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 14
    More: Dumbass, Oklahoma National Guard, Gov. Fallin, same-sex couples, soldiers  
•       •       •

3696 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Sep 2013 at 12:04 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2013-09-20 12:43:11 PM
4 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 02:45:47 PM
2 votes:

grumpfuff: Jackson Herring: It really is amazing how one single relatively new gimmick account can run every single thread on the entire politics tab.


Come on. We need to have a gimmick accounts in this place. If it weren't for the trolls most threads would be 1 comment with 20 this' and maybe 3 more correcting grammar.
2013-09-20 01:48:44 PM
2 votes:

trotsky: Once more we prove why the even Jefferson believed the Articles of Confederation were crap and that a stronger Federal Government was needed.


The odd Jefferson, on the other hand...
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 02:37:45 PM
1 votes:
yo libtards it's the USA not the USGAY!
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 01:55:36 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?


Christ, I know you're nothing but a bottom of the barrel troll, but "Mary Jane"? You try way too hard to be hep and with it.
2013-09-20 01:20:43 PM
1 votes:
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin

More like Mary Failin.amiright?!?!?
2013-09-20 12:46:12 PM
1 votes:
FTFA:
"We want our soldiers to have all the benefits to which they're entitled to."

Two "to"s? Too many!
2013-09-20 12:43:02 PM
1 votes:

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 12:40:22 PM
1 votes:

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


The 20th?
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 12:35:36 PM
1 votes:

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 12:13:13 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.


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.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report