of Oklahoma."

I fear this is what is happening in OK!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 04:21 AM

97. It's called Christian reconstructionism/Christian dominionism, and it's in full effect in the GOP

 




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #97)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:22 PM

105. Interesting "Religion" is the highest and center

They have to reclaim their religion? I guess they do if they want to actually follow Jesus who stood up for the poor, who said "Give unto Ceasar..." implying the separation of church and state. Entertainment? Uh....you can't just "take over" entertaining people. Either they are or are not entertained.

Anyways this looks like a poster for Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:41 PM

5. That'll show ya! No tax /government benefits for all you filthy nonreligious

people........or you could wise up and get the hell out of Oklahoma!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:57 PM

7. A Supreme Court decision

in favor of equal marriage will put paid to this. Meanwhile, a suit should be filed the instant this prima fascie violation of the First Amendment comes into effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:03 PM

10. Big deal. Even if the SC decides in favor of human rights

 

and against religion, in the meantime, same-sex marriages will be subject to restrictions they should not have to tolerate, as will marriages between atheists. All because of religious bigotry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #10)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:10 PM

13. Perhaps it's time for believers like okasha...

"to move past theoretical questions about the existence of God and onto more practical pursuits – like how to fight for justice."

Apparently she's content to just sit still and hope for the best. (Pray?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:01 PM

8. The fuck?



Send in the Marines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:03 PM

11. Talk about blatant discrimination.

 

Just horrific!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 05:07 PM

16. Just when I think that legislation can't get any stupider,

a legislative body goes and does something as stupid as this.

Did they not receive a single civics lesson in their schools?

And how in the world did they come to the massively erroneous conclusion that gay people don't have a religious affiliation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 05:15 PM

17. If only atheists would stop questioning religion, we could fix this, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 05:18 PM

18. Did she say that? No. Seems you feel the need to put words in her mouth.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #18)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:32 PM

24. really justin? You can't recall another recent thread here that you gleefully participated in

 

posted by the same person advocating just that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:34 PM

25. Apparently I am not smart enough to figure these things out.

 

I learned that here last night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #25)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:36 PM

27. no you stated that here last night and people agreed with you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #27)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:37 PM

28. I said it jokingly. others not so much.

 

Thats ok Warren. I don't take things as personally as I used to here. I understand it is a form of entertainment and to just accept that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:43 PM

29. others agreed with you jokingly and you had an upset.

 

always looking for that alert worthy post, aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #29)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:51 PM

33. No actually I did not alert. i went to bed early last night because my father had surgery today

 

and I had to bring him this morning to the hospital.

I didn't see the huge thing that your friend posted until I got home from the hospital this afternoon. there was a pm from a friend commenting in his post and I took him off ignore to see it. He said wjat he said and that is fine with me.

I didn't want his post hidden and i was glad the jury saw he got a bit angry and was letting off steam.

Your other friend I said in the thread I hope a jury does not alert on my account.

No sir I don't look to catch you or your friends in a post that could get hidden.

If you constantly get hidden posts that is your fault. One can debate a hidden post or two but if you constantly get them you should ask yourself why and what should I do to correct it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:03 PM

35. If you can recall any such post--

as opposed to imagining it--post a link. You don't do coy well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #35)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:09 PM

36. sure.

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=186408

are you and Justin suffering from short term memory loss?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #36)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:14 PM

37. Look I am sorry I posted that post in there.

 

I meant it as a good natured tug at you guys but in context of the thread it was taken to mean something I had no desire to say about atheists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #36)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:18 PM

38. Nope.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, though. Or you could just be making shit up, given that cbayer said nothing remotely close to what you've attributed to her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #38)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:56 PM

41. right. what ever you say.

 

"It's time for atheists to stop debating God's existence and decide what to do about it ".

cool story bro.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #41)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:58 PM

42. She is not a bro and I am rather suprised you did that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #42)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:01 PM

43. it is an expression that means a person has just uttered something that is obvious bullshit

 

but please do have yet another upset.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #43)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:04 PM

44. I have to say I am shocked you said that.

 

i would never call someone a gender that they don't identify as.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #44)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:07 PM

45. look Justin we are all adults here, so you can drop the act now.

 

Let me guess, you've never heard the expression "cool story bro" before, amirite?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #45)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:12 PM

46. Yes i understand that but I thought you would understand sensitivity about the issue.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #46)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:16 PM

47. look Justin, we are all adults here and you know there is no issue

 

but you are desperately trying to create one. Anything except discuss the op or its stark contrast with yesterday's celebrated "why don't atheists stop talking about religion" thread, right? It is fucking embarrassing to have reality interject itself this way. Best to create a diversion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #47)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:21 PM

49. Okasha is a lesbian. have you thought that she might take offense at being called a bro?

 

I have no idea either but I would never call a woman bro, especially a woman who identifies as a lesbian.

And if you haven't noticed I apologized for my part in that thread.

I really thought you of all people understood the sensitivity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #49)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:31 PM

50. Look we are all adults here Justin, so I think you can figure out that

 

sexuality and gender are separate things and the internet meme "cool story bro" has nothing to do with either, it simply means that somebody has just uttered something that is total bullshit. But what do you think is more important, Oklahoma passing a law that requires a recognized religious official to perform a marriage, or your current upset over the use of the meme "cool story bro" to some ridiculous bullshit somebody said on the internet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #50)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:38 PM

51. Way to go on trying to change the story.

 

Clearly talking to you is a waste of my time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #51)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:43 PM

52. Look Justin, we are all adults here, and you know the story is

 

Oklahoma House passes bill restricting marriage to people of faith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #52)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:45 PM

53. And my response to this post.

 

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=186585

Yet you can't admit you made a mistake by calling her a bro.

I never use that expression with a woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #43)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:03 AM

55. Time for a little linguistic history here.

"Bro" is short for "brother.". It originated in the African American community as an address from one black male to another. It doesn't matter whether it's an "internet meme" or not. Your use of it is offensive on both gender and racial levels.

Kind of like my saying to you, " Not even, bitch.". Capiche?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #55)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:27 AM

56. Not really.

 

It's usage is neither racial not sexual nor gender specific. "Cool story bro" is an Internet meme for "that is total bullshit", and has nothing to do with race gender sexual orientation ethnicity religion or hair color.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #56)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:31 AM

58. You do understand how a woman might be offended when called a bro?

 

How about a lesbian? Do you not understand how that can be very insukting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #56)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:43 AM

60. Very not really.

According to the Urban Dictionary, you don't even have the meaning of the "meme" right.

Put down the shovel, Warren. You're making yourself look....amusing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #55)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:41 AM

77. Actually, the correct parry is "I hope they make a movie out of it".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #55)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:59 AM

84. I find it amusing you use the dictionary definition here, but when convenient, you go to urbandictio

nary, to grab a social context that a regular English dictionary doesn't contain.

Very convenient.


7. Bro 

The teller of cool stories; the coolest storyteller.
"Cool story, bro."
by Counter Sanity August 07, 2012

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #42)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 10:54 AM

64. "cool story bro" is a common internet meme.

There is no gender specific version to my knowledge.















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #64)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:11 AM

67. And okasha didn't appreciate being called bro.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #67)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:13 AM

69. It's not *actually* calling someone 'brother'.

It's 'your story is bullshit'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #69)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:19 AM

70. But he still called her bro.

 

I sould never call a woman bro.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #70)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:24 AM

71. Ugh..

It's an internet meme. It's used all over the damn place, without regard to gender, worldwide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #71)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:30 AM

72. You are missing the point.

 

Just because something is used often doesn't mean someone can not be offended.

as a gay man if someone called me a sister I would be offended. He as a lrsbian woman is not pleased to be cslled bro.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #72)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:33 AM

73. Is there a gender neutral alternative?

In this case, no.

It means a variety of things from 'I don't believe you' to 'your story is boring, stupid, or irrelevant', etc, but at no point have I ever seen anyone use it as 'you are male' or 'you are my brother, literally'. Never.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #73)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:36 AM

74. And it was carelessly used. Not all woman would be offended but many would.

 

He should be more careful who he calls bro.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #74)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:39 AM

75. I'm at a loss for a substitute meme in this case.

I'll fully grant that no one can tell another person how to feel about something that was said to them, but one can certainly clarify how it was obviously meant when it was said.

In this case, I'm at a loss to suggest a suitably sarcastic alternative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #75)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:41 AM

76. Just say I don't believe you.

 

I am not sure I can come up withsnother meme for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #76)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:43 AM

79. But then it's not funny.

If the funny was packaged as simply calling a female, male, then I would agree with you. "bro", in this case, is like punctuation. It's not the payload.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #79)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:44 AM

80. Well you take a risk.

 

It ix up to the person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #75)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 08:06 PM

109. How about "Cool story"?

That's a fairly obvious solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #109)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 08:36 PM

110. I suppose it works.

Not really recognizable as the established meme though, but if it bothers you, I will be sure to adapt any future comments to suit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #110)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 08:45 PM

111. People, or most liberal English speakers, at any rate,

have managed to abandon "established names" when they were recognized as offensive:

"N*****" in the woodpile."
"Indian giver"
"Jew him down"
"Frito bandito"

Et cetera.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #111)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 09:09 PM

112. Honestly, and without any bs or meta, just a question;

Do you really think that meme carries the same level of attack connotation, the same baggage, in the post that applied it to you?

All four of your examples are undeniably bigoted in ANY context. Does the 'cool story' meme share that same space?
If it had been leveled at you specifically for the intent of attacking your gender/identity, I would fully agree, because while many comments are acceptable generally, they can undeniably be put in a context that is a direct, personal, intentionally hurtful attack.

I honestly don't believe Warren would do something like that to you. I don't know anyone here that would stoop to that, no matter how acerbic the disagreement at hand might be. No matter how much past disagreement baggage there might be between any two posters.

If I thought for one second that he had, that would have an immediate impact on my contact with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #112)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 09:40 PM

113. "Cool story" by itself is absolutely innofensive.

We have emoticons to convey sarcasm online where tone of voice would carry it in conversation. .No problem.

Add "bro," and unless you know the addressee is a man, you've assumed that male is the default gender. That's why "mankind" has pretty much been replaced by "humankind" in all but very conservative usage. In that sense, "bro" is disrespectful of any woman.

As for "bro" as a form of address to a lesbian, let me offer you a parallel. You would instantly recognize "sissy" as an insult to a gay man because it says in effect, "You are not really a man,". "Bro" addressed to a lesbian says, "You're not really a woman.". Both expressions come trailing baggage from patently bigoted expressions such as "Which one of you is the woman/man in your relationship?"

On your third paragraph--let's just say we differ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #113)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 09:47 PM

114. Hard for me to estimate.

I've had those terms applied to me, directly, however.. I do come from a position of immense privilege so I can't really form a credible objection to how offensive or inoffensive it is. So.

I go to great lengths, especially in this venue, but in life in general, never to assume any gender-related categorization. You may have noticed that I use "his/her" or no gender at all when referring to posters I do not know. I would never for one second have thought of it in the context of that meme, in that post. It never occurred to me that it could be meant in the context it was objected to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #114)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 09:54 PM

115. I have noticed your gender-neutral usage,

and that you're very careful about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #70)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:52 AM

82. Wow give it up already.

 

You've been proven wrong, multiple times, quit while you're behind. I'd hate to hear your diatribe if someone said "hey guys!" to a group which included a female.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phil89 (Reply #82)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:02 PM

85. Too bad. If you can't stand hearing what I say put me on ignore.

 

Btw nothing has been proven ecept okasha was offended by being called a bro.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #41)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:53 PM

54. Well, thank you for acknowledging that I'm right, whatever I say. You're making progress.

Beyond that, you're not doing so well. Cbayer posted the article; she didn't write it. There's a difference. Nor did the article suggest that atheists shut up. It did suggest that the God exists/doesn't exist argument has been run into the ground (it has) and that a better use of everyone's time is to address social justice issues together (it would.)

As Justin has pointed out, I'm not a "bro.". Your assumption that male is the default gender is sexist and offensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #54)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:28 AM

57. So cbayer disavows that article?

 

Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #57)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:38 AM

59. Not even slightly.

Irrelevant attempted diversion.

Not even.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #59)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:56 AM

61. So that would make your original assertion

 

That my evidence was not even close, total bullshit, a condition frequently described on the internets with the expression " cool story bro".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #61)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:04 AM

66. Uhm , no.

Please have someone explain to you that the writer of the article and the poster of the article are two different people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #54)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:12 AM

68. Poster made no such assumption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 07:47 PM

22. Why is it the people who are constantly defending religion

 

and arguing for its necessity and legitimacy are the ones who act most surprised every time it pushes for new levels of immoral control over people's lives?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 01:01 PM

88. They are stupid. They think gays are atheists by definition n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beartracks (Reply #88)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 01:09 PM

90. Exactly. Of all the stupidity here, that has to be the stupidest assumption ever.

As a matter of fact, there is a significant degree of atheism among libertarians.

Unintended consequences…. sometimes you have to love them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 05:33 PM

19. It is not separate but equal. Common law is not equal.

 

Maybe it is time to have all marriage license issued by the federal government. It is ridiculous for a state to be able to deny people federal benefits, using religion as an excuse. They are just going to keep going after gay and atheist people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 06:55 PM

21. When did Oklahoma secede? I missed that. Must have happened or they'd pay att'n to US Constitution

Or their own state constitution: Article II "Bill of Rights"

Text of Section 1:
Political Power - Purpose of Government - Alteration or Reformation

All political power is inherent in the people; and government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and to promote their general welfare; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it: Provided, such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.


Text of Section 15:
Bills of Attainder - Ex post Facto Laws - Obligation of Contracts - Forfeitures

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed. No conviction shall work a corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate: Provided, that this provision shall not prohibit the imposition of pecuniary penalties.


Text of Section 33:
Effect of Enumeration of Rights

The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people.


oops (ironic inclusion in "bill of rights"
Text of Section 35:
"Marriage" Defined - Marriage Between Persons of Same Gender Not Valid or Recognized

A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

B. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage.

C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.


Except Art II, Sec 35 was struck down as unconstitutional, repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

The Oklahoma Definition of Marriage Amendment, also known as State Question 711, was on the November 2, 2004 ballot in Oklahoma as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved, but was later overturned by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.[1][2][3]

Aftermath
Federal appeals court ruling
On June 25, 2014, a three member panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down bans on gay marriage in the states of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. This was the first ruling made by a federal appeals court on this issue, which sets a historic precedent that voter-approved bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of same-sex couples to equal protection and due process.[4]

While the decision was based off of a case originating in Utah, Oklahoma submitted its own case for review by the Court of Appeals.[5] On July 18, 2014, the court directly struck down the Oklahoma ban in that case.[6]

Stay of decision
Implementation of both decisions affecting Oklahoma were immediately stayed pending anticipated appeals to either the full appeals panel or the United States Supreme Court.[7][6]

United States Supreme Court
On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case, thus allowing the ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court to stand and legalizing same-sex marriage in Oklahoma.[8]


Repubs do find interesting ways to try and skirt constitutionality and civil rights...

all info from ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/Article_II,_Oklahoma_Constitution

http://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Definition_of_Marriage,_State_Question_711_(2004)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:34 PM

26. weve been told here repeatedly that the religious right is an insignificant minority

 

except of course that theocracy is a real possibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:54 PM

34. and the fundamentalists may not be a minority

Results from MANOS and the General Social Surveys reveal that the general American population holds nearly identical levels of fundamentalist beliefs as Muslims, if not slightly more. Just over 57 percent of the general American population believes that “right and wrong in U.S. law should be based on God’s laws,” compared to 49.3 percent of U.S.-born Muslims and 45.6 of foreign-born Muslims. About a third of each group believes that society should not be the one to determine right and wrong in U.S. law. Such numbers reveal that the general American population is more fundamentalist than the average European, and that Muslim Americans are less fundamentalist than European Muslims, according to the Koopmans study.


If the US becomes a theocracy, a possibility that I hope is remote, I hope that will convince my wife to move back with me to my home town. Assuming of course that Stephen Harper does not succeed in creating his own little theocracy.

Quite bizarre that a country founder by agnostics, free thinkers, atheists and assorted Enlightenment influenced people could be seen by the uneducated as a Christian nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:44 PM

30. It is all just a bunch of chest beating and posturing until they ban divorce.

When they ban divorce, THEN they might seem serious. Otherwise, they are just chest beating and trying to out-Christian each other as is typical of those fundy types. They do that crap where I live. Push comes to shove, they do it to get more business for whatever business they are running and to play the old "mine is better than yours" game. They literally rub elbows with the extremists who run my home county to get more business. I am sick of them. If they really want to appear the least bit serious about the "sanctity of marriage," they'll ban divorce. Divorce is the number one cause of marriage breakups.

Try telling them that, though. They'll start beating their chests about homo-secks-shu-ality again. They are full of shit and just posturing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #30)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:47 AM

81. No good marriage ends in divorce

 

right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:44 PM

31. If Bartcop were still alive, this would kill him.

 

I can't wait for the first Muslim or Hindu couple to try getting married there, and we'll see how broadly Oklahoma defines "religious official"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:50 PM

32. Did not have to see it was sponsored by a Republican. Where in the hell are they

Finding these people to run?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:23 PM

39. I'm Presbyterian, and my wife is pagan.

Wonder what those OK nimrods would say about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:46 PM

40. Unitarian universalists and Reform Jewish Synagogues will officiate over same sex marriages.

Oklahoma can not stop it completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 10:36 AM

62. Jon Stewart got it right--OKLAHOMOPHOBIA should be it's name. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 11:42 AM

78. Unconstitutional, waste of time and money for Oaklahoma. Are the

People in Oaklahoma really happy with this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #78)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 01:59 PM

92. My thoughts exactly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:27 PM

86. "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man".

 

US Supreme Court, 1967 (Loving v Virginia)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:57 PM

87. This is not going to end well for OK taxpayers

who will be on the hook for a huge number of lawsuits against this, if it comes to be law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 01:14 PM

91. It sux that ignorant people exhibit such high confidence. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 04:18 PM

93. A new low ... wow.

Wish I could say I'm surprised.

But I'm thinking they worded the bill incorrectly. Don't they only want Christians to marry? I mean, this bill leaves the possibility that Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. can get married.

Can't have that. We're a Christian Nation, for cryin' out loud!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 05:24 PM

94. And these assholes complain about Sharia law?

Really, they are totally in favor of most of the provisions. Stoning a young woman who has unmarried sex yet not touching the man, the tealiban would love that and really do it now in words if not using the actual rocks.

Do these assholes even know we have a costitution? This is unconstitutional on the face of it, establishing the christians as the only people allowed to actually be married?

OMG, how can so many have totally lost their minds? I'd love to see Scalia try to defend this one, the pompous ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 09:08 PM

95. will these christian nuts stop at nothing to cram their.....

religious bullshit down the throats of everyone else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 10:06 PM

96. This would put the state in the position of recognizing a faith/religion as 'legitimate'

and conversely, the power to deny a faith/religion as legitimate.

Many Catholics/Protestants consider the other to be false Christians. (Or Mormons as a cult)

Just think of the mischief that could be done every decade or so if the legislative makeup changed to a different religious majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:17 AM

98. In other words, there's a $600 marriage surcharge for nonbelievers

Which is what it costs for two people to fly to Vegas and back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:25 AM

99. There's another problem

The Oklahoma bill defines which religious officials can preside at a marriage ceremony to include:

an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age.


and

Marriages between persons belonging to the society called Friends, or Quakers, the spiritual assembly of the Baha'is, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or other assemblies which have no ordained minister, may be solemnized by the persons and in the manner prescribed by and practiced in any such society, church, or assembly.


It seems that Oklahoma Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and those of other faiths cannot marry in their faiths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #99)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:42 AM

102. Wow. I had no idea they had gone into this kind of detail.

Thanks for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 08:39 AM

100. Should I tell him that there's plenty of clergy, even in Oklahoma,

who will bless a same-sex marriage?

He'd be so disappointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:19 AM

101. Clear violation of the establishment clause.

Don't these people have even a basic understanding of the US Constitution?

Apparently not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #101)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 04:14 PM

103. I'm sure they understand that this is unconstitutional

They just don't think that fancy-book-learnin'-commie-librul document should apply to them.

Another way to put it: They're attempting to overthrow the federal government and establish theocracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #103)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 04:19 PM

104. Hmm…. that sounds rather like treason, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:23 PM

106. They had to do it....

 

Since same sex marriage is becoming the law of the land,
they needed a new group to discriminate against.

Their new target.....ATHEISTS !

But they are still OK with you marrying your COW !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to penndragon69 (Reply #106)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:34 PM

107. Not just atheists, but a whole slew of others, including Muslims and Hindi.

This is going to so backfire on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 07:52 PM

108. Okla. House OKs bill shifting issuance of marriage licenses from state to clergy (LGBTQ Nation)

Blatant, desperate, unconstitutional. ~ pinto

Okla. House OKs bill shifting issuance of marriage licenses from state to clergy

OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma state House has approved legislation that shifts the issuance of marriage licenses from the state to members of the clergy.

House members voted 67-24 for the measure Tuesday and sent it to the Senate for consideration.

The measure (HB 1125) by Republican Rep. Todd Russ of Cordell would replace a state-issued marriage license with a clergy-issued marriage certificate.

Russ says it gets government out of the business of licensing marriage. Opponents say it is a reaction by lawmakers who disagree with a federal judge’s decision to overturn the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Russ says the state neither allows nor disallows same-sex marriage under the bill. But opponents, including Democratic Rep. Emily Virgin of Norman, say state government needs to be involved in the process.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/03/okla-house-oks-bill-shifting-issuance-of-marriage-licenses-from-state-to-clergy/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:56 PM

116. The Metropolitan Community Church

has congregations in Wichita and Oklahoma City.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread