PHB Mobile



News Tips? Calendar Info?



"If you're gay, lesbian, or bisexual, would you sacrifice for your trans neighbors and siblings? If you're trans, would you sacrifice for your gay, lesbian, or bisexual neighbors and siblings? It's something worth knowing about yourself and those around you."
--Autumn Sandeen, 4/19/2010, the night before GetEQUAL's DADT repeal protest at the White House


Public Calendar

Press/media, organizations, and individuals send your time-based event info to: calendar@phblend.net

Full size PHB Calendar


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Blend

Snail mail:
Pam's House Blend
105 West Hwy 54, Suite 265
Box #113
Durham, NC 27713









The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



Correction, Re: Proposed OK Bill Criminalizing Solemnizing Same Sex Marriage Ceremony

by: Louise

Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 19:00:00 PM EST


UPDATE: As Lurleen points out below in comments, this is not a new measure being submitted to the Oklahoma state legislature, as I had read it to be, but rather an edit of existing law:


this is already on the books

Here is the OK marriage law section  §43-14.  Penalty for performing unlawful marriage.
Any minister of the Gospel, or other person authorized to solemnize the rites of matrimony within this state, who shall knowingly solemnize the rites of matrimony between persons prohibited by this chapter, from intermarrying shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) and imprisonment in the State Penitentiary not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years.
R.L. 1910, § 3896.  Amended by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 461, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 335, eff. July 1, 1999.

All the proposed bill does is strike "State Penitentiary" and insert "custody of the Department of Corrections".  According to this blog post, this is just a shell bill that Nelson filed, to have on hand 'just in case'.  Certainly worth keeping an eye on him, but there seems to be nothing really threatening happening with this particular bill as it stands.

My apologies for the error... Louise

===========================================

Well... um... ya gotta give this state legislator credit for originality, I guess!


Rep. Jason Nelson of Oklahoma City has introduced HB 3408- "An act relating to marriage."

It would make it a felony for a minister of the Gospel to solemnize a marriage not recognized by the state of Oklahoma.

Wait; what? That can't be right... let's look at the proposed bill.


Any minister of the Gospel, or other person authorized to solemnize the rites of matrimony within this state, who shall knowingly solemnize the rites of matrimony between persons prohibited by this chapter, from intermarrying shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) and imprisonment in the State Penitentiary custody of the Department of Corrections for not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years.

So... first off, Oklahoma doesn't allow same sex marriage; in fact, they banned it with a constitutional amendment in 2004. Got it.

But it's a crime to attempt to marry 2 same sex individuals, even if the union is not recognized by the state?

Does that mean that anyone who HAS married a same sex couple and just happens to find themselves in Oklahoma is guilty of a crime?

Is it okay to be part of a same sex couple married in another state or country?

This is such a mess; someone help me figure this one out...

But if this passes, will these ministers stop?


Though gay marriage is illegal in the state of Oklahoma, Dr. Scott Jones, pastor of the Cathedral of Hope in Oklahoma City, Rev. Kathie McCallie, pastor of the Church of the Open Arms in Oklahoma City, and Dr. Robin Meyers, pastor of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, have all been known to unite same-sex couples in holy matrimony within their churches. Such acts demonstrate their religious conviction that God will bless and sanction these marriages whether or not society will do so. They often compare what they are doing to what some liberal ministers did during the civil rights era when they united couples of mixed races in marriage at a time when interracial marriages were outlawed in Oklahoma.

Not even during the civil rights era, however, were ministers at risk of imprisonment for performing a religious ceremony. If Representative Nelson's legislation is passed liberal ministers who continue to practice what they preach will become felons.

This bears watching...

Louise :: Correction, Re: Proposed OK Bill Criminalizing Solemnizing Same Sex Marriage Ceremony
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Hellooooo First Amendment!


____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.


my thought too
what part of make no law restricting religion did Sparky miss?
Then making it specific to Christian religions ONLY, is discriminatory.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner


[ Parent ]
doesn't matter about Christians
"or other person authorized to solemnize ..." covers any rabbi, imam, Christian Science practitioner or chef-sacré of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as well as county clerks.

That engages the Establishment clause (gov't dictating religion) and the Free Exercise clause (gov't restricting liturgies of, e.g., the United Church of Christ.

This is a golden opportunity for case law.

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Otherwise the government's action is unconstitutional.

-- "Lemon Test," per Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)

PS. Don't apologize, Louise. The error is Rep. Nelson's.


[ Parent ]
Indeed!
The First Amendment goes both ways.

Hello there, lawsuit. How are you?
Can we say blatant First Amendment violation and unConstitutional, boys and girls? I knew you could.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

Hmmm
How was he even allowed to bring the proposal to the table?

Do they not give him better things to do than think of how to screw the gays? Do ANY of these idiots have anything better to do?

We'd best get ready for a whole load of this sort of thing this election year..they've figured out they can make money off of us and gain some sort of platform since there's apparently absolutely no problems in the world to fix.

Find all GLBTQ current events in USA here: www.theglbtactivist.org


I think the key word is "solemnize"
That usually means the legal side of marrying a couple, such as a justice of the peace does.  Unless Oklahoma law defines it differently, it has nothing to do with performing a religious, non-legal marriage ceremony.  

I haven't read any of the background information on this , but it looks to me what he's trying to do is prevent anything like what happened in San Francisco, New Paltz, NY or Multnomah County, OR when officials decided the legally marry s-s couples despite state laws prohibiting (or not obviously endorsing) such marriages.  So this guy wants to make any such civil disobedience a very, very painful protest.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.


What about non- Gospel officiates of the state?
He he, oh this is soooo not about religion and prejudice.  NOT.

it says "or other person authorized to solemnize the rites of matrimony"
that translates into "anyone deputized by the state to legally marry someone".

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.


[ Parent ]
Has this man ever heard of the First Amendment?
I don't see any way this could see the light of day.  

Are the ministers licensed by the state or by their respective denominations?  I imagine they have some sort of state license (or registration) that allows them to solemnize state sanctioned marriages, however I don't see how that would give the state the authority to dictate their practices apart from those that the state has licensed.   It is an overt attempt to dictate to these "gospel" ministers how and to whom they may minister.  The state has done all they can by dictating who may obtain a license to marry.   If the ministers and the couples seek to marry anyway without the state's sanction, it would seem to me to be a matter of their own conscious between them, their minister and God.

If challenged on First Amendment grounds,
the petitioner's could claim a direct burden, as the statute makes religious conduct illegal.
The statute would be subject to the Lemon Test:

1. The law must have a secular purpose
2. Must have a primary secular effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion
3. Law must not create an excessive government entanglement with religion

I'm just a law student, and given the crazy things the courts have done lately, nothing is a sure thing anymore. I guess "never say never" would be the prudent thing.  However, if the first amendment means anything, it would seem the minsters would have grounds to challenge this statute if enacted.


A-, yankeegirl
It's a stiff test: if it doesn't meet #1, #2 and #3 it's unconstitutional.

It's also unconstitutionally overbroad: it criminalizes the act "solemnize" but doesn't say whether it only applies if the State of Oklahoma recognizes the ceremony, which it is still at liberty not to, for then the ceremony would be moot.

In the name of the Pasta, and the Sauce, and the Holy Vino, Amen.
-- Magnificat of the Flying Spaghetti Monster,
according to the Holy Council at Mustaccioli


[ Parent ]
this is already on the books
Here is the OK marriage law section  §43-14.  Penalty for performing unlawful marriage.

Any minister of the Gospel, or other person authorized to solemnize the rites of matrimony within this state, who shall knowingly solemnize the rites of matrimony between persons prohibited by this chapter, from intermarrying shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) and imprisonment in the State Penitentiary not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years.

R.L. 1910, § 3896.  Amended by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 461, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 335, eff. July 1, 1999.

All the proposed bill does is strike "State Penitentiary" and insert "custody of the Department of Corrections".  According to this blog post, this is just a shell bill that Nelson filed, to have on hand 'just in case'.  Certainly worth keeping an eye on him, but there seems to be nothing really threatening happening with this particular bill as it stands.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.


Gospel?
So Buddhists etc, get a pass?

Based ONLY on this, it fails any possibility of Constitutionality.

But I would LOVE to see the lawsuit where the officiant, both of the couple, and all witnesses freely admit that yes, they know that what they did had no legal significance, and yes, it was supported by their franchise of their religion, and no, nobody went and tried to claim any legal or governmental recognition or benefits based on the ceremony.

This is utterly naked religious discrimination. A move by the government to criminalize private, consensual religious ritual.

Please, please, please! Oh, yes, please pass this piece of shit, especially now, while there is a Prop 8 lawsuit with the defendants claiming no animus toward gay people!


Well this puts a pretty big hole
in the argument that they're the ones trying to protect religious freedom from the gays. We must find out what Maggie thinks of this.

NOM ~ "Mine is an honorable task and I shall drown out anyone who claims otherwise!"

First, Rainbow Phoenix
you need this, to defeat THAT "queen of mean"!



[ Parent ]
I hope it blows up in his face...
It would be nice for the state to ask "why is it that we allow non-goverment officals to certify a license?"

To me, the state should only recognize the issuance of the license to the couple. That the 'marriage' itself should only be conducted in a church and that church to be of the faith that the couple attend or is the church of one of the partners.

But the state part of the 'marriage' should be seperate from the church 'marriage'.  


Jesus H. Christ.
They're so freakin' eager to bash the fags that they we're willing to infringe on their own civil liberties.  Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.  Every time I think I've heard it all, some Neocon Bible-thumping idiot shows me how I consistently understimate their stupidity.

Don't know why y'all are worryin' yourselves... According the the Family
and Marriage Expert now being examined... and (HOOT) X-Examined by Cooper and Boies... any SSM that ever took place will cause the complete downfall of ALL HET marriages.  ...  and he's an 'expert' (though objected to as such by Boies, only one so far. Walker assured him and us that he could listen to the testimony objectively.)

"If the time isn't ripe, we have to ripen the time."
DOROTHY HEIGHT


My take
The use of the word "Gospel" would invalidate the entire law.  There is no "Gospel" in any legal sense.  It is a violation of the separation of church and state.  The Catholic Gospel is different from the Lutheran Gospel.

Unitarians don't have a Gospel, neither have Jews, Muslims, etc.  It's a Christian construct and invalid from a legal standpoint.


Seems to me that this law is unconstitutional on its face
doesn't the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution say that the government cannot make any law with establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof?

I think this is directed at Trans marriages
I think this is to force clergy to do background checks on transgendered people getting married.. Cause after all you are what your born as in these asshats minds. So everyone who presents a amended Birth Cert. on a marriage application can expect a big background check..  

Pain is Inevitable .
Suffering is Optional  


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Days left for Joe Solmonese's promise to donors of DADT repeal in 2010 to be fulfilled
Leave your comments here.


The President's State of the Union promise to repeal.



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox