Gay Marriage Scares Oklahoma Rep So Much He Proposes Banning All Marriages

"A Republican lawmaker is floating the idea of making marriage illegal in the state of Oklahoma. Oklahoma State Representative, Mike Turner, is so terrified that gay people might be allowed to marry, that he is proposing a ban on all marriages in the state. Turner’s proposal is being drafted in response to U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern’s ruling that the state’s ban on same-sex marriages violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Presumably, Turner believes that if all marriages are banned, everyone will be equally discriminated against, and the equal protection clause will thereby be rendered moot."

That's right folks...A typical right wing crazy wants to ban all marriages.   

"Gay Marriage" is a Progressive construct by one of the richest segments of American populace to take away OPM from the Middle Class.
  


.

 

News Hawk wrote:"Gay Marriage" is a Progressive construct by one of the richest segments of American populace to take away OPM from the Middle Class.
  


.

If you say so.   

If by marriage, you mean state approved marriage, then I fully agree.

You progs do realize that the only reason that the state started poking its nose into marriage and making people obtain "licenses" back in the late 19th century was to prevent miscegenation, right?

Anti Federalist wrote:If by marriage, you mean state approved marriage, then I fully agree.

You progs do realize that the only reason that the state started poking its nose into marriage and making people obtain "licenses" back in the late 19th century was to prevent miscegenation, right?

Really? I didn't know that. When you think about it, it is kind of stupid that you have to get permission from the gov. to get married.

Anti Federalist wrote:If by marriage, you mean state approved marriage, then I fully agree.

You progs do realize that the only reason that the state started poking its nose into marriage and making people obtain "licenses" back in the late 19th century was to prevent miscegenation, right?

I learned something today and thanks for that info...I had no idea how marriage licenses were first started. It has been modified over the years so that the government could make more money. Strange to say the least.

Anti Federalist wrote:If by marriage, you mean state approved marriage, then I fully agree.

You progs do realize that the only reason that the state started poking its nose into marriage and making people obtain "licenses" back in the late 19th century was to prevent miscegenation, right?

Marrying first-cousins wasn't in the picture?

  

Prevention of venereal disease spread?

  



.

Achigan wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:If by marriage, you mean state approved marriage, then I fully agree.

You progs do realize that the only reason that the state started poking its nose into marriage and making people obtain "licenses" back in the late 19th century was to prevent miscegenation, right?

I learned something today and thanks for that info...I had no idea how marriage licenses were first started.  It has been modified over the years so that the government could make more money.  Strange to say the least.

Well good, glad you learned something new.

Here's some documentation.

Marriage license requirements were introduced to control couples' legal ability to be married. In fact, marriage license laws were originally aimed at preventing non whites from entering in marriage and being granted the rights and responsibilities generally conferred upon marriage. Later, interracial couples were forbidden from obtaining a marriage license.

http://marriage.laws.com/marriage-license

WHL wrote:Really?  I didn't know that.  When you think about it, it is kind of stupid that you have to get permission from the gov. to get married.

Very stupid and none of government's damn business, AFAIC.

You could still be married in the beliefs of your religion.

  

Your children would have "Legitimacy", and a bond to your estate. (Except in New York, where New York's Government takes over 60%—maybe more).

"...estate planning issues for New York residents taking the New York estate tax into account. These issues are particularly important for: (1) married New Yorkers whose estate plans should provide flexibility to handle the separate New York and federal estate tax exemption amounts; and (2) any New Yorker who is considering moving out of New York (and changing domicile) to a state imposing less onerous taxes..."

Now, who would move out of New York to, say, New Hampshire?

  


.

Anti Federalist wrote:

WHL wrote:Really?  I didn't know that.  When you think about it, it is kind of stupid that you have to get permission from the gov. to get married.

Very stupid and none of government's damn business, AFAIC.

YUP.