It's been suggested that one possible (and appropriate) outcome of the controversy over marriage equality would be to get the state out of the business of marriage. Let the state recognize some sort of licensed civil union, and let folk who want a religious state of "Holy Matrimony" arrange that with their individual churches. The state ends up dealing with just the contractual rights/responsibilities of folk getting hitched, and all of the "God intended marriage to look like this." stuff gets punted back to the churches making said claims.
An Oklahoma state law under consideration manages to take that idea and flip around the result. Under it, the state (or, rather, county justices of the peace) could no longer marry people. If you want to get married, as recognized by state law, you would need to do so in a recognized church.
On the plus side, that would allow denominations and churches that sacramentally accept same-sex marriage to do their thing, and those that don't to do their own thing, too. On the negative side, it would have religious institutions dictating who gets to be considered married, with all the benefits (and responsibilities) the state imposes following from those religious actions.
Those who didn't want a church wedding could file an affidavit of common law marriage — except, apparently, Oklahoma doesn't by default recognize common law marriage, unless a judge rules to so accept it. That both puts non-religious individuals at a legal disadvantage, and puts judges in the position of deciding which non-religious marriages to recognize, which seems highly problematic.
Bottom line, there's at least a couple of very significant church-state entanglements involved in this proposal, though no doubt it's garnering some nice support for the legislator who proposed it. It would almost certainly never pass muster, but it's another example of the lengths to which some folk will go to turn back the social/legal tide.
Proposed bill would end marriage licenses
A new bill being discussed in the State House of Representatives could mean the end of marriage licenses in the state.
Oh yes. Let's give all the power to the churches because that worked so well before 😉
Your idea is good. OK is close, just backwards. At least they're working towards a solution. Some states (Texas raises its hand) are fine with the way things are and see no reason to change. 😛
My favorite quote from that article would be, ” “Put it back to what it was supposed to be and was originally a holy matrimony and a very solemn and spiritual vow,” said Rep. Russ.” Apparently Rep. Russ is ignorant of the history of marriage and contracts, but I’m sure it’s easier for him to push his bigoted and arrogant POV if he remains willfully ignorant.
I would be perfectly fine with the French version: Every couple goes to the courthouse and files paperwork, then that night or the next day, you have whatever rituals or parties your little heart desires. It always seemed really weird to me that religious officials were empowered to facilitate a legal contract.
In theory, in standard American practice, it's simply a convenience — once you have received your license from the city/county/state, any number of folk can simply certify that, yup, you're married, be they judges or city clerks or clerics of some religious sort. Saves a formal witnessing by state officials, unless desired.
My only problem with letting religious officials in on the act is that (as has been demonstrated) they insist that means they should get to control who gets married by anyone.
I do believe in a religious sacrament of marriage — for myself and my wife whomever else chooses the same, within whatever faith they follow. But for modern purposes, that should be something in parallel, not as a gatekeeper. Just as we don't say "Well, only babies that are baptized in the church should get birth certificates and be recognized as people" or "Only people who are buried in a church funeral should have their estates probated by the government."