What the **** Oklahoma?
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/oklahoma-ban-atheists-getting-married
Really? Just really? I'm sorry but I had to make a thread about this. If there are two things that should never mix, it's religion and law. This is a blatant attack on non-religious people and a perfect example of bigotry. Someone from the U.S please tell me they cannot do this. This is just wrong.
Anyone else think this is an utter BS law?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Its weird but I never quite understood why people want to get married in a thing thats insists your living in sin etc.
Furthermore I fully support gay marriage etc as thats nothing to do with choice and more importantly their not coexsistant, plenty of gay people are religious.
But in this case, A person has chosen full out to be atheist so why should they be permitted together married in a church which is a religious building etc? Its not in their beliefs, I couldnt go out tommorow and have wedding in another religeon.
As long as their is an equal alternative I'm not too concerned and I'm not even very religious, And on a practical note, unless your a massive shouty "I'M AN ATHIEST" type I dont know how their going to know anyway.
Im not religious and ive never had any interest in getting married, to me its a ceremony of ownership
Um, they can't do that...Glad I don't live in Oklahoma. Don't worry, it won't be long till the Supreme Court overrules it.
Good. I'm not very familiar with how the law works over there, but I'm guessing it's the job of the Supreme Court to stop any kind of law which isn't in line with the constitution. Would I be correct?
Yes you would be, they're usually fair with this kind of thing but there has been times they haven't done the right thing.
[removed]
Not to surprising from a state mostly known for racist frats, young earth creationists, and Christian terrorists. Oklahoma is basically a depository for people who think Texas is too liberal.
Why would an athiest want to live in Oklahoma in the first place?
What if one of the two is Atheist but the other is religious? You're stripping that religious person their right to get married to the person they love.
Now, personally, I don't care. I don't believe marriage does shit to strengthen the bond of two people and I think it's just a huge financial pit to throw money into to for the vein promise of everlasting compassion. That's my personal biased opinion of it however and I think it's fucked up when any small group of misguided corrupt people try to distort what is and isn't "right" to do. I'm not for marriage personally, but I am for others being happy. And if that means they want to "tie the knot" and put a five thousand dollar ring on another's finger then so be it.
I've had a problem with all this restricting of marriage to only straight same color only religious people because it's the first step in completely dominating our individual freedoms. Next they'll be wanting to do something like banning hoodies.
http://time.com/3651529/oklahoma-hoodie-ban/
Goddamnit.
Well like.
The argument against gay marriage only really works if you stop atheists from marrying. You kind of need to ban both Atheists and gay people for the arguments to make any sense.
At least now their bigotry is consistent.
If one party is that particular religion then I'm guessing it would be allowed, again with marriages in different religions its permitted as long as one party is.
It's a bit more complicated, but that's the main function. It's to access a law's constitutionality; however in doing so they often delineate what the powers of the state and federal governments are. One example is with obscenity, in which case the Supreme Court basically declared under what conditions states can ban certain expression.
This is done by cases being appealed upwards, so in the case of Oklahoma, an atheist couple would sue for their right to marry, and it would go up to the district court, to the state supreme court, then to the federal Supreme Court. Chances are it isn't even going to get that far, either the district or the state will smack the law down. Though if case is only an issue of state law and not federal law, the US Supreme Court isn't supposed to review it, as it is only a court for federal law (this case would be a federal issue).
The strong sense of community?
I don't see anything wrong with it. Their was probably a public vote, and they voted for it.
You know imagine if the Christian Faith was as strict as the Muslim faith. Do you think outsiders would get special treatment? People should be happy with what they have IMO, America is better than the Middle East. I know a girl who came from Iraq who fled to America because her life was threatened because she was a influential woman.
Two issues with your post.
If the people voted for it, i don't see a problem with it. I don't see why the Federal Government needs to stick their nose in State's laws. Its like the legalization of gay marriage. They have had states where the PUBLIC vote was NO, but the Federal government said Yes. So everyone who voted on that law, opinion doesn't count.
What was the point of voting on it. I thought America was supposed to be a "free" society. Not dictated by social justice warriors, or Supreme court judges.
That is what i have a problem with.
Probably not a public vote, it was most likely decided by the state council members only.
That's not how the constitution works. Being a free society does not mean that the majority has the liberty to deny freedom to minorities. Should the states be allowed to vote in an established religion? What about things like segregation? The states originally refused to ratify the constitution because they feared a tyranny of the majority, which is why they required the Bill of Rights. But the Bill of Rights is, in essence, 'anti-democratic' because it specifically limits the mesures the government is capable of enacting, no matter how popular.
Sure, the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government - Massachusetts had an established religion until 1821 - but was extended to the states in the 14th Amendment. So unless you want to roll the constitution back to before the Civil War, no, the popular vote does not trump everything.
Good.
Them poor Atheists.... I would be lying if i don't find this ironic funny. Why would they want to get married in a church anyways... Seems kind of hypocritical to the whole atheist code.
Someone needs to start a business, in Oklahoma, where they will marry only Atheists. I bet in six months that would be a million dollar business.
That's just the standard legally binding practice of marriage. If someone started an atheist only marriage system that was accepted by the government, I'm certain that it would take off like you said.
I don't know, I don't believe in God, but I still want to get married in a church, if only for tradition's sake.
Well, that's stupid.
Not really, if they want to oppose gay marriage.
Like, the only way you can oppose gay marriage is to say that the Christian God doesn't allow this marriage in the Bible. Marriage is also, in the Bible, a covenant with God.
If Atheists are allowed to marry, that's saying that marriage lies outside what's in the Bible/isn't a Christian institution. If That is the case, then there's literally no argument against gay marriage.
The only way this law would be stupid is if the country allowed gay marriage. By doing this, they're being consistent.
Nope, it's still stupid. It doesn't matter if it's consistent, shouldn't we be working for equality and less bigotry instead of denying more people rights in order to keep it consistent? I expected more from you Flog.
I would obviously much rather have gay marriage legalised.
But that ain't gonna happen in Oklahoma for a long time.
Now, tyhis is an issue about how the Bible interacts with law. When one thing is allowed and one thing isn't, there is a complete contradiction in policy.
it's fine for people to oppose gay marriage, as long as they aren't hypocritical. Opinions are only worthy of respect when they're not hypocritical.
I cannot respect the opinion of someone who opposes gay marriage but supports atheist marriage. I can respect the opinion of someone who opposes both, even if I disagree, because at least their reasoning isn't full of bullshit contradictions and hypocrisy.
Hope I cleared that up for you.
I would much rather have atheist marriage legalized as this is religious persecution. Obviously I also want gay marriage legalized but one thing is already against the US Constitution...and that is no religious persecution.
Religion and State aren't suppose to mix and I dislike how you're okay with this just because now it's fair, which it isn't.
Only there is no rule or saying in the bible (which I know of) that prohibits people who don't believe in God to have a wedding ceremony. With that in mind, if God didn't say anything about it, then it's no place for Christians (who consider themselves below God) to make that kind of grandiose statement.
It's not like most Christians actually follow God, or even take their time to actually act like he wanted them to, so why does it matter? A lot of people want to do it as a traditional ceremony with no religious meaning despite it being a religious ceremony because they're used to it, because they have religious partners, whatever the reason.
In the Bible, marriage is a covernant between the couple and god.
If the couple don't believe in god, then it can't be a 'marriage' following that definition of it.
I'm not okay with it, I think its awful. But I can at least respect their right to have this opinion now, even though I vehemently disagree with it. Before I couldn't even do that.
My god, are you serious? This isn't "Hey, this person has this opinion.", it's a state banning an entire group of people with a similar religious view from marrying.
Yet it still does happen in modern times, pastors do ceremonies with atheists all the time, they don't even know what the person believes, they just say "I do". There are so many couples which are made up of one religious and one atheist, and yet most countries legitimize the ceremony in the religious aspect even if one or both of the humans in the covenant is in fact an atheist, what does Oklahoma know that they can take matters into their own hands and set up new circumstances in God's name? It's still not prohibited, even if doesn't hold the same religious meaning in God's eyes.
It is a covenant between the couple and God, but humans aren't allowed to prohibit it.
They can get married at the courthouse like people on Springer.
I didn't believe in god until i saw my life flash before my eyes, like thirty times. It just takes time bro. You are still young.
The only problem is there would be less drama. The people on Springer are their own special breed.
Actually it would be impossible to get married in a courthouse under the proposed bill. The article states "by restricting the issuing of marriage licenses to the clergy and not judges and court clerks, the bill would make it harder for same-sex marriages to take place."
Marriage would only be possible in churches, as marriages could only be officiated by priests and other members of the clergy. Court marriages would no longer be possible.
Yes.
I completely disagree with what they're physically doing.
But I respect their ability to hold that opinion - because it isnt hypocritical.
it's not that hard to understand.
Because the definition of marriage has changed.
And it is changing again.
Well, it was changed, but it doesn't mean that Oklahoma can suddenly change it back in an instant. Of course they can do it as a state, but it would prevent a lot of people from gaining their federal benefits as married couples from the government, wouldn't it? (does Oklahoma even recognize secular marriages?), and it can cause a variety of other problems.
I'm sorry but that's stupid, if you say you disagree then actually show opposition than saying "It's okay because now their bigotry is equal."