UPDATE: There seems to be some degree of misunderstanding on what’s going on here. See the comments below for more discussion, specifically from the representative himself. The bill seems to already be on the law books, and thus needs to be removed, even if it’s not enforced, as it very obviously violates religious freedom as guaranteed in the United States Constitution. My example, below, of a legislator trying to suddenly ban communion rites in a church stands as an obvious parallel to this law that exists on Oklahoma’s books. As Louise pointed out, there are already clergy all over the nation who perform same-sex weddings, regardless of whatever civil marriage is recognized in their jurisdiction. Representative Nelson explains that this is a “shell bill,” which contains an amendment to the text (reflected in the quote below), which would change the reading from “imprisonment in the State Penitentiary” to “custody of the Department of Corrections.” The Representative states that this is not a bill that he plans to advance in this session, but that he has filed as a shell bill, just in case he decides to advance other legislation related to marriage. So, it’s good news (?) that this is not new, but it’s grotesque that it exists. It’s a simple fact that in many Christian denominations, a large percentage of Jewish congregations, and several other religious entities, that they include same-sex couples in their sacrament of marriage. So my question to the representative is this: Do you support repeal of this provision, however unenforced it may be, and why or why not?
_____
Yes, as opposed to simply banning state recognition of same-sex marriage, Rep. Jason Nelson, a fresh faced knuckle dragger wearing an ill-fitting knit shirt, has put forth a bill that would criminalize performing same-sex weddings:
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.
Here’s the text of the 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 Penitentiarycustody of the Department of Corrections for not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years.
Jason. Hi, Jason! This is Evan. I need to explain something to you. The separation of church and state? It goes both ways. You, wingnut, have proposed a bill that would legislate, from the secular government, what rites and sacraments a church may or may not administer.
Let me provide a hypothetical counter-example that might illustrate how utterly stupid and unconstitutional your idea current Oklahoma state law really is:
Hi, Jason. Now I’m your representative! I have just put forth a bill in the Oklahoma legislature that states that your church may not perform the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Why? I don’t know, I just don’t like it very much! I think it’s weird! And Jesus was 100% human, and we outlawed cannibalism in Oklahoma at least five years ago.
Now, Jason, how would you like that particular bushel of apples? I have a sneaking suspicion that you might have a problem with it.
How many times do we have to explain that the government does not recognize your religious marriage in the first place?* They recognize your signed marriage certificate. Therefore! It’s absolutely irrelevant whether or not the state allows or disallows state-sanctioned civil marriage for same-sex couples! The church may offer the sacrament to whomever it will. I mean, give me a break! I know of certain Episcopal churches that have special days when they bless peoples’ various ponies and kittens for them. Because inside the church walls, they can do whatever the hell they want, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody. That’s called religious freedom!
Clear now? If you need pictures or something like that, maybe a pop-up book, you just let me know.
(h/t Louise at the Blend)
*Yes, there are common law exceptions, but that’s way beside the point.
Related posts
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
1. The statute in question is already on the books; Nelson is proposing a revision to the existing statute to change “State Penitentiary” to “custody of the Department of Corrections,” hence the strange wording (the former is supposed to be a strikeout).
2. The existing statute does not criminalize same-sex marriage, which is not mentioned in the relevant statute.
3. Nelson has stated that this is a “shell bill” that he does not intend to try to pass in its current form:
http://escottjones.typepad.com/myquest/2010/01/clarification-of-hb-3408.html
Comment by Tom Head — January 26, 2010 @ 8:36 pm
I want to provide you with information regarding House Bill 3408.
Bills like HB3408 are commonly called and recognized as “shell” bills. This shell bill just happens to be related to marriage. The language contained in this shell bill is already in the state statutes – it is currently state law.
The bill does absolutely nothing but change the words “State Penitentiary” to “custody of the Department of Corrections.” Everything else is already state law and the changed terms do not alter the meaning. If language in a bill is “amendatory” and not underlined it is understood to be existing law. Any language that is struck-through is existing law that is to be deleted and underlined text is new language.
When I asked staff to draft a shell bill related to marriage this is the part of existing law they pulled to reserve a bill related to the subject matter. This bill could be used to address any issue in Title 43 of the Oklahoma Statutes which relate to Marriage including such specific topics as divorce, child custody, alimony or any number of related issues.
I did see this bill mentioned on Scott Jones’ blog http://escottjones.typepad.com/myquest/ while doing a routine Google search and was surprised by the post and the misunderstanding. He has posted a clarification at http://escottjones.typepad.com/myquest/2010/01/clarification-of-hb-3408.html.
I actually don’t have any plans to run this bill or about 18 other shell bills out of the 26 measures I filed for this session related to issues from schools to the landlord and tenant act. You can go to http://www.lsb.state.ok.us and look up every bill I’ve filed and you will noticed the majority are shell bills related to nearly two dozen different subjects.
I filed House Bills 3401 to 3419 as shell bills this session. If you will look at each of them you will notice they don’t do a single thing but change a word or two while not altering the current law in any significant way or it will say it is creating some kind of act with no substance listed in the text of the bill.
Many legislators will file several shell bills “just in case.” Members must have all bills they wish to introduce submitted in December before session begins in February. So just in case some unforeseen issue arises after the deadline to submit bills passes members often file numerous shell bills to keep their options open. House members can actually only run a total of eight of the bills they file with some rare exceptions.
I wanted to make you aware of the facts and I hope this addresses any concerns you may have. If not, please don’t hesitate to contact me for further clarification.
Respectfully,
Jason Nelson
Comment by Jason Nelson — January 26, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
Okay, so…before I amend the post, to clarify:
If this law is on the books already, do you support repeal of it?
Comment by Evan Hurst — January 26, 2010 @ 10:06 pm
If that means that Americans who perform same-sex marriage ceremonies are going to be imprisoned, then this is an assault on their religious liberty and needs to be removed from the books. Or challenged in court and then removed. Not all Americans consider homophobia to be a legitimate religious belief and many good, decent Americans believe God loves, accepts and supports His gay children. Our religious liberty should not be infringed upon by those promoting the anti-gay agenda.
Comment by Michael — January 27, 2010 @ 5:54 am
‘God forbid’ these clowns should spend their time writing bills that would help the needy or clean up the environment. That would be way too “Christian” for them!
Comment by Gary — January 27, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
More details about HB3408
As this bill is a shell bill I was not familiar with the existing statute and therefore asked House legal staff to provide information about what Title 43, Sec. 14 relates to. I have included information based on their report to me.
First, the existing statutory language in the bill does not address same sex marriage. The language you suggest I’m attempting to pass has actually been in the Oklahoma Statutes since 1910.
Second, the current state law found in shell bill HB3408 addresses the following circumstances, “Marriages between ancestors and descendants of any degree, of a stepfather with a stepdaughter, stepmother with stepson, between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews, except in cases where such relationship is only by marriage, between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and first cousins are declared to be incestuous, illegal and void, and are expressly prohibited.” (Title 43, Sec. 2)
Additionally, current law addresses, “…no person under the age of eighteen … years shall enter into the marriage relation, nor shall any license issue therefor, except … upon the consent and authority expressly given by the parent or guardian ….” (Title 43, Sec. 3) Also, in section 3, “Every person under the age of sixteen … years is expressly forbidden and prohibited from entering into the marriage relation ….”
Section 3C of the 1910 law also states, “No marriage may be authorized when such marriage would be incestuous under this chapter.”
Section 4 of the 1910 law further states, “No person shall enter into or contract the marriage relation, nor shall any person perform or solemnize the ceremony of any marriage in this state without a license being first issued by the judge or clerk of the district court….”
Third, the 1910 text found in HB3408 makes clear that it is only concerned with this “chapter” of Title 43 for which I have included the relevant language above. The prohibition of same-sex marriage passed by a vote of the people is not included in this title or section of statute.
Please take the time to verify what I’ve written here. I assume you would object to removing the nearly 100 year old statute which provides penalties for performing marriages where the relationship is incestuous or involves a child – and which has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
Comment by Jason Nelson — January 28, 2010 @ 12:57 am
No, sir, my problem would be a statute that would deny clergy rights to officiate over same-sex weddings if they so choose, even if it’s not recognized by the state.
If I’m understanding you correctly, this statute does not specifically pertain to the same-sex marriage ban, which is addressed elsewhere. Are you saying then, that this language somehow does not apply to the same-sex marriage law passed by the state more recently? If so, why would it not apply?
I sincerely appreciate you being so responsive and taking the time to try to clear this up with us, by the way.
Comment by Evan Hurst — January 28, 2010 @ 1:58 am
You’re welcom. And, to try to answer your
The penalties found in Title 43, Section 14 of Oklahoma Statutes states that the penalties only apply to those circumstances contained in that chapter of the statutes. The vote of the people that dealt with same-sex marriage is found in the constitution. Since the penalties are specifically limited to those circumstances listed in Title 43 it could not be tied to circumstances addressed outside of Title 43.
The reason I requested a Title 43 bill is because I have been working with child support services at DHS and wanted to have a bill ready in the event legislation was needed. I was the House author of SB1126 last session which was passed and signed by the Governor. SB1126 was an attempt to keep parents from falling further and further behind in paying child support. If there turns out to be a problem with SB1126 I have a shell bill I could use this session to correct the problem if needed.
Late last year I asked House legal staff to prepare 18 shell bills including HB3408 by giving them a list of Titles of Statute or topics to draft the shell. If I want to add substantive language to a shell bill the language must be relevant to either the Title of Statute or topic contained in the shell bill I want to use. In other words, I could not put substantive child support language in HB3405 regarding elections.
Regardless, if my explanations have not been truthful what purpose would it serve to run a bill that only swaps one word for a synonym? What purpose would it serve to run a bill that contains language already in the law? How could Section 14 which was written in 1910 at the same time the restrictions listed in that same chapter of Title 43 address same-sex marriage? Same-sex marriage was not a hot political topic in 1910.
(The strike-through and underline formating is not showing-up in the following example bills but you can go to http://www.lsb.state.ok.us to look them up)
Here is the language in HB3401 which I introduced as a shell bill: “Section 21. It is hereby declared [to be] unlawful for any person or persons to mutilate, deface, mar or in any other way to damage the walls or other parts of the State Capitol Building.”
Here is the language of HB3404: “SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law not to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes reads as follows: This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Criminal Procedure Review Act of 2010”.”
Here is the language from HB3405: “SECTION 2. AMENDATORY 26 O.S. 2001, Section 2-106, is amended to read as follows: Section 2-106. The State Election Board shall perform (such) [the] duties as [may be] prescribed by law.”
These are three examples of shell bills out of the 18 shell bills I filed. Why is the Democrat party not up in arms because a Republican is amending the election laws? Because they understand two things. First, they can see that the amendments contained in HB3405 don’t change the meaning of the law, only the style. Second, they understand and recognize this as a shell bill.
I wouldn’t be surprised by all of this if I were actually doing something that would affect you and the numerous other people that have had such a strong reaction – many of whom have resorted to personal attacks on someone they don’t know over something that doesn’t exist. I’m being up-front about this and I’m not sure what else there is to say about this legislation to clarify the situation. I’ve provide information that anybody could verify with a little research and a conversation with someone at the Capitol they trust.
Comment by Jason Nelson — January 28, 2010 @ 12:09 pm