Oklahoma House Approves Bill Shifting Marriage Licenses from State to Clergy

[PratchettFan]

I've been married for 40 years and no priest ever came near my wedding. If you want your marriage to be religious, that is a personal choice. But marriage itself isn't religious. Here is a suggestion. Call your marriage a Divine Joining and then you won't have to have the same word the rest of us use.

Tradition has no place in this discussion

Get with it! What are you 90?

You insist a legal contract is religious but I'm a traditionalist?

Exactly where did I want a legal contract as religious?

Marriage should be a religious matter only. The legal contract, if wished by adults should be separate. Like any other partnership between as many adults as wish to be a party within.

This, my friend is OUR brave new world.

Traditions be damned.

I'm sure that's what the Lovings would have wanted as the result of their lawsuit v. Virginia.

Marriage is a legal contract.

Never said i

Get the government completely out of the marriage business and problem solved.

Justice of the Peace? Registrar at City Hall? Las Vegas wedding chapel? Are marriages conducted in these venues valid?

Churches sanctify marriage, the marriage license makes marriages legally binding contracts. Do you really want only churches establishing legally binding contracts?

Good god, where did you get that?

If a couple wants to be joined by God they can get a church wedding

If a couple, a trio, a foursome or eighty six folks want to legally bind themselves together, let them form a domestic partnership applied for and granted by a governmental agency.

Is that really that tough to understand?

If the government calls it a marriage for one it calls it a marriage for all. Is that really that tough to understand?

 

[Pop23]

Tradition has no place in this discussion

Get with it! What are you 90?

You insist a legal contract is religious but I'm a traditionalist?

Exactly where did I want a legal contract as religious?

Marriage should be a religious matter only. The legal contract, if wished by adults should be separate. Like any other partnership between as many adults as wish to be a party within.

This, my friend is OUR brave new world.

Traditions be damned.

I'm sure that's what the Lovings would have wanted as the result of their lawsuit v. Virginia.

Marriage is a legal contract.

Never said i

Get the government completely out of the marriage business and problem solved.

Justice of the Peace? Registrar at City Hall? Las Vegas wedding chapel? Are marriages conducted in these venues valid?

Churches sanctify marriage, the marriage license makes marriages legally binding contracts. Do you really want only churches establishing legally binding contracts?

Good god, where did you get that?

If a couple wants to be joined by God they can get a church wedding

If a couple, a trio, a foursome or eighty six folks want to legally bind themselves together, let them form a domestic partnership applied for and granted by a governmental agency.

Is that really that tough to understand?

If the government calls it a marriage for one it calls it a marriage for all. Is that really that tough to understand?

Then argue that point.

I want government OUT OF MARRIAGE.

Got it?

 

[PratchettFan]

You insist a legal contract is religious but I'm a traditionalist?

Exactly where did I want a legal contract as religious?

Marriage should be a religious matter only. The legal contract, if wished by adults should be separate. Like any other partnership between as many adults as wish to be a party within.

This, my friend is OUR brave new world.

Traditions be damned.

I'm sure that's what the Lovings would have wanted as the result of their lawsuit v. Virginia.

Marriage is a legal contract.

Never said i

Get the government completely out of the marriage business and problem solved.

Justice of the Peace? Registrar at City Hall? Las Vegas wedding chapel? Are marriages conducted in these venues valid?

Churches sanctify marriage, the marriage license makes marriages legally binding contracts. Do you really want only churches establishing legally binding contracts?

Good god, where did you get that?

If a couple wants to be joined by God they can get a church wedding

If a couple, a trio, a foursome or eighty six folks want to legally bind themselves together, let them form a domestic partnership applied for and granted by a governmental agency.

Is that really that tough to understand?

If the government calls it a marriage for one it calls it a marriage for all. Is that really that tough to understand?

Then argue that point.

I want government OUT OF MARRIAGE.

Got it?

You are free to want. Government isn't out of marriage and I don't see them getting out. So long as it is in marriage then it needs to treat everyone equally.

Got it?

 

[Flopper]

>

Thinking about this there could be a problem.

1. Oklahoma is recognizing Marriage Certificates issued by a religious organization that is then registered with the County Clerk. Yet other states recognize Marriage Licenses issued under authority of the State government. Since there will be no State Marriage License, doesn't that mean that all Oklahomans that leave the State won't be legally married in other states? (Same-sex and different-sex couples).


2. No Oklahoma will be returning to Common Law Marriage upon submission of a Common Law Marriage affidavit and (IIRC) 49 of 50 States still recognize Common Law Civil Marriages entered into in other States as legall valid.​

Therefore, a different-sex couple who have a Church wedding and get a Religious Marriage Certificate and file it with the clerk will only be Civilly Married in Oklahoma, yet same-sex couple that files a Common Law Marriage affidavit will be still be married outside the State.

>>>>

Religious organizations are not issuing the certificates. All they are doing is performing the ceremony and signing them. No different than they did before. All they did was change the name. A marriage recognized by the state of OK will be recognized by all of the other states - at least to the extent they are now.

According to the bill summary,
"Marriage certificates may be issued by a religious official after a formal ceremony to solemnize the marriage or by a judge."

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 SUPPORT DOCUMENTS/BILLSUM/House/HB1125 CS BILLSUM.PDF

Forget the bill summary. They don't change summaries as the bill goes through the amendment process. You need to read the final version of the bill that was voted on.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 FLR/HFLR/HB1125 HFLR.PDF

I didn't see anything in link that addresses who issues the certificate.

They just changed the term from issue to file. I'm not familiar with the process in OK, but I expect the people who do weddings have a stack of forms. Who hands you a form really doesn't matter. You go through the ceremony and the person marrying you signs the form and then sends it to the clerk. That's how I'm reading it. I wouldn't be surprised if different counties had different procedures. Whatever the current process might be, there is nothing in the bill which indicates that actual process has been changed. Just the terminology.

I expect the original idea was to create the common law marriage process and then make the standard marriage process entirely religious - which is why the judge and retired judges were deleted in the original text. That way there would be SSM marriage but it would throw a bone to those who didn't want it to be the same as "real" marriage. That didn't survive the committee process, because it would clearly be unconstitutional.

Under the current law, the couple goes to the county office, shows identification verifying identification age. If either party is under 18, a parent or guardian must present a written consent and there is a 72 hours waiting period. After the ceremony, the license is signed and returned for filing. If the procedure does not change, then the legislature is just changing the name from license to certificate.

I believe after the bill becomes law, the person conducting the ceremony will issue the certificate, verify that all state requirements are being met and submit the certificate for filing to the county office. Thus, the government is out of the loop. They would be doing nothing but filing the document and collecting the fee, the same as they do with filing wills, leases and other documents.

What are the Legal Requirements for Marriage in Oklahoma Tulsa Divorce Attorney 918-924-5526 Divorce of Tulsa Law Office

 

[Nosmo King]

I've been married for 40 years and no priest ever came near my wedding. If you want your marriage to be religious, that is a personal choice. But marriage itself isn't religious. Here is a suggestion. Call your marriage a Divine Joining and then you won't have to have the same word the rest of us use.

Tradition has no place in this discussion

Get with it! What are you 90?

You insist a legal contract is religious but I'm a traditionalist?

Exactly where did I want a legal contract as religious?

Marriage should be a religious matter only. The legal contract, if wished by adults should be separate. Like any other partnership between as many adults as wish to be a party within.

This, my friend is OUR brave new world.

Traditions be damned.

I'm sure that's what the Lovings would have wanted as the result of their lawsuit v. Virginia.

Marriage is a legal contract.

Never said i

Get the government completely out of the marriage business and problem solved.

Justice of the Peace? Registrar at City Hall? Las Vegas wedding chapel? Are marriages conducted in these venues valid?

Churches sanctify marriage, the marriage license makes marriages legally binding contracts. Do you really want only churches establishing legally binding contracts?

Good god, where did you get that?

If a couple wants to be joined by God they can get a church wedding

If a couple, a trio, a foursome or eighty six folks want to legally bind themselves together, let them form a domestic partnership applied for and granted by a governmental agency.

Is that really that tough to understand?

Everyone, not just the Holy Rollers, needs a marriage license in order for their marriage to be a legally binding contract.

 

[Flopper]

Tradition has no place in this discussion

Get with it! What are you 90?

You insist a legal contract is religious but I'm a traditionalist?

Exactly where did I want a legal contract as religious?

Marriage should be a religious matter only. The legal contract, if wished by adults should be separate. Like any other partnership between as many adults as wish to be a party within.

This, my friend is OUR brave new world.

Traditions be damned.

I'm sure that's what the Lovings would have wanted as the result of their lawsuit v. Virginia.

Marriage is a legal contract.

Never said i

Get the government completely out of the marriage business and problem solved.

Justice of the Peace? Registrar at City Hall? Las Vegas wedding chapel? Are marriages conducted in these venues valid?

Churches sanctify marriage, the marriage license makes marriages legally binding contracts. Do you really want only churches establishing legally binding contracts?

Good god, where did you get that?

If a couple wants to be joined by God they can get a church wedding

If a couple, a trio, a foursome or eighty six folks want to legally bind themselves together, let them form a domestic partnership applied for and granted by a governmental agency.

Is that really that tough to understand?

Everyone, not just the Holy Rollers, needs a marriage license in order for their marriage to be a legally binding contract.

In states that recognize common law marriage, a couple that acts as though they were married are considered married in the eyes of the law. This means things like filing joint tax returns, sharing a surname and referring to each other as husband and wife in public and private. The time period and provisions vary by state.

 

[Nosmo King]

You insist a legal contract is religious but I'm a traditionalist?

Exactly where did I want a legal contract as religious?

Marriage should be a religious matter only. The legal contract, if wished by adults should be separate. Like any other partnership between as many adults as wish to be a party within.

This, my friend is OUR brave new world.

Traditions be damned.

I'm sure that's what the Lovings would have wanted as the result of their lawsuit v. Virginia.

Marriage is a legal contract.

Never said i

Get the government completely out of the marriage business and problem solved.

Justice of the Peace? Registrar at City Hall? Las Vegas wedding chapel? Are marriages conducted in these venues valid?

Churches sanctify marriage, the marriage license makes marriages legally binding contracts. Do you really want only churches establishing legally binding contracts?

Good god, where did you get that?

If a couple wants to be joined by God they can get a church wedding

If a couple, a trio, a foursome or eighty six folks want to legally bind themselves together, let them form a domestic partnership applied for and granted by a governmental agency.

Is that really that tough to understand?

Everyone, not just the Holy Rollers, needs a marriage license in order for their marriage to be a legally binding contract.

In states that recognize common law marriage, a couple that acts as though they were married are considered married in the eyes of the law. This means things like filing joint tax returns, sharing a surname and referring to each other as husband and wife in public and private. The time period and provisions vary by state.

I appreciate common law marriages. But it seems both inconvenient and stressful to sit through the waiting period. Marriage licenses provide instant confirmation of the marriage contract. Wills, hospital visits and end of life decisions, adoption, tax filing and other protections and benefits available through the license are both universal and confirmed by a marriage license.

 

[Pop23]

Tradition has no place in this discussion

Get with it! What are you 90?

You insist a legal contract is religious but I'm a traditionalist?

Exactly where did I want a legal contract as religious?

Marriage should be a religious matter only. The legal contract, if wished by adults should be separate. Like any other partnership between as many adults as wish to be a party within.

This, my friend is OUR brave new world.

Traditions be damned.

I'm sure that's what the Lovings would have wanted as the result of their lawsuit v. Virginia.

Marriage is a legal contract.

Never said i

Get the government completely out of the marriage business and problem solved.

Justice of the Peace? Registrar at City Hall? Las Vegas wedding chapel? Are marriages conducted in these venues valid?

Churches sanctify marriage, the marriage license makes marriages legally binding contracts. Do you really want only churches establishing legally binding contracts?

Good god, where did you get that?

If a couple wants to be joined by God they can get a church wedding

If a couple, a trio, a foursome or eighty six folks want to legally bind themselves together, let them form a domestic partnership applied for and granted by a governmental agency.

Is that really that tough to understand?

Everyone, not just the Holy Rollers, needs a marriage license in order for their marriage to be a legally binding contract.

Ah, you love tradition.

Well, get over it

 

[Nosmo King]

You insist a legal contract is religious but I'm a traditionalist?

Exactly where did I want a legal contract as religious?

Marriage should be a religious matter only. The legal contract, if wished by adults should be separate. Like any other partnership between as many adults as wish to be a party within.

This, my friend is OUR brave new world.

Traditions be damned.

I'm sure that's what the Lovings would have wanted as the result of their lawsuit v. Virginia.

Marriage is a legal contract.

Never said i

Get the government completely out of the marriage business and problem solved.

Justice of the Peace? Registrar at City Hall? Las Vegas wedding chapel? Are marriages conducted in these venues valid?

Churches sanctify marriage, the marriage license makes marriages legally binding contracts. Do you really want only churches establishing legally binding contracts?

Good god, where did you get that?

If a couple wants to be joined by God they can get a church wedding

If a couple, a trio, a foursome or eighty six folks want to legally bind themselves together, let them form a domestic partnership applied for and granted by a governmental agency.

Is that really that tough to understand?

Everyone, not just the Holy Rollers, needs a marriage license in order for their marriage to be a legally binding contract.

Ah, you love tradition.

Well, get over it

Tradition has nothing to do with it. The Rule of Law is what is at question. If you are satisfied that any church anywhere can establish legal contracts, then be prepared for the slippery slope. Churches are not agents of the government, never have been, never will be.

 

[Derideo_Te]

it provides for Common Law Marriages in the absence of religious Marriage Certificate.

Those are issued by the state.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Civil marriage is legally binding.

Religious marriage is not legally binding and means nothing, except whatever that couple decides it means for them.

Under this law a Religious Marriage is registered with the State and upon registration becomes a Civil Marriage.


*****************************

What I find funny is that no one has asked a question from the other end of the line.

Must a married couple bring a Certificate of Divorce from the religious organization that issued them the Marriage Certificate and register that with the County Clerk to then be divorced?


>>>>

Religious marriages always had to be registered with the state in order to recognized by the state. This is just trying to through up a barrier of religion to prevent people from being issued marriage licenses. And any religious barrier is unconstitutional.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Marriage should be a religious matter only

Holy matrimony is a religious matter only. Marriage is a civil contract under the law.

 

[PratchettFan]

Religious organizations are not issuing the certificates. All they are doing is performing the ceremony and signing them. No different than they did before. All they did was change the name. A marriage recognized by the state of OK will be recognized by all of the other states - at least to the extent they are now.

According to the bill summary,
"Marriage certificates may be issued by a religious official after a formal ceremony to solemnize the marriage or by a judge."

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 SUPPORT DOCUMENTS/BILLSUM/House/HB1125 CS BILLSUM.PDF

Forget the bill summary. They don't change summaries as the bill goes through the amendment process. You need to read the final version of the bill that was voted on.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 FLR/HFLR/HB1125 HFLR.PDF

I didn't see anything in link that addresses who issues the certificate.

They just changed the term from issue to file. I'm not familiar with the process in OK, but I expect the people who do weddings have a stack of forms. Who hands you a form really doesn't matter. You go through the ceremony and the person marrying you signs the form and then sends it to the clerk. That's how I'm reading it. I wouldn't be surprised if different counties had different procedures. Whatever the current process might be, there is nothing in the bill which indicates that actual process has been changed. Just the terminology.

I expect the original idea was to create the common law marriage process and then make the standard marriage process entirely religious - which is why the judge and retired judges were deleted in the original text. That way there would be SSM marriage but it would throw a bone to those who didn't want it to be the same as "real" marriage. That didn't survive the committee process, because it would clearly be unconstitutional.

Under the current law, the couple goes to the county office, shows identification verifying identification age. If either party is under 18, a parent or guardian must present a written consent and there is a 72 hours waiting period. After the ceremony, the license is signed and returned for filing. If the procedure does not change, then the legislature is just changing the name from license to certificate.

I believe after the bill becomes law, the person conducting the ceremony will issue the certificate, verify that all state requirements are being met and submit the certificate for filing to the county office. Thus, the government is out of the loop. They would be doing nothing but filing the document and collecting the fee, the same as they do with filing wills, leases and other documents.

What are the Legal Requirements for Marriage in Oklahoma Tulsa Divorce Attorney 918-924-5526 Divorce of Tulsa Law Office

I see nothing in the bill which indicates a change in process, with the exception of common law marriage. So if that is the way it will be, then that is the way it has been.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You insist a legal contract is religious but I'm a traditionalist?

Exactly where did I want a legal contract as religious?

Marriage should be a religious matter only. The legal contract, if wished by adults should be separate. Like any other partnership between as many adults as wish to be a party within.

This, my friend is OUR brave new world.

Traditions be damned.

I'm sure that's what the Lovings would have wanted as the result of their lawsuit v. Virginia.

Marriage is a legal contract.

Never said i

Get the government completely out of the marriage business and problem solved.

Justice of the Peace? Registrar at City Hall? Las Vegas wedding chapel? Are marriages conducted in these venues valid?

Churches sanctify marriage, the marriage license makes marriages legally binding contracts. Do you really want only churches establishing legally binding contracts?

Good god, where did you get that?

If a couple wants to be joined by God they can get a church wedding

If a couple, a trio, a foursome or eighty six folks want to legally bind themselves together, let them form a domestic partnership applied for and granted by a governmental agency.

Is that really that tough to understand?

If the government calls it a marriage for one it calls it a marriage for all. Is that really that tough to understand?

Then argue that point.

I want government OUT OF MARRIAGE.

Got it?

That will never happen.

Government and marriage are one in the same, one can't exist without the other; state lawmakers write the contract law that is marriage, and that contract law is administered by state courts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Religious organizations are not issuing the certificates. All they are doing is performing the ceremony and signing them. No different than they did before. All they did was change the name. A marriage recognized by the state of OK will be recognized by all of the other states - at least to the extent they are now.

According to the bill summary,
"Marriage certificates may be issued by a religious official after a formal ceremony to solemnize the marriage or by a judge."

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 SUPPORT DOCUMENTS/BILLSUM/House/HB1125 CS BILLSUM.PDF

Forget the bill summary. They don't change summaries as the bill goes through the amendment process. You need to read the final version of the bill that was voted on.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 FLR/HFLR/HB1125 HFLR.PDF

I didn't see anything in link that addresses who issues the certificate.

They just changed the term from issue to file. I'm not familiar with the process in OK, but I expect the people who do weddings have a stack of forms. Who hands you a form really doesn't matter. You go through the ceremony and the person marrying you signs the form and then sends it to the clerk. That's how I'm reading it. I wouldn't be surprised if different counties had different procedures. Whatever the current process might be, there is nothing in the bill which indicates that actual process has been changed. Just the terminology.

I expect the original idea was to create the common law marriage process and then make the standard marriage process entirely religious - which is why the judge and retired judges were deleted in the original text. That way there would be SSM marriage but it would throw a bone to those who didn't want it to be the same as "real" marriage. That didn't survive the committee process, because it would clearly be unconstitutional.

Under the current law, the couple goes to the county office, shows identification verifying identification age. If either party is under 18, a parent or guardian must present a written consent and there is a 72 hours waiting period. After the ceremony, the license is signed and returned for filing. If the procedure does not change, then the legislature is just changing the name from license to certificate.

I believe after the bill becomes law, the person conducting the ceremony will issue the certificate, verify that all state requirements are being met and submit the certificate for filing to the county office. Thus, the government is out of the loop. They would be doing nothing but filing the document and collecting the fee, the same as they do with filing wills, leases and other documents.

What are the Legal Requirements for Marriage in Oklahoma Tulsa Divorce Attorney 918-924-5526 Divorce of Tulsa Law Office

Verifying that all state requirements are being met is keeping government in the loop, because the resulting contract will still need to conform to state contract law concerning marriage, and state contract law concerning dissolution of marriage, should that time come.

 

[Flopper]

According to the bill summary,
"Marriage certificates may be issued by a religious official after a formal ceremony to solemnize the marriage or by a judge."

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 SUPPORT DOCUMENTS/BILLSUM/House/HB1125 CS BILLSUM.PDF

Forget the bill summary. They don't change summaries as the bill goes through the amendment process. You need to read the final version of the bill that was voted on.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 FLR/HFLR/HB1125 HFLR.PDF

I didn't see anything in link that addresses who issues the certificate.

They just changed the term from issue to file. I'm not familiar with the process in OK, but I expect the people who do weddings have a stack of forms. Who hands you a form really doesn't matter. You go through the ceremony and the person marrying you signs the form and then sends it to the clerk. That's how I'm reading it. I wouldn't be surprised if different counties had different procedures. Whatever the current process might be, there is nothing in the bill which indicates that actual process has been changed. Just the terminology.

I expect the original idea was to create the common law marriage process and then make the standard marriage process entirely religious - which is why the judge and retired judges were deleted in the original text. That way there would be SSM marriage but it would throw a bone to those who didn't want it to be the same as "real" marriage. That didn't survive the committee process, because it would clearly be unconstitutional.

Under the current law, the couple goes to the county office, shows identification verifying identification age. If either party is under 18, a parent or guardian must present a written consent and there is a 72 hours waiting period. After the ceremony, the license is signed and returned for filing. If the procedure does not change, then the legislature is just changing the name from license to certificate.

I believe after the bill becomes law, the person conducting the ceremony will issue the certificate, verify that all state requirements are being met and submit the certificate for filing to the county office. Thus, the government is out of the loop. They would be doing nothing but filing the document and collecting the fee, the same as they do with filing wills, leases and other documents.

What are the Legal Requirements for Marriage in Oklahoma Tulsa Divorce Attorney 918-924-5526 Divorce of Tulsa Law Office

Verifying that all state requirements are being met is keeping government in the loop, because the resulting contract will still need to conform to state contract law concerning marriage, and state contract law concerning dissolution of marriage, should that time come.

I believe the way the bill is written it will be a minister that does the verifying, not the government which in my mind is a problem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anybody can be licensed to be clergy.

The bill means nothing at all.

 

[Flopper]

Anybody can be licensed to be clergy.

The bill means nothing at all.

If the bill as written becomes law, there will be more child marriages.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That can happen now with some of the 'clergy' authorized to marry by law.

 

[Flopper]

That can happen now with some of the 'clergy' authorized to marry by law.

Currently the clerk at county office is responsible for verifying the identification and age of the couple. Under the new law, the minister will be responsible and government will just file the marriage certificate after the ceremony.