Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin denies benefits to all soldiers just to discriminate against gay ones.

When Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin was sworn into office, she promised in her oath to “offend the Constitution of the United States.” Many at the time assumed it was a blunder. But as it turns out, Gov. Fallin is true to her word.

In September, Fallin vowed to prohibit Oklahoma’s National Guard from providing benefits to married same-sex couples, directly violating a Pentagon directive and apresidential decree. Now, after a Pentagon pushback, Fallin has doubled down, cutting spousal benefits for the entire Oklahoma National Guard, including straight couples. The Republican governor, in other words, would rather deny every soldier benefits than grant a few gay ones the rights they have been federally guaranteed. Her painfully mangled logic:


Oklahoma law is clear. The state of Oklahoma does not recognize same-sex marriages, nor does it confer marriage benefits to same-sex couples. The decision reached today allows the National Guard to obey Oklahoma law without violating federal rules or policies. It protects the integrity of our state constitution and sends a message to the federal government that they cannot simply ignore our laws or the will of the people.

Well this is an all-time low. I don’t care what sexual orientation a soldier is as long as they do their job. I didn’t always think that way but I guess I am just getting older and the ignorance is wearing off. I remember being stationed in Korea and don’t ask don’t tell had just been implemented and everyone knew that one guy was gay the command paired him with the burliest guy in the unit. The guy had more hair on him than a gorilla he was hating life when a case of the crabs was going around due to a nasty port-a-potty one field exercise. Anyway the guy did his job that’s all that really mattered I wish people who don’t have anything to do with the military understood that.

Screwing over the entire military because of personal prejudice is a dick move. Maybe the National Guard will return the favor the next time there is a state disaster. Ehh…they won’t because they have honor.

The state elected a governor who, on her very first day in office, swore “to offend” the United States constitution. We can fault Fallin for many things. But we certainly can’t accuse her of going back on her word.

linky

reply to post by Grimpachi


According to the article, she chose to "offend" the Constitution.

I would blame the dumb asses whom voted for her! If in fact that is what she actually said, it is the fault of those whom pulled the trigger to vote for her!

At least she was honest in saying she hated this country enough to "offend" the Constitution! Kinda of refreshing in a sick kinda way, that she was at least honest about hating what our country was founded on versus BSing the voter and then stabbing them in the back!

Either way, she is a scumbag IMO, but in this instance I would have to blame the uneducated idiots that voted for her......

reply to post by Grimpachi


Oklahoma isn't the only one doing this, but it's one that pisses off Washington in ways few outside Texas manage these days, so it's getting the focus. The whole issue is in the first part. Presidential Decree. That's precisely what it is, and it makes it a states rights issue. That's no biggy to many, but it's a very serious and personal (personally expensive in some ways) battle being fought by a number of 'fly over' states, on several issues.

If Congress passed a new law, as our system was designed to do this, I'll bet she'd follow it. If she didn't, it might even be cause to remove her from office, I'm betting. As it stands though, not everyone responds to Presidential decrees well, and despite having a very Washington friendly governor here in Missouri, we're very much in line of thinking on the States rights issue with Oklahoma.

it's a very unfortunate thing to see the push and hard shove BACK up Washington's tailpipe first come on this particular issue. It had to be one of a few, and this happened to be pushed first. This is only the start of much much more to come across many states. It'll be an interesting year.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Can I get a working link? Or do you not post sources here?

reply to post by CenTheBear


It looks like the story originates from The Slate.

Its no biggie, I've forgotten to include the link from time to time.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Oklahoma isn't the only one doing this, but it's one that pisses off Washington in ways few outside Texas manage these days, so it's getting the focus. The whole issue is in the first part. Presidential Decree. That's precisely what it is, and it makes it a states rights issue. That's no biggy to many, but it's a very serious and personal (personally expensive in some ways) battle being fought by a number of 'fly over' states, on several issues.

If Congress passed a new law, as our system was designed to do this, I'll bet she'd follow it. If she didn't, it might even be cause to remove her from office, I'm betting. As it stands though, not everyone responds to Presidential decrees well, and despite having a very Washington friendly governor here in Missouri, we're very much in line of thinking on the States rights issue with Oklahoma.

it's a very unfortunate thing to see the push and hard shove BACK up Washington's tailpipe first come on this particular issue. It had to be one of a few, and this happened to be pushed first. This is only the start of much much more to come across many states. It'll be an interesting year.

The precedent for this is very old and has always held up. Desegregation was applied by execultive order by Truman. Department of Defense Directive 5120.36 "allowed the military to power to influence local businesses" declaring places that allowed discrimination to be placed off limits. Don't ask Don't Tell was also a Department of Defense Directive. None of those came from Congress and all of them have been found legal and binding. This ship has long sailed . Personally I find it disgusting to treat the very people who will be their to protect or save this womans sorry are being treated like this.

reply to post by Grimpachi


10th Amendment issue.

Vote her out.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Opps I normally check to make sure my links work didn't know it was broken.

Oh well thanks for pointing that out in time for me to fix in the OP.

Bad Kermit.

I reckon this will make it just a little bit harder to find qualified people to enlist in the oklahoma national guard.As if the threat of being sent to the 10 year war in afghanistan wasn`t enough to keep people from enlisting now they have this to scare potential recruits away.

At least it's fair,I guess.

There are so many things she could fight for that would make her a hero, and she chooses this, really?

I lean republican,but I'll never understand the stance against gay marriage.

If your not forcing churches to marry gays against their will, there are NO rights violation. When you deny gays the same benefits as strait couples, you ARE violating rights.

Constitution comes first! Leave your religious righteousness at the house, or don't get into public service!

Surprise surprise surprise....a conservative.

How do these people live with themselves?

Coming from Oklahoma, I'm embarrassed. Its like whenever there is a tornado here the reporters always interview the toothless redneck swilling Pabst blue ribbon. Please don't think all okies are backwood, ignorant loons.

reply to post by MrSpad


Well, it's a shame that so much is focused on for the issue that happened to open the battle, not the war it's simply a small part of.

Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and others have major 10th amendment issues he can't just executive order his way over. They are lined up where his policy can't avoid hitting them. Some of the Obamacare provisions come up next and I'll bet it's part of what the delay is about since mandates for business and individual will trigger some of the Constitutional fights right out of the textbook.

How a state handles it's national guard for internal policy isn't dictated by White House decree, or won't be tolerated that way if it's going to be tried. I think that is the message carried with the more important meaning that state's borders are more than pretty lines on a map and the United States is still a plural reference.

Congress passes laws as it's assembled by the states to represent them (how that's working out is another matter). The President isn't a King. His executive order authority isn't meant to substitute or supersede Congressional (and by extension, State) power, as Oklahoma ....and others...contend quite clearly he is doing and making a habit of.

If NO cause can take a hit in getting the principles defended, then nothing ever gets protected in the long term.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

How a state handles it's national guard for internal policy isn't dictated by White House decree, or won't be tolerated that way if it's going to be tried.

Well I don’t know if that is entirely true. I could be wrong however I remember when I went from enlisted to National Guard I had to swear an oath to both the governor’s office and the office of the presidency and I believe much of the National Guard is still under federal jurisdiction. I think the governor is going to find she overstepped. I definitely think she is in the wrong what she is doing is wrong on so many levels. This is why I feel military service should be a prerequisite to run for political office.