Oklahoma Lawmakers Vote to Fire Clerks Who Issue Same Sex Marriage Licenses

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
Wow, two Oklahoma threads in less than 24 hours! The stupidity is gushing out of there today. This time, it's 100% UNCONSTITUTIONAL even to an average onlooker. Same sex marriage is legal in Oklahoma thanks to a federal court order. State lawmakers now want to threaten any judges and clerks who follow the federal law with termination. As if that's even remotely constitutional. Our fiscally conservative friends are sure going to keep lawyers' pockets filled at taxpayer's expense, and this law will be tossed by courts out immediately if passed anyway.

OKLAHOMA CITY - Judges or court clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples would lose their jobs under a bill that has been approved by a House committee.
The House Judiciary and Civil Procedure Committee voted 5-3 on Tuesday for the "Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act." The bill now proceeds to the full House for a vote.

The bill provides that any state or local employee who officially recognizes, grants or enforces a same-sex marriage license would no longer receive a state salary or pension.

The House author of the bill, Oklahoma City Republican Rep. Sally Kern, says she believes the U.S. Supreme Court has overstepped its authority by forcing Oklahoma to recognize gay marriages.
 

TimelessOne

macrumors regular
Oct 29, 2014
236
2
I want to see our conservative members try to defend this BS.

The GOP really is earning their tag line. Hey GOP 1960's calling. They want back their stupid arguments.... Maybe this is why they want to stop teaching history. People will figure out how out date their arguments are.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
How did I know it was sponsored by Sally Kern? That woman is evil.

When you know the name of a representative in a state you've never set foot in, it's usually not for a good reason.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
How did I know it was sponsored by Sally Kern? That woman is evil.

When you know the name of a representative in a state you've never set foot in, it's usually not for a good reason.

She needs to be sued for violating her oath of office.

EDIT: What the actual ****?

An Oklahoma bill banning Advanced Placement U.S. History would also require schools to instruct students in a long list of “foundational documents,” including the Ten Commandments, two sermons and three speeches by Ronald Reagan.
The bill, authored by Oklahoma Rep. Dan Fisher, designates a total of 58 documents that “shall form the base level of academic content for all United States History courses offered in the schools in the state.” Many of the texts are uncontroversial and undoubtedly covered by the Advanced Placement U.S. History course, such as the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg address. But the bill also has an ideological and religious bent. In addition to 3 speeches by Reagan, the curriculum as includes a speech by George W. Bush but nothing from any Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson.

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2015/02/18/3624062/oklahoma-bill-banning-ap-us-history-make-students-study-ten-commandments-3-speeches-reagan/
 
Last edited:

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States

giantfan1224

macrumors 6502a
Mar 9, 2012
869
1,093
I guess it depends on your brand of unconstitutional foolery. It could be Oklahoma legislators with a last ditch effort to not enact same-sex marriage law or the POTUS changing immigration law. It's funny that one might label the former as stupid and in the same breath label the latter as good policy.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,371
UK
I guess it depends on your brand of unconstitutional foolery. It could be Oklahoma legislators with a last ditch effort to not enact same-sex marriage law or the POTUS changing immigration law. It's funny that one might label the former as stupid and in the same breath label the latter as good policy.
Sorry but have the Supreme Court ruled that the immigration law change is unconstitutional?
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
That goes for some senators too, like Harry Reid.
No, not really. I can name a lot of US senators and US house reps. Anyone who pays attention to the news should be able to.

Sally Kern is a representative in the Oklahoma legislature. Not even on the national level. How many state level representatives outside of your state can you name? I can only name one and it's Sally Kern, because she is always in the news for saying some hateful, bigoted things.
 

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,421
in a New York State of mind
I guess it depends on your brand of unconstitutional foolery. It could be Oklahoma legislators with a last ditch effort to not enact same-sex marriage law or the POTUS changing immigration law. It's funny that one might label the former as stupid and in the same breath label the latter as good policy.
This isn't a very well thought out comparison.
 

giantfan1224

macrumors 6502a
Mar 9, 2012
869
1,093
Sorry but have the Supreme Court ruled that the immigration law change is unconstitutional?
By your own words, calling it an "immigration law change" makes it unconstitutional since the Executive Branch does not have the authority to make law. Obama's executive order was just blocked by a federal judge. It's early in the process but it may very well end up that the SCOTUS renders a decision.

----------

This isn't a very well thought out comparison.
Thanks for your opinion. Funny, both are hot tops of political debate, both in the vein of being unconstitutional or not. Seemed an apropos comparison.
 

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,421
in a New York State of mind
Thanks for your opinion. Funny, both are hot tops of political debate, both in the vein of being unconstitutional or not. Seemed an apropos comparison.
One is just much, much further along than the other. The ban was found unconstitutional and Oklahoma appealed all the way to SCOTUS, who declined to review.

It won't be an apropos comparison until we see what Obama's reaction to numerous lost appeals is.

Fishing for hypocrisy, IMO, isn't the best way to engage in a debate if you truly have an opinion. If you think threatening to fire clerks who issue legal same sex marriage licenses in a state who has lost numerous appeals is OK, than just say it's ok. No need to cloud the issue by bringing Obama into it.
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,323
29,844
Catskill Mountains
It's cheaper to put up legislation like this and draw national media attention than to spend time soliciting nonexistent funds from a dead-broke local base. The majority of that base is unfortunately still ignorant enough to assume that the reason they're broke is because they don't have more common sense legislators like the guy from their own district, whose name they actually heard today on the radio!!

They've been programmed by now to expect that mainstream media will make fun of whatever their local lawmakers propose. They've been programmed to assume that the Supreme Court will try to invalidate those local laws. What's in the legislation doesn't matter. What they think about the legislation matters but the bottom line of their thinking is that IT'S THEM AGAINST US.

These outlandish bills are all the 21st century equivalent of the Willie Horton ad. They're meant to stir the pot. And, they work.

To be fair but not balanced, the left is not without its outlandish proposals in local legislatures now and then. It's interesting that they're largely ignored by national media. Maybe we only fear rightwing crackpots. Probably a mistake but it's one that might matter only farther down the road. The pendulum hasn't quite swung rightward enough to alarm the majority of the majority yet. Bob Dylan probably hit the nail on the head with "It ain't dark yet but it's gettin' there." Sometimes seeing the sun slide behind a mountain is picturesque. Sometimes the chill in the air a half hour after that is a real shock. And sometimes, it's fatal.
 

giantfan1224

macrumors 6502a
Mar 9, 2012
869
1,093
One is just much, much further along than the other. The ban was found unconstitutional and Oklahoma appealed all the way to SCOTUS, who declined to review.

It won't be an apropos comparison until we see what Obama's reaction to numerous lost appeals is.
Both have been found unconstitutional by federal judges. Sure, one is further along but not a stretch comparison by any means.

Fishing for hypocrisy, IMO, isn't the best way to engage in a debate if you truly have an opinion. If you think threatening to fire clerks who issue legal same sex marriage licenses in a state who has lost numerous appeals is OK, than just say it's ok. No need to cloud the issue by bringing Obama into it.
I engaged in the same tactic used by the OP here all the time, you know, like bashing all conservatives for the acts of a few which has become a tired theme of his on PRSI the last while. Sure, it could be argued that I shouldn't stoop to that level but my intent with the original post you replied to was an attempt to point out the hypocrisy of labeling one side as stupid while the other gets a pass.
 

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,421
in a New York State of mind
Both have been found unconstitutional by federal judges. Sure, one is further along but not a stretch comparison by any means.



I engaged in the same tactic used by the OP here all the time, you know, like bashing all conservatives for the acts of a few which has become a tired theme of his on PRSI the last while. Sure, it could be argued that I shouldn't stoop to that level but my intent with the original post you replied to was an attempt to point out the hypocrisy of labeling one side as stupid while the other gets a pass.
This particular legislation would make it illegal for state employees to issue licenses that have been found to be legal numerous times on numerous levels.

If Obama, in response to several losses in federal court, put out legislation to make it OK to fire a government employee for refusing to follow his original executive action, I'm pretty sure many of us would be outraged by the ridiculousness. I know I would. When and if that happens, I'll be the first post in the thread you create about it's stupidity. Until then, as I said, the comparison between the two just doesn't work.
 

giantfan1224

macrumors 6502a
Mar 9, 2012
869
1,093
This particular legislation would make it illegal for state employees to issue licenses that have been found to be legal numerous times on numerous levels.

If Obama, in response to several losses in federal court, put out legislation to make it OK to fire a government employee for refusing to follow his original executive action, I'm pretty sure many of us would be outraged by the ridiculousness. I know I would. When and if that happens, I'll be the first post in the thread you create about it's stupidity. Until then, as I said, the comparison between the two just doesn't work.
You're not getting it. Obama CANNOT put out legislation. That's not the function of the Executive Branch. It's already unconstitutional for him to do so and in that sense he's even further along then the OK legislature because he's already enacted his unconstitutional action and had it blocked by a federal judge.
 

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,421
in a New York State of mind
You're not getting it. Obama CANNOT put out legislation. That's not the function of the Executive Branch. It's already unconstitutional for him to do so and in that sense he's even further along then the OK legislature because he's already enacted his unconstitutional action and had it blocked by a federal judge.
Yeah, I get it. You're just proving my point that the comparison doesn't work. :D

When he threatens to fire anyone who doesn't enforce his EO, after it's been found unconstitutional, then we can talk.

In the interim, would you like to share your thoughts on the OP? Or are you just here to derail the thread?
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,371
UK
Yeah, I get it. You're just proving my point that the comparison doesn't work. :D

When he threatens to fire anyone who doesn't enforce his EO, after it's been found unconstitutional, then we can talk.

In the interim, would you like to share your thoughts on the OP? Or are you just here to derail the thread?
I think this backs up my view, although I wasn't aware that judges at any level had found Obama's immigration bill unconstitutional.
 

noisycats

macrumors 6502a
Jun 1, 2010
771
857
The 'ham. Alabama.
I welcome stupid state legislation. Makes federal intervention more likely and more quickly. I'll be happy when same sex marriage rules are equal across all 50 states.

BTW, thank the GOP. They are doing just as much to 'advance' equal rights, than any 'gay agenda', with their blatant ignorance and bigotry.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
You're not getting it. Obama CANNOT put out legislation. That's not the function of the Executive Branch. It's already unconstitutional for him to do so and in that sense he's even further along then the OK legislature because he's already enacted his unconstitutional action and had it blocked by a federal judge.
....Then how in the hell did Reagan get away with it?

Oh right, the executive branch has discretion to focus resources given that there are simply not the funds or manpower to execute every law on the books...hence the whole point of an executive in the first place.

But all that aside, you're deflecting and conflating issues. I think OK lawmakers need to retake a civics class. You can't fire a public worker for doing their job, that would be classified as retaliation amongst other things.

What a sad sad state of affairs.
 

giantfan1224

macrumors 6502a
Mar 9, 2012
869
1,093
Yeah, I get it. You're just proving my point that the comparison doesn't work. :D

When he threatens to fire anyone who doesn't enforce his EO, after it's been found unconstitutional, then we can talk.

In the interim, would you like to share your thoughts on the OP? Or are you just here to derail the thread?
Oh, so for my comparison to hold ANY weight, he has to threaten to fire people? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I did share my thoughts on the OP. Derailing it is just as much on you as it would be on me for continuing this little sidebar.

----------

I think this backs up my view, although I wasn't aware that judges at any level had found Obama's immigration bill unconstitutional.
You probably wouldn't be since those types of details tend to be ignored on this forum.