Get Rid of State Marriage Licenses

There has been a large amount of discussion about homosexual marriage, pro and con.  And the homosexual lobby has gone on and on, suing this and that, florists, bakeries, and at least one wedding chapel.  Now comes something new:  NO state marriage license.  The state will get out of the marriage business completely.  You want to get married?  Go to YOUR church and get married.  You get a  MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE from an entity licensed to give them.  that could be YOUR church, or, if he feels like it, the pastor of the church down the block (but he does not have to give you one if you are not part of his congregation.  Or you can go to the local Judge, Justice of the Peace, maybe even the massage therapist down the street a ways if she has filled out the application to issue the certificates.

Whichever… it gets the government OUT of the marriage business. 

From Godfatherpolitics:

Oklahoma House OKs Ending State Marriage Licenses

There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and it seems the state of Oklahoma may have found a way to keep the Federal Government out of its business. States were assured if the Supreme Court struck down DOMA — the Defense of Marriage Act, states could govern marriage without any intrusion by the Federal Government and its courts.

This all changed when California voters voted to define marriage between a man and a woman and a single judged overturned the referendum.

The same judicial intrusion has happened in state after state. While 81 percent of the voters in Alabama voted to stop same sex marriage, a single judge overruled that vote.

Oklahoma believes it has found a remedy.

As I’ve repeatedly argued, the advocates of same-sex marriage have to account for marriage. What is the source of marriage? Evolution can’t account for it. Marriage is a creation ordinance. God ordained marriage, and if God ordained marriage he also defined it and set certain standards for it. the most fundamental standard is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The funny thing about what Oklahoma wants to do is that the Democrats are fearful of “unintended consequences.” Really?

Haven’t opponents of same-sex marriage saying this all along? Justice Scalia said as much.

Sparked by controversy over same-sex marriages, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday that would abolish government-issued Oklahoma marriage licenses.

“The point of my legislation is to take the state out of the process and leave marriage in the hands of the clergy,” said state Rep. Todd Russ, R-Cordell, the bill’s House author. “Marriage was historically a religious covenant first and a government-recognized contract second. Under my bill, the state is not allowing or disallowing same-sex marriage. It is simply leaving it up to the clergy.”

Under House Bill 1125, marriage licenses would be replaced by marriage certificates issued by clergy and others authorized to perform marriage ceremonies. The bill passed the House 67-24 and will now go to the Senate for consideration.

Russ’ bill sparked spirited discussion on the House floor, with some Democrat lawmakers arguing that the bill could have unintended consequences — like eliminating the state’s ability to stop bigamy or polygamy.

“As I read your bill, as long as the clergy has signed off on it, the state will have essentially signed off on it,” said House Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Oklahoma City. “You are potentially opening up Pandora’s Box.”

Russ disputed that interpretation, saying other provisions

in the law that make multiple marriages illegal would remain in place.

Russ said the bill is designed to protect employees of county court clerks’ offices who have been “caught in the middle of a fight between the federal and state government” over the legality of same-sex marriages.

Oklahoma law currently defines marriage as being “with a person of the opposite sex,” but federal circuit courts have ruled same-sex marriages are legal. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the issue later this year.


I’m not sure just where I stand on this matter, but it’s an interesting thought.  And Democrats are screaming about “unintended consequences”.  Something they’ve NEVER EVER been concerned about before with their massively ill-advised plots and programs.

~ vonMesser

About vonMesser

Retired from the US Navy (21 years) and state (20 years). Recently remarried after being widowed for 5 years. 2 daughters, and a step-daughter, all functioning adults). Graduated from college after the Navy with BA in Education, psychology, Economics, History and Political Science. Teach Hunter Safety for Washington (since 1991) and do historical reenactments for Civil War, WW-1and WW-2.
Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Get Rid of State Marriage Licenses

  1. CW says:

    The notion of Democrats worrying about Pandora’s Box is really rich. THIS IS PANDORA’S BOX, Democrat morons! THIS is the unintended consequence of leftists forcing the public to accept something that they instinctively reject. And by the way, Democrats, why shouldn’t bigamists and polygamists by able to marry in light of the way marriage has been redefined by the Left? It’s whatever makes a person happy according to the Left, correct?

    While I support any state efforts to fight back against the Left’s takeover of marriage, I foresee problems with this approach. If the state has laws the refer to “husbands” or “wives” or “spouse” it will have to define what that means under the law.

    Fascinating topic, VM.

  2. vonMesser says:

    Hey, folks….I’l toss gasoline on the fire any time. Makes people stop and THINK. As I said, I’m not sure where I stand on this, but it would be one way of getting the queers out of trying to make my church marry them.

  3. Kathy says:

    Oh, I’d say Pandora’s box has been open for a long time now and I’m not so sure the government really wants out of the marriage business. Give up control of something? Never!

  4. Garnet92 says:

    Some interesting points made already. Not the least of which is the mention of “unintended consequences.” This may be the first time in history that a democrat used that term (perhaps someone recently learned it to him). They have a history of writing bills and voting based on emotions and wishes with nary a thought given to the possible/likely unintended consequences likely to arise therefrom.

    For me, I still believe that marriage CAN ONLY be between a man and a woman. The only reason we’re debating it is that the GLBT/LGBT (etc. etc.) crowd is looking for another “win” while they’re pushing ahead on their march to overcoming those pesky heterosexuals and achieving their rightful place as “normal.”

    BTW, normal they ain’t.

    • vonMesser says:

      The only reason we’re debating it is that the GLBT/LGBT (etc. etc.) crowd is looking for another “win” while they’re pushing ahead on their march to overcoming those pesky heterosexuals and achieving their rightful place as “normal.”

      Well, Garnet – they got another “win” today. The Presbyterian Church just redefined marriage in their constitution to include same-sex.