January 24, 2015 8:00 am -

State Rep. Todd Russ says he wants to get marriage out of government but, under his bill, only marriages performed by clergy would be recognized.


D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

30 responses to Oklahoma Bill Would Result In Marriage Only For The Religious

  1. Larry Schmitt January 24th, 2015 at 8:31 am

    If this bill became law (and I don’t think it will, even in Oklahoma), it would be one more step on the road to the theocracy that some of these RW extremists want. But if it did, would they also recognize a marriage certificate signed by a rabbi, or an imam, or a Buddhist monk (if they even preside over Buddhist weddings)? I’m sure his intention is to restrict it to christian marriages.

    • Candide Thirtythree January 25th, 2015 at 3:13 am

      Like that Louisiana congresswoman who signed a bill to basically make all public schools in the state, religious charter schools. Then she found out that included the Muslim religion and she wanted to take back her vote, she said she was ok with all schools being christian schools but none of the other religions.

  2. KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker January 24th, 2015 at 9:09 am

    RWNJ’s don’t understand what marriage actually is under the law, ie: estates, property, wills, hospital visiting rights, etc.
    Yet they are too quick to ignore the constitution (separation of church and state) to favor one, and only one, religion in proposed legislation. Ignorant buffoons indeed.

    • rg9rts January 24th, 2015 at 11:58 am

      SIR!!!! You insult buffoons..

  3. Mainah January 24th, 2015 at 9:29 am

    How is it that he thinks the States are autonomous. The Fed sets the bar and the can pass laws that meet or exceed that law. And that you can’t force people to have to get married in a Church or register as “common law” which isn’t even on the books. Holy crap!

    • Larry Schmitt January 24th, 2015 at 9:34 am

      I don’t understand why anyone thinks that every marriage has to be religious, and the rest have to settle for common law marriages, which OK doesn’t recognize. A very large segment of the population doesn’t do religion. Why does it matter to these people how someone gets married?

      • Mainah January 24th, 2015 at 9:44 am

        Because in his mind, Homosexuals won’t be able to get a Priest to marry them. I’ve got news for him … there are Churches up here with Gay Pastors. Methodists are rebels. I don’t know why they can’t understand that even the Founding Father’s wanted to keep the two separate.

        • Larry Schmitt January 24th, 2015 at 10:24 am

          Unitarian Universalists are very inclusive. They accept anyone.

      • StoneyCurtisll January 24th, 2015 at 10:04 am

        I believe they want to cram their religion down our throats..
        Oklahoma has banned ‘Shria law’, I wonder if Muslims could get married there if this bill were to become law.

        • Dwendt44 January 24th, 2015 at 1:05 pm

          Isn’t ‘christian law’ also a ‘foreign’ law?

          • Mainah January 24th, 2015 at 1:43 pm


      • rg9rts January 24th, 2015 at 11:56 am

        Because this type of gopee likes to stick their collective noses into peoples crotches.

      • bluejayray January 24th, 2015 at 12:46 pm

        Their “faith” depends on forcing others to recognize their supernatural delusions. The Inquisition(s) exemplify the concept. ISIS is the ultimate religious force–convert, leave, or die. Lots of christians in THIS country would like to see a similar program here, to purge our country of anyone who won’t claim to believe in the little baby jeebus…

  4. Budda January 24th, 2015 at 9:29 am

    Another ignorant Republican; to wit: we’ll make our own laws and ignore federal laws.

    • Dwendt44 January 24th, 2015 at 1:03 pm

      Isn’t ‘ignorant Republican’ redundant?

      • Budda January 24th, 2015 at 3:42 pm


  5. Stan Ubeki January 24th, 2015 at 9:39 am

    As an ordained Grand Bolognese in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I will happily perform weddings via Skype for anyone who requests them. My fee is 1 lb. of ground pork, lamb or turkey.

    • StoneyCurtisll January 24th, 2015 at 10:00 am


  6. Stan Ubeki January 24th, 2015 at 9:43 am

    The Bill:

  7. rg9rts January 24th, 2015 at 11:54 am

    Maybe when Texas leaves the union they’ll take these boobs too??? Please…..

    • bluejayray January 24th, 2015 at 12:55 pm

      We really should have drummed the confederate states out of the union forever after we beat their asses in the Civil War. they’ve been a drain on the nation ever since–financially, socially and legally.

      • rg9rts January 24th, 2015 at 1:06 pm

        Red states have always lived off the blue..

  8. bluejayray January 24th, 2015 at 12:43 pm

    Soooo–unless you believe in the unbelievable, you’re not allowed to access our civil court system? What a frikken idiot.

  9. fahvel January 24th, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    recognized by whom? If it’s purely religious then all tax advantages should be removed for married people.

    • bluejayray January 24th, 2015 at 12:54 pm

      I agree with you there. Easy-peasy–just make ALL religious marriages outlawed–no tax breaks, no recognition by the secular courts. If they want to be treated “special”, then so be it.

  10. labman57 January 24th, 2015 at 1:07 pm

    What part of “separation of church and state” do these socially-regressive buffoons not understand?

    • Mainah January 24th, 2015 at 1:40 pm

      I would hazard a guess that it’s the “separation” part. 🙂

  11. rene1220 January 24th, 2015 at 7:14 pm

    So, am I understanding correctly that, if I were a non-theist (which I am), I could not be officially married? I could only have a common-law partner? Or am I missing something?

    • Candide Thirtythree January 25th, 2015 at 3:08 am

      and Oklahoma does not recognize common law marriages so….

  12. allison1050 January 25th, 2015 at 4:59 am

    sigh and insert an eye roll here thanks.