If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Pentagon: All soldiers, including National Guard members, can get benefits for same-sex partners. OK Gov Fallin: not in my state they can't Pentagon: fine, they can just go to the nearest FEDERAL military base and apply for them there then   (politico.com) divider line 142
    More: Dumbass, Oklahoma National Guard, Gov. Fallin, same-sex couples, soldiers  
•       •       •

3696 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Sep 2013 at 12:04 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-20 11:53:49 AM
FTFA "the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples."

I guess since libs don't give a damn about the US Constitution, not following a single states is a given.
 
2013-09-20 12:07:27 PM
If I recall right, Fallin said they could go to a base herself. God I hate living here.
 
2013-09-20 12:07:35 PM
[applause.gif]

Nice!
 
2013-09-20 12:08:28 PM
Hate-filled dumbf*cks.
 
2013-09-20 12:08:31 PM
Why do Republicans hate the troops?
 
2013-09-20 12:08:43 PM

Sofa_king_kewl: FTFA "the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples."

I guess since libs don't give a damn about the US Constitution, not following a single states is a given.


You do of course realize that same sex marriages are constitutional, per the recent Supreme Court case? So if the state passes an amendment banning interracial marriages that needs to be respected by the Federal government and those folks shouldn't get benefits?  Derp.
 
2013-09-20 12:08:56 PM
Once more we prove why the even Jefferson believed the Articles of Confederation were crap and that a stronger Federal Government was needed.
 
2013-09-20 12:09:52 PM

Sofa_king_kewl: FTFA "the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples."

I guess since libs don't give a damn about the US Constitution, not following a single states is a given.


Which part of the Constitution is against marriage equality?  I can't find it.
 
2013-09-20 12:09:57 PM
Holy fark, that headline is a grammatical cluster bomb packed with concentrated FAIL.
 
2013-09-20 12:10:18 PM
The next thing the DoD should do is stop funding guard programs in States that don't comply with Pentagon requests.  Keep the active and reserve bases there, no problem.  If the State wants to 'opt' out of the bad things the Pentagon is making them, they can pay for it out of their own pocket.
 
2013-09-20 12:10:39 PM
I didn't vote for her, but I know ppl who did that swear they aren't homophobic.
 
2013-09-20 12:10:50 PM
Why are we even bothering to have members of our national guard make different arrangements for benefits they are entitled to have?

When the a-hole governor of Alabama stood in the way of desegregation the federal government had the national guard move him from the school door. I'm pretty sure the OK national guard can move this bigoted ho from whatever door frame she wishes to stand under.
 
2013-09-20 12:10:53 PM
We's just usin' our states rights.
 
2013-09-20 12:11:44 PM

Sofa_king_kewl: FTFA "the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples."

I guess since libs don't give a damn about the US Constitution, not following a single states is a given.


You cannot ballot box away the rights of someone else, even by popular vote. See Proposition 8, etc. Just because she was following a ballot referendum doesn't make her right or constitutional, as recent Supreme Court findings have shown.

Also, it's just plain asshattery. If the military is offering benefits, what is it to the state government? They aren't paying for it.
 
2013-09-20 12:12:11 PM

HotWingConspiracy: We's just usin' our states rights.


This really is another great example of the GOP showing that when they argue for states' rights, they want that power to come at the expense of individual rights.
 
2013-09-20 12:13:11 PM

JolobinSmokin: I didn't vote for her, but I know ppl who did that swear they aren't homophobic.


In their defense, I am sure they thought her platform included more than just wearing-it-on-your-sleeve bigotry.
 
2013-09-20 12:13:13 PM

Sofa_king_kewl: FTFA "the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples."

I guess since libs don't give a damn about the US Constitution, not following a single states is a given.


That US constitution you speak of? It has something in it called "The federal Supremacy CLause" which state, to wit: "

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
 it ALSO has something called the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which says:


 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now this last bit is super-important since the cited provision of the OK state Constitution is in clear violation of it.
 
2013-09-20 12:13:53 PM
This is what, three states now that have pulled this?  What do they think they're really accomplishing?

Gay guardsman goes to his unit and gets an admin clerk to add his spouse to DEERS.  The states of Texas, Oklahoma, or Louisiana are out exactly dick, since these are federal DoD benefits the soldiers are getting.  All they're out is the clerks time, and guess what?  That's guys under salary so they don't have to pay him any more either.

They're just being dicks, biatching and moaning when an adult points out that it's only decent to share their toys with the other kids.

Congratulations Mary Fallin.  You've made your mark on history.  In another generation when textbooks add a few paragraphs on how gays got equal rights there's going to be a picture of you.  Right next to George Wallace, James Earl Ray, and the Ku Klux Klan.
 
2013-09-20 12:14:25 PM

sprawl15: Why do Republicans hate the troops?


They only care about the troops enough to send them to a bloody death in foreign lands fighting for cheap oil.
 
2013-09-20 12:14:51 PM
She is just listening to her staff and the polls. Plus she is really trying to be like TX, derp and all.

/I expect to see more of the "true 'merican" states do the same thing.
 
2013-09-20 12:15:38 PM

JollyMagistrate: Sofa_king_kewl: FTFA "the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples."

I guess since libs don't give a damn about the US Constitution, not following a single states is a given.

You cannot ballot box away the rights of someone else, even by popular vote. See Proposition 8, etc. Just because she was following a ballot referendum doesn't make her right or constitutional, as recent Supreme Court findings have shown.

Also, it's just plain asshattery. If the military is offering benefits, what is it to the state government? They aren't paying for it.


Because she's the governor and she damn well wants you to know that SHE is the Commander-In-Chief of the Oklahoma Guard.  SHE is.  HER!  Not Washington, not that guy, HER!  SHE'S IN CONTROL, DAMMIT!!!!  RESPECT HER AUTHORITAH!!!
 
2013-09-20 12:16:45 PM

coeyagi: JolobinSmokin: I didn't vote for her, but I know ppl who did that swear they aren't homophobic.

In their defense, I am sure they thought her platform included more than just wearing-it-on-your-sleeve bigotry.


She ran on a platform of "What she said but with an R at the end" against our old Lt. Governor. She didn't distinguish herself then, and she hasn't distinguished herself since. She is a puppet for other, more powerful, men.
 
2013-09-20 12:17:09 PM

JolobinSmokin: I didn't vote for her, but I know ppl who did that swear they aren't homophobic.


To those people the bigotry isn't the intended effect, just a happy byproduct they don't feel the need to object to.
 
2013-09-20 12:17:41 PM

Magorn: Sofa_king_kewl: FTFA "the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples."

I guess since libs don't give a damn about the US Constitution, not following a single states is a given.

That US constitution you speak of? It has something in it called "The federal Supremacy CLause" which state, to wit: "

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. it ALSO has something called the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which says:


 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now this last bit is super-important since the cited provision of the OK state Constitution is in clear violation of it.


Theres only one amendment I need and I think you know which one it is.
 
2013-09-20 12:20:01 PM

Karac: Right next to George Wallace, James Earl Ray, and the Ku Klux Klan.


That's the real deliciousness here. The ultimate fark you to people that spent their lives trying to deprive people of their rights.

Your children and grandchildren will ultimately remember you as a raging hate filled bigot, lady. Great legacy you have there.
 
2013-09-20 12:21:05 PM
God hates Oklahoma.

media.heavy.com
 
2013-09-20 12:21:16 PM

Magorn: Sofa_king_kewl: FTFA "the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples."

I guess since libs don't give a damn about the US Constitution, not following a single states is a given.

That US constitution you speak of? It has something in it called "The federal Supremacy CLause" which state, to wit: "

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. it ALSO has something called the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which says:


 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now this last bit is super-important since the cited provision of the OK state Constitution is in clear violation of it.


It's the primary reason why these "strict constitutionalists" want to do away with the 14th amendment, they want to create any crazy law they can in order to abridge the rights of people they feel are "icky".
 
2013-09-20 12:23:05 PM

lockers: If I recall right, Fallin said they could go to a base herself. God I hate living here.


So, in other words she admits that her action is merely a symbolic gesture to add another level or harrasment and symbolic dispproval to gays, not anything that will have any actual, practical effect?   Support the troops indeed.  Particularly disgraceful since she's technically thier commander
 
2013-09-20 12:23:13 PM
Given the old "at least one guard unit per state" idea is soon to die, you'd think they want to make a better effort to ingratiate themselves with the Pentagon.


Benevolent Misanthrope: Because she's the governor and she damn well wants you to know that SHE is the Commander-In-Chief of the Oklahoma Guard.


I say let her buy her own tanks and fighter planes then.
 
2013-09-20 12:24:29 PM

sprawl15: Why do Republicans hate the troops?


They don't hate the troops. They just hate gay people more than they love America.
 
2013-09-20 12:25:14 PM
Fallin spokesman Alex Weintz said the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples. "Because of that prohibition, Gov. Fallin's general counsel has advised the National Guard not to process requests for benefits of same-sex couples," Weintz said. "Gay couples that have been legally married in other states will be advised they can apply for those benefits on federal facilities, such as Tinker Air Force Base, rather than state run facilities."

So, what's the story, Farklibs? The Gov. is following the letter of the law and advising same-sex couples how to get benefits.
 
2013-09-20 12:26:44 PM
So yea, shes a dumb coont, but...wasn't this just on Fark? Old news is best news?
 
2013-09-20 12:28:21 PM

DarkSoulNoHope: Magorn: Sofa_king_kewl: FTFA "the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples."

I guess since libs don't give a damn about the US Constitution, not following a single states is a given.

That US constitution you speak of? It has something in it called "The federal Supremacy CLause" which state, to wit: "

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. it ALSO has something called the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which says:


 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now this last bit is super-important since the cited provision of the OK state Constitution is in clear violation of it.

It's the primary reason why these "strict constitutionalists" want to do away with the 14th amendment, they want to create any crazy law they can in order to abridge the rights of people they feel are "icky".


I thought we rather settled that particular State's rights vs federal power arguement with some finality a few years back everyone seemed quite cordial but definite on that point:
graphics8.nytimes.com:
 
2013-09-20 12:28:31 PM

DarkSoulNoHope: Magorn: Sofa_king_kewl: FTFA "the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples."

I guess since libs don't give a damn about the US Constitution, not following a single states is a given.

That US constitution you speak of? It has something in it called "The federal Supremacy CLause" which state, to wit: "

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. it ALSO has something called the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which says:


 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now this last bit is super-important since the cited provision of the OK state Constitution is in clear violation of it.

It's the primary reason why these "strict constitutionalists" want to do away with the 14th amendment, they want to create any crazy law they can in order to abridge the rights of people they feel are "icky".


They are cool with the 14th Amd when it is applied to corporate persons. Human persons - not so much.

Also originalism and strict constructionalism have nothing to do with secular law and everything to do with treating the Constitution like a sacred document (see Biblical Fundamentalism)
 
2013-09-20 12:30:54 PM

lockers: coeyagi: JolobinSmokin: I didn't vote for her, but I know ppl who did that swear they aren't homophobic.

In their defense, I am sure they thought her platform included more than just wearing-it-on-your-sleeve bigotry.

She ran on a platform of "What she said but with an R at the end" against our old Lt. Governor. She didn't distinguish herself then, and she hasn't distinguished herself since. She is a puppet for other, more powerful, men.


Ok.  But when Republicans think racist, they don't consciously think Republican (though, they should).  They are just reminded that there are maybe 10-20% of the population getting some sort of hand out and that must be stopped at all costs even if they fall into that percentage.
 
2013-09-20 12:31:26 PM
I wish the southern states would either do it or get off the pot.  Roll back female suffrage, make it legal for a man to beat his wife with a rod no thicker than one inch, hang people for horse theft, behead them for sodomy, rape is not a crime if it's a man raping his wife, burn women accused of witchcraft, and most important, reinstitute slavery.  Go all the way or else go home.
 
2013-09-20 12:31:39 PM

Magorn: lockers: If I recall right, Fallin said they could go to a base herself. God I hate living here.

So, in other words she admits that her action is merely a symbolic gesture to add another level or harrasment and symbolic dispproval to gays, not anything that will have any actual, practical effect?   Support the troops indeed.  Particularly disgraceful since she's technically thier commander


Yep. It's politically popular here. Just like all our ballot initiatives (except cock fighting) they are all symbolic bullshiat. This really is the land of the bigoted derp.
 
2013-09-20 12:35:36 PM

LarryDan43: Magorn: Sofa_king_kewl: FTFA "the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples."

I guess since libs don't give a damn about the US Constitution, not following a single states is a given.

That US constitution you speak of? It has something in it called "The federal Supremacy CLause" which state, to wit: "

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. it ALSO has something called the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which says:


 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now this last bit is super-important since the cited provision of the OK state Constitution is in clear violation of it.

Theres only one amendment I need and I think you know which one it is.


The twenty-first?
 
2013-09-20 12:36:16 PM
State's Rights? What about City's Rights? I don't need some bigshot up in the statehouse in Boston sticking his nose in my local community
 
2013-09-20 12:37:21 PM
This is not a difficult problem to solve. Issue an order to the governors of any non-cooperating states saying that every time someone applies for any kind of benefits based on a SSM, the officers responsible are immediately federalized.The authority to federalize the National Guard isn't limited to executing judicial decrees or enforcing statutes, and in any event, I can't imagine courts would permit review of a President's decision to federalize. Problem solved.
 
2013-09-20 12:37:42 PM

Dimensio: LarryDan43: Magorn: Sofa_king_kewl: FTFA "the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples."

I guess since libs don't give a damn about the US Constitution, not following a single states is a given.

That US constitution you speak of? It has something in it called "The federal Supremacy CLause" which state, to wit: "

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. it ALSO has something called the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which says:


 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now this last bit is super-important since the cited provision of the OK state Constitution is in clear violation of it.

Theres only one amendment I need and I think you know which one it is.

The twenty-first?


It's all about those 3rd Amendment solutions!
 
2013-09-20 12:40:22 PM

LarryDan43: Theres only one amendment I need and I think you know which one it is.


The 20th?
 
2013-09-20 12:41:41 PM

Clutch2013: Holy fark, that headline is a grammatical cluster bomb packed with concentrated FAIL.


You sound sober
 
2013-09-20 12:43:02 PM

Dimensio: LarryDan43: Magorn: Sofa_king_kewl: FTFA "the governor was following the wish of Oklahoma voters, who approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits giving benefits of marriage to gay couples."

I guess since libs don't give a damn about the US Constitution, not following a single states is a given.

That US constitution you speak of? It has something in it called "The federal Supremacy CLause" which state, to wit: "

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. it ALSO has something called the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which says:


 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now this last bit is super-important since the cited provision of the OK state Constitution is in clear violation of it.

Theres only one amendment I need and I think you know which one it is.

The twenty-first?



I'll drink to that!
 
2013-09-20 12:43:11 PM

Karac: This is what, three states now that have pulled this? What do they think they're really accomplishing?

Gay guardsman goes to his unit and gets an admin clerk to add his spouse to DEERS. The states of Texas, Oklahoma, or Louisiana are out exactly dick, since these are federal DoD benefits the soldiers are getting. All they're out is the clerks time, and guess what?  That's guys under salary so they don't have to pay him any more either.

They're just being dicks, biatching and moaning when an adult points out that it's only decent to share their toys with the other kids.

Congratulations Mary Fallin. You've made your mark on history. In another generation when textbooks add a few paragraphs on how gays got equal rights there's going to be a picture of you. Right next to George Wallace, James Earl Ray, and the Ku Klux Klan.


The Texas case is particularly interesting, since Major General John Nichols claimed to be going by what the Texas State Constitution (as amended by Texas voters via Proposition 2 on November 8, 2005) states.

But if so, he really should deny marriage benefits to all Texas Guardsman. Here's what the amended §32 of the Texas State Constitution actually says:
Sec. 32.  MARRIAGE.   (a)  Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b)  This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)

It is, of course, a fundamental law of logic, math, law, and, well, pretty much everything in every field of human endeavor, that anything is always "identical to" itself! A is A. X = X. The Identity Property.

§32(a) was just what the fundie bigot ordered, but §32(b) explicitly states that neither Texas nor any political subdivision thereof may create nor recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage as just defined in §32(a)!!

That's right: All Texas marriages were annulled on November 8, 2005. For the past nearly eight years, there is not and has not been any such thing as a legally married couple in Texas! Since this includes recognition as well as creation of such legal status, that includes people who married elsewhere then moved to Texas, people from other States visiting friends or families in Texas or just there on business, or even people just passing through!

The insertion of one simple two-syllable five-letter very common word into §32(b), namely, "other," between "any" and "legal status," would've prevented this and done precisely what the fundie bigots intended. But, they refused to insert it, even after having been warned of this problem well before the Amendment was ratified by the voters!

In the immortal words of Homer J. Simpson: "D'oh!!!"

Bonus: Depending on how "similar to" is interpreted, while they could not be called "marriage" due to §32(a), it may well be that §32(b) does permit civil unions for same-sex and polygamous unions only, but not for monogamous heterosexual couples!

Cue Mr. Simpson again, even louder.
 
2013-09-20 12:45:19 PM
I'm shocked a Republican doesn't understand how the Constitution works.
 
2013-09-20 12:46:05 PM
You could conceivably crush the GOP on this point.

Just point out to voters how they aren't supporting the armed forces, and soldier's families. Do a 30 second spot of a little boy at the park with his mom. Cut to some shots of a humvee rolling through the desert with a marine poking out of the top manning a 50-cal. Then back to the playground with some text that says something about how hard it is to be at home, when your loved one is half the world away. And how governor Schmuck-for-brains isn't willing to support the American military, and doesn't want to provide benefits to eligible families.

Even if people don't vote against him, the moderate Republicans will be confused their heads will explode from the derp.
 
2013-09-20 12:46:12 PM
FTFA:
"We want our soldiers to have all the benefits to which they're entitled to."

Two "to"s? Too many!
 
2013-09-20 12:48:58 PM
Republicans are scum.

That is all.
 
2013-09-20 12:50:17 PM

edmo: Given the old "at least one guard unit per state" idea is soon to die, you'd think they want to make a better effort to ingratiate themselves with the Pentagon.


Benevolent Misanthrope: Because she's the governor and she damn well wants you to know that SHE is the Commander-In-Chief of the Oklahoma Guard.

I say let her buy her own tanks and fighter planes then.


Oh, wouldn't that be jolly.  There are several states I can think of (lookin' at you, Texas) that would cut all non-football funding to schools for a year in order to form up their own army.
 
Displayed 50 of 142 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report