OK Conservatives Want to Ban State-Issued Marriage Licenses…But It's Not What You Think

religious-freedom_smaller“Marriage was historically a religious covenant first and a government-recognized contract second.” — Oklahoma Rep. Todd Russ.

The idea that the government should get out of the marriage business isn’t new, but perhaps its time has come.

Courts across the country are striking down voter-approved measures that affirm marriage as the union between one man and one woman and redefining it to include two people of the same sex.

Should Christians give up trying to avoid it? Lawmakers in Oklahoma think they’ve come up with a solution.

In 2004, 76 percent of Oklahoma voters approved a state constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Ten years later, the Tenth Circuit struck it down.

House Rep. Todd Russ drafted a bill that would bar the state from granting marriage licenses. Court clerks would issue marriage certificates signed by only ordained clergy or notaries of common-law marriage affidavits.

An excerpt from Religion News Service:

Acknowledging that his bill is partially in response to the federal court ruling, Russ told ABC News affiliate KSWO that the federal government lacks the power to “force its new definitions of what they believe on independent states.”

Russ said the federal government is attempting to change the traditional definition of marriage, so his legislation would place the responsibility for officiating marriages in the hands of clergy.

“Marriage was historically a religious covenant first and a government-recognized contract second,” Russ told The Oklahoman.

Ironically, liberals in the Oklahoma legislature oppose the bill, but not for the usual reasons (emphasis added):

“Oklahoma Democrats are concerned that the legislation will lead to a ‘Pandora’s box’ of issues, including polygamy, once the government’s authority to regulate marriage is removed.”

Stunning. To people who believe that two men should be allowed to call themselves married, nonsensical on its face, what possibly could be wrong with three or four or five people seeking the same “right”? What kind of “marriage equality” lobbyists would stop the government from legally recognizing threesomes or incestuous pairings?


Although Rep. Russ’s measure is designed to protect government employees who oppose the perversion of God’s order, they’d still be involved. Court clerks would have to record the clergy-signed certificates and affidavits, and the government would continue to collect fees.

A radical idea would be for people of faith to let the government and the homosexual lobby have the word marriage and call the union, as God created it, by a different name. The state would recognize the union how ever people define it, but one would be a holy covenant and the other would not.

Even if the bill (or the holy-covenant idea) manages to become law, the courts eventually would strike it down. Why? Because the whole point of the homosexual “marriage” mess is an in-your-face to Christians and others who refuse to accept or celebrate perversion. They don’t like their behavior to be called sinful. Normalizing homosexuality is the goal, and this “marriage” business is just one means to that end.

Photo credit: American Life League (Flickr Commons) – All Rights Reserved

Check Also

Oregon Revokes Grant Funds for Youth Ministry Over Statement of Faith

Oregon has stripped a youth ministry of funding because it requires employees and volunteers to …