Perhaps Eastasia?
I can’t hear ‘nuclear family’ without thinking ‘radiation poisoning’.
Bored while waiting for the State of the Union to begin? Fire up your Twitter followers!
[QUOTE=Randy Weber, R-TX 14th District]
On floor of house waitin on “Kommandant-In-Chef”… the Socialistic dictator who’s been feeding US a line or is it “A-Lying?”
[/QUOTE]
Do we have a SotUA thread somewhere?
I like the idea, I think. I’ve long thought a real separation of legal and religious marriage was a good idea.
That’s not what the Oklahoma guy is proposing. There are countries where they have a real separation of legal and religious marriage. That means that legal marriage is mandatory—you go to a register office or a clerk or a justice-of-the-peace type person with few if any guests. The religious marriage is optional.
“Kommandant-in-Chef”? I thought the “Can you smell what Barack is cooking?” was played out by now.
The Kommandant-In-Chef is giving the State of the Onion speech, that’s in 12A next door.
Stupid git.
I know, it’s the next step. I can’t find a link to the actual bill, but this could be a case of so right, you left.
“But, Fearless Leader, Moose and Squirrel don’t have to give up their religious freedom so that gay marriages can have free birth control!”
“Is why Moose and Squirrel must die! Obey!”
Have you had enough of the lamestream media and their endless gotcha questions?
If you’re Congressman Michael Grimm (R-Staten Island), there’s a simple way to get them off your back - just get in the reporter’s face and threaten to throw him off the balcony of the Capitol Building while standing in front of a live TV news camera.
No wonder he voted against anti-bullying laws.
Isn’t that what you basically have in the States now, though? You are not legally married until the correct legal paperwork is signed and submitted regardless of what religious ceremony you have had and no religious ceremony is required for the government to consider you legally married. The government has just decided to save on cost and hassle by deputizing the religious person and allowing them to act as a government agent to witness, sign, and submit the proper paperwork. One person, two functions, and only the government defined process counts toward who the government considers married.
The best part of that is that the Grimm defended his actions by saying, “I verbally took the reporter to task and told him off, because I expect a certain level of professionalism and respect …”
“I’ll throw you off this fucking balcony … I’ll break you in half like a boy!” Yeah, that sounds professional and respectful. The reporter hadn’t even asked a question; he was trying to lead into a question when Pussy McThreaten walked off (I’m sure fully expecting the camera to go dead. Oops on that one).
My favorite summation is the closing paragraph of OpEdNews’s take:
Ouch.
Esteemed Representative Randy Weber tweeted his opinion of the President and the State Of The Union address, then tried to make it didn’t happen, so to speak. " “Kommandant-In-Chef”-the misspelling is the icing on this shitcake.
Isn’t that what we have in the U.S.? You get a license, and then can have either a civil ceremony or a religious one. I guess some countries require a civil ceremony, but we require a license and some kind of ceremony.
You don’t have to have a civil ceremony. You can literally just say “I dos” in front of a notary and be done.
Okay, so you can have a non-religious private ceremony.
My point is that the state licenses marriages. Wish I knew exactly what was being proposed in OK. I’ll try to find it.
P.S. Found something. The proposal is simply not to regulate marriage at all, and let religious groups decide.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/oklahoma-divorce-marriage-government-video/#axzz2ro8YEeqd
Problem is, that would mean absolutely anyone could marry, and could define marriage however they want, and wouldn’t leave much room for non-religious marriages. Unless you just wiped marriage from all legal recognition - taxes, inheritance, etc. - it’s hard to see how the state can’t be involved.
Where I live in Pennsylvania, the large Quaker population didn’t do wedding officiants so the state issued self-uniting marriage licenses. With one of those, you can skip the notary, the “I dos” and even the ceremony entirely!
All you need is two witnesses to sign a paper. Bonus: A federal judge ruled that Pennsylvania had to offer this license to anyone in the state regardless of religious affiliation.
Oh, but that license does cost $9 more than a regular marriage license, at least in Philadelphia. 