# Isn't this a violation of Church/State separation? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 7, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966 "2010-02-07T00:16:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/21 "2010-02-07T01:40:31Z")
You have to also remember rights are not absolute. They can be modified if called for. The most famous being, you have the right to free speech but not to yell fire in a crowded theatre. In certain cases you can waive your rights. You have a right to an attorney being present when your questioned. You have a right to have the police get a search warrent (in most cases) but you can waive those rights and allow the police to search and answer their questions, if you want to. Divorce agreements are civil agreements, and you can pretty much agree to anything so long as it’s not to commit an illegal act. Divorce and marriages are even more complex because not all states recognize each other’s marriages and divorces. This isn’t so much a big deal now, but in the recent past this was a huge deal. Remember the “Reno Divorce.” Many states refused to honor such a divorce so while you were divorced in Nevada but married in other states. Internationally there are more rules. For example, Rita Hayworth’s 2nd husband Prince Aly Khan was son of Aga Khan III, the head of the Ismaili Muslims and due to be head of the Muslims in due course. Hayworth agreed in public, in writing many, many times, she’d raise any children she had as Muslim. After Yasmin Aga Khan was born Hayworth simply went back and said, “Tough luck” and refused to raise her daughter as Muslim. Of course there was nothing anyone in the USA could do about it. But Hayworth used it as a reason to deny visiting rights to Aly, at least visiting rights overseas as she feared the child would be taken to a county where the US had no extradition. In reality Hayworth was using the kid and Aly was in fact a far better parent that Hayworth was and in the end they reached an agreement and Hayworth dumped not only Yasmin but her other daughter by Orsen Wells on Aly for months and months at a time. So you can see every situation is a bit different and it all depends on what judge you get. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/22 "2010-02-07T02:12:24Z")
> [@Helena\_Handbasket](#): > > How can the State of Oklahoma tell me I must get married in order to have my very monogamous partner sleep in my home?..this whole thing just smacks of the State telling me to participate in a religious rite… Marriage is a civil contract well recognized in law. Including a religious rite with it is optional. This is not even close to looking like a church/state issue. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/23 "2010-02-07T10:07:36Z")
Marriage, as viewed by the State, is not a sacrament but a contract. Religion has nothing to do with it. (That doesn’t mean I agree with the law, but it’s a civil law and not related to religion) ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/24 "2010-02-07T17:21:58Z")
> [@Helena\_Handbasket](#): > > OK, but how does being in a very long-term committed relationship equate to immorality? I promise I’m not being deliberately obtuse, but don’t people (both gay and straight) raise children in happy loving homes without benefit of marriage all the time? You aren’t being obtuse, but you are a product of your time. It wasn’t _that_ long ago when the general societal consensus was that _of course_ “living in sin,” or even spending the night, with someone you weren’t married to was shameful and immoral. People still did it, but they weren’t nearly as open about it. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/25 "2010-02-07T19:24:53Z")
> [@Kyla](#): > > Still, that’s a fucked up law. This is just not the business of the State of Oklahoma. Typical Republicans. Go on and on about how the government should stay out of everyone’s business, except when it comes to consenting adults making decisions about their bodies. Do you have anything that suggest that this law was passed by Republicans? A lot of these morality laws are often quite old. They also often had bi-partisan support. Before you can blame a particular party for it, you have to find out when it was passed, and then see who voted for it. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/26 "2010-02-07T21:11:52Z")
> [@Helena\_Handbasket](#): > > Hence, the divorce. > > Thanks for the condolences. > > And that would be the logic, that she’s never stayed over while my son was there, but my son says otherwise. He told me a while back that she’d stayed the night, but later his dad convinced him it had all been a dream. He’s only 7. ☹ :eek: I hope the kid isn’t messed up by all this. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/27 "2010-02-09T00:38:19Z")
Make sure with your lawyer that he or she has communicated the statute to you properly. Looking at the titles of the Oklahoma Statutes relating to “Marriage” and to “Children,” I see no such rule relating to cohabitation. ---
**Author:** ![Tethered\_Kite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a5b964/32.png) [@Tethered\_Kite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tethered_Kite)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/28 "2010-02-09T00:59:06Z")
> [@Helena\_Handbasket](#): > > OK, but how does being in a very long-term committed relationship equate to immorality? I promise I’m not being deliberately obtuse, but don’t people (both gay and straight) raise children in happy loving homes without benefit of marriage all the time? You divorced three years ago? Your partner lives in another country? This is a “very long-term committed relationship?” Now I’ve learned something new. ---
**Author:** ![Helena\_Handbasket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Helena\_Handbasket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helena_Handbasket)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/29 "2010-02-09T01:35:12Z")
Meaning? > [@Tethered\_Kite](#): > > You divorced three years ago? > > Your partner lives in another country? > > This is a “very long-term committed relationship?” > > Now I’ve learned something new. ---
**Author:** ![Helena\_Handbasket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Helena\_Handbasket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helena_Handbasket)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/30 "2010-02-09T01:37:50Z")
This is really the tiniest of lies his father has told him. Unfortunately, he’s seen his dad lie to me right in front of him and my son has his own opinions about that. He doesn’t trust his dad too much. ☹ > [@pedescribe](#): > > :eek: > > I hope the kid isn’t messed up by all this. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/31 "2010-02-09T02:53:48Z")
> [@Kyla](#): > > Still, that’s a fucked up law. This is just not the business of the State of Oklahoma. Typical Republicans. Oklahoma is a conservative state but there are more Democrats than Republicans. [Cite.](http://www.ok.gov/~elections/reg_0110.pdf) PDF. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/32 "2010-02-09T04:41:31Z")
It’s not a violation of the Establishment Clause. It’s not really got anything to do with religion at all. It _is_ a stupid law. Do you have the money for a couple of days’ surveillance of his home? It’d be a _lot_ of money (~$1k) but it would pretty much take care of this issue. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/33 "2010-02-09T13:06:41Z")
Surely the state of Oklahoma has defined “co-habitation” someone in its code. In the legal dictionary on-line, it states: “A living arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives together in a long-term relationship that resembles a marriage.” …however Oklahoma may have its own definition. It’s worth a look. ---
**Author:** ![Wheelz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wheelz/32/5718_2.png) [@Wheelz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wheelz)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/34 "2010-02-09T13:39:48Z")
The way I see it, you could get a lawyer to fight this for you, look for a judge with a different interpretation of the “cohabitation” rule, try to nail your ex for having his gf sleep over, and so on and so forth… …or your bf could get a hotel room when he visits. You obviously are not happy with the current law and the decision of local authorities to enforce it, but I agree with the other posters who say it has nothing at all to do with church vs. state. Like it or not, it’s been made pretty clear where you stand here: having a guy stay overnight (tent or not) with your young son in the house is not OK. Time for you to decide which is more important to you. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966/35 "2010-02-09T15:09:59Z")
> [@Helena\_Handbasket](#): > > My attorney has said, “Why don’t you just get married and get it over with?” (Nice attitude, eh?) And one of the reasons we haven’t is that _no one_ should have a voice in that decision but us. Add to that the fact that I’m as yet undecided on the idea of getting remarried _at all_, it seems like it would just confuse the issue even more to be doing it to for the wrong reasons, so to speak. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with the viewpoint I’m about to put forth, but there are plenty of people who totally think that the State shouldn’t be involved in their relationship commitment, and therefore see the marriage license as nothing more than some legal paperwork completely separate from their actual relationship commitment. With that in mind, they’re happy to fill out a marriage license if it’s convenient (taking into account the costs of later filing divorce papers if necessary), even if they’re not making a relationship commitment at that time. Again, I’m not saying this attitude works for everyone, but it might be something to consider. Particularly with international relationships, a marriage license can often make many things go easier. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-this-a-violation-of-church-state-separation/527966.md?page=1)