What law did they make? Statute please
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.
The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
We are a nation of laws.
We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue *** licenses. In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
You still haven't answered the question. What law did the clerk violate?
Really Sparky ? Abolish state marriage You have your head so far up that dark place that you don't even know that it was tried and was a disaster!
Weird Bill Intended To Block Marriage Equality In Oklahoma May Totally Backfirehttp://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/13/3633556/is-this-real-life/
AOklahoma lawmakers took the first step in passing a bill that was originally poised to hinder marriage equality. But
after a wave of criticism pressured lawmakers to tweak the measure, it now might actually end up supporting LGBT people — assuming it doesn’t send the state’s marriage system into chaos first.
The Oklahoma state house passed
H.B. 1125, a Republican-backed bill which has raised
concerns for potentially violating the U.S. Constitution. The sponsor of the bill, state Rep. Todd Russ (R), said the proposed law was designed with two goals in mind:
remove government from the business of issuing marriage licenses by requiring clergy who officiate weddings to file “certificates of marriage” on their own, and preventing judges who disapprove of marriage equality from having to officiate same-sex weddings, which are legal in the state.
He went on to say:
“The point of my legislation is to take the state out of the process and
leave marriage in the hands of the clergy,” Russ told
the Oklahoman.
Russ openly admitted in an interview with ThinkProgress that the bill stemmed from his opposition to marriage equality,
saying that he wrote it after the Supreme Court “crammed” same-sex marriage “down our throats” when it upheld a decision by a federal judge to strike down the state’s same-sex marriage ban
last October — something Russ contends is an example of government “overreach.”
Actually, the supreme court did not uphold the decision. They just refused to hear the appeal from the state on the decision of the 10th circuit. A minor point perhaps but it also exposes a sloppy thought process and inattention to detail.
The initial bill
waswidelycriticized for being unconstitutional, with LGBT advocates,
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and news outlets blasting its requirement that only “an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination” or a rabbi be allowed to contract a formal marriage.
The really stupid thing about the initial version of the bill was that while violating the constitution, it would not prevent gays from marrying:
Oddly, if the bill’s goal was to inhibit same-sex couples from getting married, it failed out of the gate. Troy Stevenson, head of the LGBT advocacy group
Freedom Oklahoma, noted that Russ may not have realized that “there are … 160 members of clergy who have publicly declared their willingness to marry LGBT people,” and that
severalmajorChristiandenominations already allow clergy to officiate same-sex marriages, many of which already
have a presence in Oklahoma.
Perhaps the sponsors didn’t know this , or they thought that opponents of same sex marriage would be appeased because it was not state sponsored. I don’t think so, it would still be ”marriage”
As pressure mounted on Russ to kill the legislation, however, something strange happened: instead of pulling the bill, Russ simply amended it, re-inserting a clause that allowed judges to officiate weddings. The change was initially welcomed by LGBT advocates such as Stevenson, but also caused confusion, because it
defeated the bill’s aim of fully removing government officials from marriages services. In fact, without the clergy-only provision,
some Democrats noted that the bill was arguably pro-LGBT, since it does not define marriage specifically as a union between a man and a woman, effectively re-affirming the legitimacy of same-sex unions in the state.
In addition
Other lawmakers also pointed out that, since Russ’ bill requires the government to simply file marriage certificates, it removes the state’s ability to prevent instances bigamy or polygamy.
Well maybe not because other laws cover those things, but you can see how confusion can arise
Clearly the Supreme Court [said] that it cannot be constitutionally appropriate to have an opposite sex stated in the language, so that was struck,” he told ThinkProgress. “My objective here today is not to overthrow the [Supreme Court] ruling. My bill is basically an attempt to sidestep what is basically the claim by the Supreme Court … [The bill] doesn’t condone same-sex marriage, and it doesn’t disallow same-sex marriage — my bill is silent on that matter.”
So then what the hell is the point of all of this? They might as well just accept marriage equality and be done with it.
But as the vote neared Wednesday,
Republicans doubled down on what many were now calling the “Marriage Chaos Bill” — even if they weren’t exactly sure what they were voting for.
Indeed,
Russ’ claim that the law allows government to “exit the [marriage] game” appears incomplete at best. True, while judges are able to officiate marriages under the law, they are not required to, and whereas previously clerks issued
marriage licenses, they are now asked simply to file “marriage certificates” (or common law affidavits) created elsewhere.
But this only tweaks some aspects of how government interacts with the beginning of the marriage process — it doesn’t change the fact that marriages are still legal entities recognized by the state.
And it gets even crazier
Also, while the most offensive parts of the bill appear to be corrected,
there remain several legal concerns. The measure, for instance, might expose a violation of the establishment clause already existent in Oklahoma law. In its current form, the bill makes concessions for accepting marriage certificates from Quakers, Baha’is, and Mormons who do not have traditional clergy, but it does not outline similar explanations for Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists, groups who also lack Christian-style clergy but which have communities in the state. There are also lingering questions over whether or not same-sex marriages — or really any marriage performed under this system — would still be recognized if people moved out-of-state.
Any more brilliant ideas bubba?
