Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma

[MrScorpio]

OKLAHOMA CITY - State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma.
The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it's an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it's what Oklahomans want.

"[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all," Turner said.

Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.

"Would it be realistic for the State of Oklahoma to say, ‘We're not going to do marriage period,'" asked News 9's Michael Konopasek.

"That would definitely be a realistic opportunity, and it's something that would be part of the discussion," Turner answered.

Such a discussion will be made possible by a current shell bill -- something that can be changed at almost any time to react to upcoming rulings on Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban.

"I think that, especially with issues like this, [these lawmakers are] out of touch with most Oklahomans," said Ryan Kiesel, ACLU Oklahoma executive detector.

Kiesel says prohibiting all marriage is new territory. In fact, the ACLU was unable to find an example of where a state has ever tried to ban all marriage. Kiesel believes the entire idea just boils down to politics.

http://www.newson6.com/story/24543033/lawmakers-consider-preventing-all-marriage-in-oklahoma

[SheilaT]

1. Better yet, if their honest belief is that

marriage is essentially about procreation, then simply have an automatic annulment of all marriages of those who don't reproduce, preferably the old fashioned way meaning no adoption, in-vitro, surrogates, etc., as well as all those who haven't reproduced for say three years, or in which the woman is over 50 or 55.

I'm not exactly being sarcastic, but just pointing out that even within ordinarily one man one woman marriage where they have kids, they rarely continue reproducing until the woman dies, even if they do have twenty kids, since most women will live past menopause.

Idiots.

[sir pball]

4. It probably is how they feel, but still runs afoul of the legal issues.

I suspect they just might like to have it that way - no baby within ten or eleven months of a wedding, with no help from anybody other than Gawd, and the marriage is annulled. Probably with fines and penalties. Maybe let it slide after one or two babies as a "reward".

But ultimately, it's still discriminatory in some way and therefore won't hold up in court. They're going with what is fast becoming the only legal way to prevent ZOMGGAYMARRIAGE, i.e. no marriage whatsoever. It's refreshingly honest, at least.

[SheilaT]

10. Absolutely.

I was just attempting to point out how completely illogical it is to claim that marriage is solely, or even primarily for procreation, and then tolerate marriages that don't or can't result in children.

Hopefully, it is completely obvious that I think two men or two women ought to be able to marry with all the rights and privileges that marriage conveys.

Completely apart from the entire gay marriage thing, I've always been a bit frustrated by those who airily dismiss a marriage license as a meaningless piece of paper, and then are shocked to learn that when their long time mate dies, they have absolutely no legal claim on anything. I've seen it happen more than once. If you don't want to get married, fine, but you might want to be very aware of of various legal consequences.

[theHandpuppet]

12. Something else could be added to that list.

All males should be required to have a sperm count and those found to be wanting would be disqualified as potential marriage material.

[Chan790]

20. Yay! That would prohibit me from marriage.

I never want to get married anyways. If they did that, I'd be able to duck the issue by being barred from marriage.

[TlalocW]

2. I don't understand what they're trying to do

Are they saying no more marriages performed in the state, or is that whole, "marriage doesn't need to be regulated by the state at all," means no government officials can perform marriages, only churches?

If it's the former, the marriage industry (including churches) are going to be upset at the loss of income. If it's the latter, I'm pretty sure there are churches, even in Oklahoma, who won't have a problem marrying, 'teh gayz.'

Or what am I missing?

TlalocW

[unblock]

3. they can't prevent churches from performing religious marriage ceremonies

any more than they could prevent babtisms or bar mitzvahs. that would be a clear violation of the first amendment.

but they can simply not recognize marriage legally, i.e., say there are no legal benefits to marriage, married individuals are treated exactly the same as single individuals.

married couples would have to file two separate state income tax forms (if they both met the requirements to file), just as gay couples have always had to.

divorce wouldn't happen either, so people would have to split property amicably or sue each other.

not clear how they would handle child custody/support issues. presumably both parents would remain equally responsible even if they split up.

[sir pball]

5. Would that dissolve all existing marriages in the State too?

Or would that get tangled up with the USCon's prohibition of ex post facto laws (Art. 1 Sec. 9 IIRC)?

[unblock]

6. no, but it would eliminate state benefits and such.

i don't think the ex post facto concept applies, they're not making existing marriages criminal, they're only removing benefits, something they do all the time in other programs.

but i do think federal law would require them to continue to recognize marriages from other states or even from oklahoma prior to passage of any law ceasing marriage.

but existing marriages would still have no benefits under state law.


alternatively, they could try to "phase out" marriages, continuing divorces and joint filing and so on only for marriages recognized prior to a law stopping new marriages, but i think that would bring equal treatment challenges.

[sir pball]

9. It probably would.

I'll give them credit, this goes beyond political showboating; I think this guy, at least, honestly does believe ZOMGGAYMARRIAGE is the Devil's Tool or whatever - and he's willing to do what it takes to stop it. I admire his intellectual honesty, if nothing else about him.

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. New state motto: "Oklahoma, the Batshit Crazy State"

Or

"Oklahoma, the We Cut Off Our Own Noses State"

[MoonRiver]

8. Stupid must be in the Oklahoma water.

[nyquil_man]

11. They should try this in as many states as possible.

It's sure to be immensely popular.

[struggle4progress]

13. Turner's reading the Virginia segregationists' old playbook:

After the Supreme Court ruled school's must be desegregated "with all deliberate speed," Virginia announced its schools would remain segregated

The Virginia Public Education Commission then recommended that no child should be forced to attend integrated schools and that parents not wishing to send their children to integrated schools be given tuition grants to send their children to private schools

In 1956, the [link:http://www.lib.odu.edu/specialcollections/schooldesegregation/resources/stanley.htm|legislature next required the Governor to close schools under court order to integrate, ended state funding for any school district attempting to reopen, and provided tuition grants for private segregated schools

When some of these statutes were over-turned by lawsuit in 1959, the legislature made school attendance laws a matter of local preference. Under court order to integrate, Prince Edward County abolished its public school system and established a system of private all-white schools to replace public education

Prince Edward County public schools remained closed until 1964 when the Supreme Court overturned the tuition grant law

[Major Nikon]

14. Not a bad idea

Remember that a state sanctioned marriage is by license which means the state gets to decide who can and can't and throughout history the state has used that power to discriminate against people on more than one basis. I'm all for the state getting out of the marriage business entirely. If someone wants to get a priest, or a rabbi, or a witch doctor to sanction their marriage, and/or if they want to enter into a civil contract between each other, more power to them, just don't tie any govenment benefits to it.

[NobodyHere]

16. +1

nt

[kcr]

24. Not a bad idea unless you're at all progressive

What a way to screw those who aren't religious or accepted by religious communities.

[Bjorn Against]

15. Many people have tried to make this argument, few of them have really thought it through

The problem people seem unable to grasp is that we already have thousands of laws related to marriage, this is particularly true of our tax laws. If the state were to stop recognizing all marriages then all of the thousands of previously written laws which do recognize marriage would have to be modified. Ending the recognition of marriage would create a massive legal nightmare that few of the people suggesting it as a compromise have even thought about, it is far easier to just stop discriminating on which marriages states recognize than it is to stop recognizing marriages altogether.

[Major Nikon]

17. The tax code is modified continuously by every legislative session in every state in the union

This is true also at the federal level. It wouldn't be that difficult, especially in the age of digitized text and the search and replace function. You would have to reprint the tax forms and strike the married filing ... options which could be replaced by allowing any two people to file jointly or just require everyone above a certain income threshold to file.

[Bjorn Against]

18. Rewriting laws requires a lot more than using a search and replace

Any changes to previous laws often meet with opposition, these laws need to be debated and passed and signed into law. We are not just talking about tax law either, there are child custody laws, health care laws, real estate laws, there are literally thousands of laws and you can be assured not all of the lawyers are going to be fine with just using a search and replace function to rewrite those laws.

[Major Nikon]

21. They require a legislative vote and a signature

Depending on the vote they may not even need a signature. One law could change all relevant statutes.

Debate has been replaced by grandstanding if it ever existed at all.

All of the laws you mentioned are part and parcel to the problem of the government control over who gets those benefits and who doesn't. Controlling marriage simply invites discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation which state and federal statues are infested with. The entire idea of state controlled marriage is outdated and needs to go away. The idea that we should keep laws which serve no useful benefit to society and present a clear detriment is conservative rather than progressive. I could care less with how many hours it would take for congressional staffers to research them. That's the job of legislators and their staff rather than spending their time on back room deals with monied interests that ultimately fuck John Q. Public more often than not. Statutes are all in digital form and a search on the word marriage and it's derrivatives would capture all the areas of concern. It's not as difficult as you make it out to be. It's not that uncommon that laws today span hundreds and even thousands of pages. The only reason it won't get done is because there isn't any large special interest group willing to drum up the political support for the effort. Rather than asking what is the cost of change, we should be asking what is the social cost of not changing.

[Bjorn Against]

23. You quite simply have no clue what you are talking about

There is nothing progressive about taking an action that would throw many families into financial ruin and ending everyone's marriage would do exactly that. Marriages are primarily an economic arrangement, many couples share insurance plans, they share bank accounts, there are inheritance laws, and many people depend on the state recognizing their marriage to maintain their financial status. Are there injustices with this system? Sure, but that does not mean we can just end the entire institution of marriage without severe consequences for families.

[Major Nikon]

25. Neither do you evidently

The idea that everyone's marriage licenses would evaporate is silly. It's still a signed contract that any private entity can honor however they wish (as they already do). The idea that the state can end the institution of marriage is just as silly. It sounds more like you just can envision such a system that doesn't rely on authoritarian control. All of the things you mentioned are already being denied to millions of couples because of that authoritarian control. How do you think they get by?

[Bjorn Against]

26. So if what you are proposing does not end all marriages what does it do?

First you seemed to be suggesting that the state should stop recognizing marriages, now you seem to be telling me they would still recognize all marriage licenses. Those two ideas seem incompatible with one another, either the state recognizes marriages or they don't.

[Major Nikon]

28. You don't seem to be able to recognize the difference between private and governmental entities

Bank accounts are controlled by private entities. Except for Medicare and Medicaid, health insurance policies are controlled by private entities. Nothing restricts or requires private entities to recognize or not recognize any marriage. Marriage isn't required for joint bank accounts. Marriage isn't required to own property jointly. Private entities are free to recognize any document they wish which could certainly include any previously issued marriage license or any written civil contract between two people. You don't seem to be grasping the concept of private entities recognizing documents not sanctioned by the government. They do every day in all sorts of situations. A government sanctioned document allows private entities to discriminate the same way it allows the government to do so. Ending government sanctioned marriage also removes the incentive for private entities to discriminate for no good reason.

[Bjorn Against]

29. So you are essentially advocating for privatizing marriage

Sorry, but privatization usually does more harm than good. Divorces are already messy enough under the current system, if everyone had to hire a private lawyer to hammer out a contract before they got married it would only make things more messy and expensive, not to mention the tension it would cause in relationships if everyone had to get in legal arguments with their significant other right before their wedding day.

Privatizing marriage sounds like a good way for lawyers to make a ton of money, but it does not sound like something that would benefit our society in any way.

[Major Nikon]

30. It already is private

The government doesn't assign you a spouse. The only thing that's public is the control of who is allowed to enter into such an agreement and who can dissolve it. I don't see that level of government interference in a private matter as beneficial, but I do see the detriment. YMMV.

[Bjorn Against]

31. Marriage law is not private, marriages require a state issued marriage license under current law.

The fact that you can choose your own spouse does not make it a private institution, a marriage is recognized at the time the state issues a marriage license it is the state that gives a marriage legal recognition not private entities. It makes far more sense to change the law so that the government no longer discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation than it does to privatize the entire institution of marriage.

[Major Nikon]

33. The key word here is law and not marriage

Believe it or not a license is not even required in all instances. In Texas you can spend the night with someone, tell someone you're married, and shazam, you're married in Texas and every state in the union (some restrictions like same sex still apply). You can receive all the benefits any other married couple receive. There is no reason why the government has to sanction marriage or divorce and it really is just that simple.

[Bjorn Against]

34. Well if the law were changed as you suggest it should be you would see it is not quite so simple

Your idea sounds like a bunch of Libertarian nonsense that sounds good on paper but would be disasterous if it were actually implemented.

[Major Nikon]

35. As I said before

YMMV.

Not all "libertarian" ideas are nonsense. Reference Noam Chomsky for further reading. I do not believe civil liberties trump all other considerations. I do believe all government authoritarianism needs to be justified. Rather than trying to justify it, you've simply claimed it would be a "disasterous" while ignoring the reality that it already happens.

Cheers!

[Bjorn Against]

36. Link me to a Noam Chomsky piece in which he calls for the privatization of marriage

I am quite familiar with Chomsky however and his version of libertarianism is quite different than what you are promoting. He is a libertarian socialist and his ideas are very different than the privatize everything model proposed by the Ayn Rand types.

I have never met a person who thinks their marriage license is authoritarian, you keep throwing out that word but I don't think you know what it means.

[Major Nikon]

39. That wasn't my claim

Here it is again for the cheap seats:

Not all "libertarian" ideas are nonsense. Reference Noam Chomsky for further reading.

Labeling something as "libertarian" and then dismissing it on that basis alone is intellectual laziness. I don't know that Chomsky has written anything specifically about marriage law. He does believe all authoritarian power needs to be justified. I'm not convinced you are all that familiar with Chomsky.

“authority, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate and that the burden of proof is on those in authority. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled.”

-- Noam Chomsky

I'm pretty sure I do know what that word means. When in doubt, I derive my definitions from the dictionary rather than from the people I meet.

au·thor·i·ty noun
: the power to give orders or make decisions : the power or right to direct or control someone or something

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authority

There are few things more authoritarian than telling people who they can and cannot marry and who they can and cannot divorce. I'm somewhat baffled as to why you'd think otherwise regardless of what those you meet think.

As far as throwing around words without meaning, privatizationn or socialization in terms of public policy refers to economic systems and the means of production, not legal concepts like government sanctioned marriage. The idea that marriage can be "privatized" is rubbish. It was never socialized to begin with nor can it be unless you consider the potential of children as economic production. I don't.

Now if you want to continue on your line questioning my literacy, or claiming something won't work when it already does, or misrepresenting my statements, then we're done here, or at least I am. If you want to attempt to justify why the government has an inherent need to authorize marriage I'd be glad to listen. Otherwise you're simply trying to contradict me with no reason as to why and I have no interest in pursuing that with you any longer.

[Bjorn Against]

43. Your citations are completely irrelevent to the issue at hand

In the quote about authority you provided from Chomsky I am pretty sure he was not talking about marriage licenses.

The link to the dictionary you provided is equally irrelevent, issuing a marriage license has nothing to do with giving orders or making decisions, nor does it give the government the power to direct or control anything. Marriage is optional, the government does not force anyone to get married nor do they direct or control their marriage.

What you are talking about is stopping government marriage contracts and having private lawyers negotiate marriage contracts instead. This is privatization, in order for a couple to have the joint economic status marriage provides there needs to be some kind of contract, either the state can provide that as it does now or it could be turned over to private corporations which would screw people over far worse.

I gave you many reasons why I think you are wrong, so don't tell me I am contradicting you with no reason. You started this debate by contradicting me, don't act like I am doing something wrong by responding to the debate you initiated.

[Bjorn Against]

49. Well what do you know, I found a quote from Chomsky about marriage

Unfortunately for you his opinion pretty much explicitly states that he does not believe it to be authoritarian like you do...

CS: Some feminists argue that by participating in marriage one is perpetuating a system of oppression against women. Do you agree?

Chomsky: No, I wouldn't, having been married some 53 years. It can be, but that's a choice. There's nothing inherently oppressive about marriage, and in fact non-marital relations can also be oppressive. If you really pursue that argument, then sex ought to be outlawed, language ought to be outlawed. Language has been used as a technique of oppression forever. We should stop talking.

http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky240703.htm

[Major Nikon]

52. That's not what he's saying nor is it what I'm saying

He was explicitly asked if he believed marriage was oppressive. His answer is the same as mine. I don't believe marriage is oppressive. I'm not against marriage. I'm against the government having the power to authorize or to not authorize marriage or divorce.

[Bjorn Against]

38. For your info here are Chomsky's views on privatization

"Privatization does not mean you take a public institution and give it to some nice person. It means you take a public institution and give it to an unaccountable tyranny. Public institutions have many side benefits. For one thing they may purposely run at a loss. They're not out for profit. They may purposely run at a loss because of the side benefits. So, for example if a public steel industry runs at a loss it's providing cheap steel to other industries. Maybe that's a good thing. Public institutions can have a counter cyclic property. So that means that they can maintain employment in periods of recession, which increases demand, which helps you to get out of recession. Private companies can't do that in a recession. Throw out the work force because that's the way you make money."

-- Noam Chomsky, from the film "The Corporation"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1777962

I am pretty sure that when he calls privatization an "unaccountable tyranny" he is not suggesting that privatizing public programs will make them less authoritarian.

[Major Nikon]

40. Chomsky is talking about the means of production

You aren't.

Just sayin'

[Bjorn Against]

41. He was talking about privatization

If you can find a link to him backing up the views you expressed in this thread provide it, I just provided a link which shows he is opposed to privatizing public services.

[Major Nikon]

42. I've already provided his quote

If you need a link, google is your friend.

[Bjorn Against]

44. You provided a quote which had nothing to do with the issue at hand

Show me where Chomsky says marriage licenses are authoritarian and you may have something, but Chomsky was not talking about anything even remotely like what you are talking about.

[Major Nikon]

46. As if it wasn't clear enough I already explained to you why I mentioned Chomsky

If you want to continue to pretend I was talking about something I've already explained to you I wasn't in painful detail, you'll have to do so on your own. I don't feel like entertaining strawman jibberish.

[Bjorn Against]

47. You mentioned Chomsky in a way that completely misrepresents him

Chomsky would be the first to tell you that he does not agree with the specific brand of libertarianism I was speaking out against. I never said that all libertarian ideas were bad, I said that you were promoting Libertarian nonsense and I am pretty sure Chomsky would agree.

You are the one using strawman jibberish by pretending that Noam Chomsky's views are at all relevant to what you are saying.

[Major Nikon]

48. You were speaking out against "privatization" of marriage

Which you somehow manufactured was my idea. It isn't. It's your idea and it's a very poor one. You can't privatize something that was never public and could never be public to begin with.

Privatisation, also spelled privatization, may have several meanings. Primarily, it is the process of transferring [div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"]ownership

of a [div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"]business, enterprise, agency, public service or public property from the public sector (a government) to the private sector, either to a business that operates for a profit or to a nonprofit organization. It may also mean government outsourcing of services or functions to private firms, e.g. revenue collection, law enforcement, and prison management.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatizing

Is marriage a business?

Is marriage an enterprise?

Is marriage an agency?

Is marriage a public service?

Is marriage public property?

Good luck explaining exactly what you mean. Whatever it is we aren't on the same page. I don't think that's my fault.

[Bjorn Against]

50. Marriage licenses are a public service, your own words prove that

Let's take a look at what you had to say in post 28...

Bank accounts are controlled by private entities. Except for Medicare and Medicaid, health insurance policies are controlled by private entities. Nothing restricts or requires private entities to recognize or not recognize any marriage. Marriage isn't required for joint bank accounts. Marriage isn't required to own property jointly. Private entities are free to recognize any document they wish which could certainly include any previously issued marriage license or any written civil contract between two people.

You see that part I bolded at the end? If a couple has a marriage license they do not need to hire a private attorney to create that written civil contract, therefore the government is providing a public service by providing marriage licenses.

[Major Nikon]

51. A license is an authorization

li·cense
[lahy-suhns]
noun
1.
formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/license

The only service the government is providing is recording that contract which is done with all sorts of other documents with no license required. I'm not against the government recording contracts. I'm against the government licensing people to get married. I'm not sure you understand that.

[Bjorn Against]

54. I do understand it, and I think you are totally wrong

There needs to be some sort of contract for the joint economic status of marriage to work, marriage licenses provide that contract. If there were no marriage licenses people would need to hire private attorneys to negotiate the contract.

Because I live in a state that has marriage equality the government will always authorize any marriage requested between two consenting adults, it is not particularly burdensome to get a marriage license from the state, it would be far more burdensome to hire a private lawyer to hammer out a marriage contract for you. I'm not sure you understand that.

[Major Nikon]

55. A license is not a contract

There needs to be some sort of contract for the joint economic status of marriage to work, marriage licenses provide that contract.

My town stopped issuing dog licenses this month. I don't need to hire a lawyer to go get a dog. I posted the definition of license and you evidently ignored it or didn't understand it. To reiterate, a license is a governmental permission slip. You may think this permission slip is required. I don't. I also explained to you that in certain jurisdictions (like mine), people can and do get married without a license. All it takes is an agreement between the parties that they are married. You don't even need paperwork (although that option exists). You're not going to hurt my feelings if you believe I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure you're wrong and demonstrably so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States#Texas

If there were no marriage licenses people would need to hire private attorneys to negotiate the contract.

Do you hire an attorney every time you sign a contract? Virtually everything you sign and every verbal agreement you make is a contract and I'm willing to bet you've entered into countless contracts all without the benefit of a lawyer. So for one thing, the idea that a lawyer is required for a contract is a poor one. For another, marriage already is effectively a contract (whether there's a license or not) and some people already do hire lawyers to negotiate those agreements. They are optional, just like it would be optional that anyone would have to sign a written contract at all to be married if the government stopped issuing marriage licenses.

Because I live in a state that has marriage equality the government will always authorize any marriage requested between two consenting adults

I don't know what state you live in, but I'm willing to bet this is also demonstrably wrong. Let me know what state you live in and I'll be glad to prove it.

[Bjorn Against]

56. Did you seriously just compare getting a dog to getting married?

If you don't recognize the difference between getting a dog and entering into a marriage which gives you joint economic status with your spouse then it shows how little you have thought this through.

I live in Minnesota and since marriage equality was passed I don't know of anyone who requested a marriage license and was denied, if you can give me a case of this happening go for it.

[Major Nikon]

57. Do you really have to be this disingenuous?

I was describing what a license is and isn't which you don't seem to understand at all or simply refuse to acknowledge.

License =/ contract

Do you agree, yes or no?

If the answer is no I'm not sure there's much point in trying to discuss this subject with you if we can't even agree on basic terms that can be found in any English dictionary. I have no interest in discussing something with someone who is so disingenuous as to feign illiteracy.

"Because I live in a state that has marriage equality the government [div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"]will always authorize any marriage requested between two consenting adults

..."

517.03 PROHIBITED CIVIL MARRIAGES.
Subdivision 1.General.

The following civil marriages are prohibited:

(1) a civil marriage entered into before the dissolution of an earlier civil marriage of one of the parties becomes final, as provided in section 518.145 or by the law of the jurisdiction where the dissolution was granted;

(2) a civil marriage between an ancestor and a descendant, or between siblings, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption; and

(3) a civil marriage between an uncle or aunt and a niece or nephew, or between first cousins, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood, except as to civil marriages permitted by the established customs of aboriginal cultures.

[Bjorn Against]

59. A license replaces the need for a contract

When you get a license you are basically signing a form that will give you all the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage, it combines a couple's assets in much the way that a contract would. There may be some legal differences between a license and a contract, but in this case a license replaces the need for a contract. Personally I think issuing licenses makes a lot more sense than contracts which can easily be manipulated by lawyers to screw people over.

Of the examples you provided to exceptions to who can get marriage licenses the first one does not apply because I said the law requires it to be between two consenting adults, the first case involves a third adult who is likely not even consenting.

The other two examples dealt with incest, I admit that I did not think about the people who want to marry their sister.

If you want to advocate for changing the laws to allow for brothers and sisters to get married then go for it, but don't act as if everyone who thinks you are wrong is authoritarian.

[Major Nikon]

60. You are describing the need for a contract

You are not describing the need for a license. In no instance, marriage or otherwise, does a license replace the need for a contract. That need either exists or it doesn't regardless of whether a license is or is not required. Marriage is and always has been a contract. Marriage has not always been, and not always is a license.

The fact is that the state has the authority to dictate which consenting adults can and can't and this happens in every state in the union, often for other reasons than the ones listed by your state and in fact this is true for the majority of states.

Since you want to take the most extreme example, please explain why you think a brother and sister should be told by the state they can't get married. You want to look at it from the perspective of why the state should allow it. I look at it from the perspective of why the state should prohibit it. I can think of no good reason why the state should prohibit it. It certainly isn't going to stop them from having sex or children, at least in the last 50-100 years or so, if not before. That's the difference between authoritarianism and anarchism. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand Chomsky. So please do educate me on the subject, but if you want to continue with your line that I'm advocating something you or anyone else considers taboo, or dirty, or wrong, then please don't bother because such disingenuous gibberish doesn't work on me. i just see it as a tactic by those who have run out of logical arguments or never had them to begin with.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i-believe-and-whats-wrong-libertarians

[Bjorn Against]

61. You are the one who brought up incest

If you want a debate on whether or not people should be allowed to marry their sister go start another thread about it because this thread was not about incest until you decided to make it about incest. I simply pointed out that the state does not deny marriages to two consenting adults and you were so desperate to prove me wrong that you dug out the statute that says people can not marry their sister. Now you tell me that I am the one taking the most extreme example when in fact it was you who brought up the most extreme example.

I am sorry, but I am not going to debate brother and sister marriage with you nor am
I going to pretend that Chomsky was talking about the prohibition on brother and sister marriage in the link you posted.

[Major Nikon]

62. Actually your state is the one that brought it up

i just brought it to your attention as evidence that your blanket statement is demonstrably wrong.

What you don't seem to get is you want to focus on symptoms of the problem while I am more concerned with the problem itself. Whether or not you agree, the state has the authority to license marriage which also means they have to authority to not license them. The fact also remains that the state is free to exercise that authority for all sorts of reasons and most certainly does. Substitute gay couples for sister and brother. Substitute interracial couples for sister and brother. My argument is no different. My argument has nothing to do with debating brother and sister marriage. My argument has everything to do with justifying state authority. Just because your state doesn't happen to prohibit gay marriage today, doesn't mean they can't tomorrow. Lots of states still do. If you can't see the problem because you're too concerned with symptoms that's on you.

[Bjorn Against]

63. No they do not have the authority to deny a license for "all sorts of reasons"

You may have played the gotcha game and found a rarely used exception in which they can deny a marriage license, but the circumstances in which a state can deny a marriage license is extremely limited, there are not "all sorts of reasons" they can deny it like you claim.

You suggest I substitute gay couples or interracial couples for a brother and a sister, well guess what? When I apply that substitution the state can no longer deny their marriage, they are required by law to issue them a marriage license.

Honestly I could care less whether they legalize brother and sister marriage, but I don't feel it is worth my effort to fight for the right to marry a family member. There are only so many issues I can take on and that one is pretty low on my list of priorities. If you want to take up that crusade go ahead, I won't stop you.

[Major Nikon]

64. I don't agree

States can and do prohibit issuing marriage licenses for all sorts of reasons and there is very little to stop them. The SCOTUS ruled on miscengenation laws, but if your state wants to pass a law that prohibits marriage of left handed people I know of nothing that would prevent it. If you think there is I'd be glad to read your explanation.

You really should read more of what Chomsky has to say, but although you claim to be quite familiar with him you seem to have very little interest in his ideology and instead tend to look at things based on what the government can allow rather than what they should be able to prohibit. What you can't seem to understand is there should be no reason to fight for anything that has no justification to begin with and this has idea has merit with things that go far beyond marriage.

[Bjorn Against]

65. The state can not deny marriage rights to left handed people

You say there is nothing stopping the government from banning left handed marriage, well there is something that can stop it and that is the fact that such a law has no support and even if it did have support the courts would overturn it as it is clearly unconstitutional, just as they have been turning over gay marriage bans recently.

If you can show me a couple in my state that has applied for a marriage license and been denied show it to me, but I live in this state and I don't know of anyone who has had trouble getting a marriage license since our marriage equality law was passed.

And if you want to keep bringing up Chomsky, I don't think Chomsky would think your Men's group that you heavily participate in on this site represents his views in any way.

[Major Nikon]

66. You shouldn't conflate authority and laws

It demonstrates fundamental ignorance of the differences between the two. Authority is the ability to pass laws. Laws are derived from authority. Whether or not they would has little to do with whether or not they could. Not only do states have that power, it would be up to an individual to challenge any resultant law simply because the state had the authority to do it in the first place. And whether or not state laws are unconstitutional from a federal standpoint remains to be seen because the (conservative) SCOTUS has yet to rule on the question and perhaps you may be confident such a thing would prevail in front of a (conservative) SCOTUS, but I am not so convinced. The whole thing would never be a question in the first place if the actual problem, rather than the symptom, were addressed.

And if you want to keep bringing up Chomsky, I don't think Chomsky would think your Men's group that you heavily participate in on this site represents his views in any way.

WTF does the Men's group have to do with anything we've discussed? Guilt by association much? I'm not even sure if this makes even that much sense. I think I'm done here. This pretty much validates any suspicions I had remaining about your intellectual bankruptcy on this subject. The last word seems important to you so have at it.

Cheers!

[Bjorn Against]

67. I think most people reading this thread will see who is intellectually bankrupt, and it is not me

Chomsky was not relevant to this discussion, but you kept bringing him up so I thought it was worth noting that you are not as close to Chomsky on the issues as you pretend to be. I also think that your participation in the Men's group is relevant as well because eliminating state marriage laws would be particularly harmful to women.

I am done with this discussion as well, you are clearly wrong and I think pretty much everyone can see that.

[WinkyDink]

19. You're not married, are you? There are health and financial issues also to consider.

[Major Nikon]

22. I am

But I don't think you could name one issue that couldn't be replicated by a civil contract between two people. So why does the government need to treat marriage any different than any other civil contract? The whole idea is nothing more than government micromanagement of people's lives for no good reason.

[Fumesucker]

27. Oklahoma's new state motto: Better Dead Than Wed

[Ilsa]

32. I bet businesses in the wedding business might

be opposed to this. They'd see all of their customers leave for surrounding states and wedding destinations, like Las Vegas.

[Laffy Kat]

37. I've always thought that civil unions ought to legitimize partnerships.

And that marriages should simply be religious celebrations and designations for those so moved, but be legally non-binding. You could certainly do both, too.

[FarCenter]

45. ++

[ZombieHorde]

53. Hospital visitation rights,

sudden death of a partner and the fate of their property, comma, life support, adoption, taxes, etc. So many of our laws are based around marriage. This would be really interesting in my opinion.

[avebury]

58. Well that would be one way to reduce

Oklahoma's divorce rate. I don't know why they are so concerned about gay marriage when they can't even expect heterosexuals to stay married.