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 33
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-20 12:23:05 PM
5 votes:

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 12:13:13 PM
5 votes:

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 12:21:16 PM
4 votes:

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 12:13:53 PM
3 votes:
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 12:10:50 PM
3 votes:
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 12:10:18 PM
3 votes:
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 12:08:28 PM
3 votes:
Hate-filled dumbf*cks.
2013-09-20 01:32:50 PM
2 votes:
Oh look another thread where Aristocles is making himself look like a total idiot, and troll.

Must be a day ending is Y
2013-09-20 12:43:11 PM
2 votes:

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 12:12:11 PM
2 votes:

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 12:08:43 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-09-21 10:00:49 AM
1 votes:

Aristocles: rwhamann: Aristocles: This thread is amazing.

I used to think Farklibs were just misguided ideologues but, it seems, they're intentionally ignoring the fact that this Gov. is merely following state law. Additionally, she's instructed same-sex couples on how to obtain benefits directly from the Federal Gov't.

Yet, the Farklibs here have nothing but blind hatred and unfounded contempt.

Or maybe the Farklibs and centrists understand that an immoral and unjust law should be ignored or fought, and grant her the disgust due her for not standing up for the rights of her minority citizens.

EXACTLY!

That's why the Great COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA! will be opposing the Stalinistic Obamacare~!!


See, here's the thing.

As absurd as it sounds, there are respected trolls on fark.

To be one, you must be smart - above all, entertaining.

It makes me kind of sad for you because you seem to want it so bad, but your efforts so far just aren't good enough.

I hope you can up your game. Otherwise it's just going to be the same tired, pathetic, regurgitation that we keep seeing.

And that will make sad. Like seeing a not so witty waiter trying to interject at the Algonquin round table.
2013-09-20 06:21:34 PM
1 votes:

Marquis de Sod: Aristocles: This thread is amazing.

I used to think Farklibs were just misguided ideologues but, it seems, they're intentionally ignoring the fact that this Gov. is merely following state law. Additionally, she's instructed same-sex couples on how to obtain benefits directly from the Federal Gov't.

Yet, the Farklibs here have nothing but blind hatred and unfounded contempt.

She isn't going to sleep with you


isn't that a GOOD thing?
2013-09-20 03:52:29 PM
1 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Shut down all military bases in states that do not conform to the law granting benefits to same-sex couples.  Only states that can follow the law should get federal spending for these institutions.


And the states that respect our constitution should refuse any help to those states who fark around with our soldiers benefits.  You know, for the next time God takes her shiatty aim at all the gays living near OKC, misses, and destroys and kills schools and kids.
2013-09-20 02:52:21 PM
1 votes:
this is so easy to fix
ban any and all federal DOD payments to these states until they uphold federal law.

TADA
problem gets fixed in 1 day
2013-09-20 02:37:54 PM
1 votes:
Shut down all military bases in states that do not conform to the law granting benefits to same-sex couples.  Only states that can follow the law should get federal spending for these institutions.
2013-09-20 02:17:52 PM
1 votes:
It really is amazing how one single relatively new gimmick account can run every single thread on the entire politics tab.
2013-09-20 02:02:27 PM
1 votes:

thismomentinblackhistory: 9,500 guardsmen, eh? How dare this Governor disenfranchise hundreds, if not thousands, of same-sex married couples.

Oh, wait....9,500?

She's probably just picking on a few dozen.


And Rosa Park's bus driver was only picking on one woman.
2013-09-20 01:54:04 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: So I guess you think the Feds should start busting up the head shops popping up in states that have decriminalized mary jane?


Can you explain why you dislike freedom so much? It seems pretty un-American to oppose people seeking more freedom, and it also seems quite anti-conservative to want more interference with our lives, or to support the existing encroachments on our freedom- whether that be freedom to marry or to use marijuana.

Do you have a good reason why you oppose MORE freedom, and in fact support the encroachment of state and Federal law on our rights?
2013-09-20 01:52:37 PM
1 votes:
Karac: [T]there's going to be a picture of you.  Right next to George Wallace, James Earl Ray, and the Ku Klux Klan.

Now that's not fair. George Wallace was smart and honest enough to realize he was wrong and publicly renounce his past support for segregation.
2013-09-20 01:24:18 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: This thread is amazing.

I used to think Farklibs were just misguided ideologues but, it seems, they're intentionally ignoring the fact that this Gov. is merely following state law. Additionally, she's instructed same-sex couples on how to obtain benefits directly from the Federal Gov't.

Yet, the Farklibs here have nothing but blind hatred and unfounded contempt.


The Governor is breaking national law re: the constitution, which (as mentioned many times in this thread) specifically bars such actions from occurring in several ways. If the Oklahoma State Legislature legalized murder and required the Governor to kill 20 people a day she still would be immediately arrested because state law does not. and cannot, override federal law.

Blind hate/unfounded contempt is only involved here with legislation concerning banning a specific population from rights for the sole reason of hate. If you have a reason why LGBT couples should not have the same rights of others that is not based on hate or contempt I think much of the country, the Supreme Court included, would love to hear it. Because so far, the bigoted masses such as yourselves have not been able to come up with any legal justification for their self loathing and impotent rage.
2013-09-20 01:19:31 PM
1 votes:

Cataholic: 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.

You may wish to inform the US Supreme Court of your brilliant legal deduction because they've never issued a ruling that invalidated a state's prohibition on same-sex marriage.


That's because they haven't had to as of yet inasmuch as a properly formed complaint brought by someone with proper standing hasn't reached them yet and they do have an "actual case and controvery" requirement.   However the Line of Cases from  Skinner v. Oklahoma,  through  Loving v. VA and Zablocki v. Redhail  and  Turner v. Safely make it perfectly clear what result follows such a properly formatted challenge fairly decided
2013-09-20 01:13:29 PM
1 votes:
Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who's left?

That being said, this was really the best move for the governor to make politically. She gets to appeal to the derpers by being tough on the homoqueers without actually blocking anything, not to mention the fact that she is legally obligated to uphold the state constitution. She herself acknowledged that they could just go to a federal installation and apply for the benefits. It's do-nothing appearance politics. It's the one thing that our "leaders" are really good at.

Crotchrocket Slim: The US Constitution supercedes anything that might contradict it in state constitutions, and civil rights are not doled out via referendum. That's part of the whole point of the US (at least originally).

Yet another Teabagger Philosopher who slept through high school civics...


Unless/until the state amendment fails a court challenge, it has the weight of law. It's not the governor's place to just decide what is constitutional and what isn't. That's why we have the judicial branch. Maybe that Teabagger Philosopher wasn't the only one who slept through high school civics....
2013-09-20 12:51:17 PM
1 votes:

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.


No, she won't. Those guys had a way bigger impact on history than her. She'd barely merit a single line.

It's more along the lines of "you'll be that family member no one talks about because they're too embarrassed to admit their relation." You know, like those people who had high-ranking members of the KKK in their families, but not high-ranking enough for anyone else to remember.
2013-09-20 12:46:05 PM
1 votes:
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 12:36:16 PM
1 votes:
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 12:31:39 PM
1 votes:

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 12:28:31 PM
1 votes:

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 12:28:21 PM
1 votes:

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 12:24:29 PM
1 votes:

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 12:11:44 PM
1 votes:

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 12:08:56 PM
1 votes:
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 12:08:31 PM
1 votes:
Why do Republicans hate the troops?
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report