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

32

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.

 
 

Written By: Mark Joseph Stern
continue to source article at slate.com

32 COMMENTS

    • In reply to #1 by Mormon Atheist:

      This is fucking sick! Why is it that people feel it is their right to grandstand with someone else’s benefits.

      She’s a republican, she got in on belittling those who receive benefits and promising to take them away.

      Of course her state one of the states that takes more federal money than it gives, $1.19 for every Oklahoma buck. Obviously they didn’t vote for the party of smaller federal government, oh wait they did.

  1. Excellent! Idiotic hardline stances such as this will hasten the Federal nullification of state restrictions on gay marriage.

    The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Federal government is Constitutionally required to recognize lawful same sex marriages and extend federal benefits to those couples. If States take the position that such recognition cannot be reconciled with their own statutes, they are handing a ready-made case to the plaintiffs who will inevitably argue that local bans are unconstitutional.

    Stand firm Governor Fallin! The less compromise we see from you and your ilk, the quicker you will lose.

    • In reply to #2 by BanJoIvie:

      Excellent! Idiotic hardline stances such as this will hasten the Federal nullification of state restrictions on gay marriage.

      I agree that this stupid move by Gov. Fallin is going to push things forward much faster. Because she could not discriminate against some people, she has shut off services for all people. She foolishly does not understand that her position is not supported by the majority, and having services withheld from heterosexual couples is going to move more of the general population to action. She was already on the slippery slope headed for the dust bin of history, and now, she has greased the slope with her self-satirizing decision.

  2. In praise of Mary Fallin: at least she has the courage of her creed. If other Christians actually believed their Bible, they too would reach the same conclusion about same-sex marriage as Fallin did.*

    *Needless to say I think they’re all nuts for believing it.

  3. When Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin was sworn into office, she promised in her oath to “offend the Constitution of the United States.”

    It looks like time for a legal action to remove her until such time as she is properly sworn in to uphold the constitution.

    Many at the time assumed it was a blunder. But as it turns out, Gov. Fallin is true to her word.

    The flawed thinking of “assumption” is the basis for many foul-ups! Blunders should be checked out and corrected!

  4. I make no claim to understanding either the state or national laws of the (Dis)United States, but I wonder if there is a case to be made for the impeachment of this IDiot (presumed) on grounds of treason. She is quite obviously an enemy of the Constitution, and therefore of the USA. Anyone for treason?

  5. What a nasty piece of work…

    … as ALL Republicans and American conservatives now are.

    Whether they are stupid, ignorant, insane and/or evil, all now effectively support evil. You cannot really be a good human being and vote Republican (or faux-Independant) – or Tory in the UK for that matter. It’s become impossible, like (Godwin-baiting here, but it’s true, if less openly horrid) being a National-Socialist in the early 20s. However nice you may be to chat with; however kins to babies and dogs, you have no right unless literally senile to be supporting the horrors that run on any “conservative” ticket these days.

    • In reply to #12 by goddogit:

      What a nasty piece of work…

      … as ALL Republicans and American conservatives now are.

      Interesting. Yet I’m conservative, support the rights of gays to marry and serve in the military, am agnostic, and pro-science. According to you, I don’t exist.

      It could be that one of us has stereotyped an entire group of people by the actions of a few. What’s it called when you do that? “Being liberal”?

  6. She’s a politician, the qualification for this high office being……….fuck all. One is reminded of the brilliant satire of Jonathan Swift’s Lilliputian ministers who had to impress the emperor with ‘leaping and creaping’ in order to gain office. The play on words is priceless. Also springs to mind but probably less well know are the Duke of Wellington’s vitriolic words to William Pitt for interfering in martial discipline. “Politicians Sir, knowing nothing of their own business set about righting the business of others”.

  7. Presumably the straight couples have some sort of contract. They should be able to sue for benefits. However, those families will suffer in the meantime. Americans worship soldiers, even Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq vets. This will be political suicide.

    Why should gay couples “serve” but not reap its rewards? That is like saying gay employees at Wallmart should not be paid.

    She does not see the writing on the wall. Hawaii and Illinois just instituted same sex marriage.

    Thinking back to George Wallace in the civil rights days. Obama could use a show of force, or a fast track supreme court ruling.

  8. What does the Oklahoma militia do? In bygone days it would help defend against an invasion from Kansas. There is no equivalent here in Canada, so I wonder if is just ceremonial. I gather the feds have no authority over it.

    • In reply to #22 by Roedy:

      What does the Oklahoma militia do? In bygone days it would help defend against an invasion from Kansas. There is no equivalent here in Canada, so I wonder if is just ceremonial. I gather the feds have no authority over it.

      No, they do a lot actually and yes the Feds do have authority over it although the authority is divided but ultimate authority is with the feds. BTW, I assume you mean the state National Guard units when you say militia, the word has double meanings and there are right wing groups that call themselves militias as well but they are a totally different matter.

      The National Guard is meant primarily to help out in disasters and also to be a backup for the regular army in case it’s needed. So when there is a flood or earthquake they call out the national guard. Also, in extreme domestic disturbances, e.g., some of the riots that happened in the 60′s they call out the national guard as well.

      However, that changed back in the 90′s and the National Guard got even more important. It actually goes back to Colin Powell and something called the Powell Doctrine, a great idea that people in the Bush administration (including Colin Powell ironically enough) totally ignored. The Powell Doctrine was a reaction to Vietnam. The idea was that America wouldn’t go to war in the future unless there was support from the American people. So they restructured the military and changed the rules for deploying soldiers into combat. Essentially they made it a requirement that the National Guard units would be needed to support the regular military in war time. The idea (which turned out to be totally wrong) was that military planners and politicians wouldn’t deploy the national guard unless there was truly a serious threat to the nation. So during Iraq a whole bunch of guys who signed up thinking it was to do weekend warrior stuff and to help out with the occasional natural disaster ended up being required to go to Iraq. It’s one of the reason that war was especially disruptive to average US families.

      BTW, another part of the Powell doctrine was a check list of things the military was supposed to ensure were true before committing to war. If you go through that list the Iraq war could have been a case study for a conflict that did NOT meet the requirements Powell had set out for future wars. I’ve often wished I could meet him and ask him what was going on in his mind during the lead up to the war and with the Powell doctrine in mind.

      Sorry, I digress, back to the guard. The jurisdiction of the Guard is under the state governor for some things but ultimate authority is with the DOD and the president who is commander in chief. During the 1960′s JFK called out the state national guard and had them defy the orders of racist white governors like George Wallace to guarantee the safety of black students trying to attend previously segregated schools.

      • In reply to #23 by Red Dog:
        >
        >

        No, they do a lot actually and yes the Feds do h…

        The state only has authority under specific circumstances. Fed has ultimate authority. There are several regulated aspects of the militia in Title 10, USC, Ch 13, sec 311

        The National Guard constitutes the “organized militia,” and is paid by the fed gov UNLESS on state orders, which is managed on a state by state basis. Issuance of weapons requires federal authority, or a contracted agreement and plan between state and feds.

        The “unorganized militia” is defined as all able bodied males between 17 and 45, and anyone else who wishes to declare so.

        There have been plenty of volunteers for the Guard and Reserve during Iraq and A-stan. With the maximum term of enlistment being 6 years, as of 2009, EVERYONE serving knew what was going on. Nor was it hard to get out for any number of reasons before that.

        OIF and OEF have seen the lowest casualty rate of any US conflict. There were more MN Guardsmen killed by drunk drivers stateside than hostile fire overseas, forex. There are a variety of reasons people enlist, and find it worthwhile to do so.

        I retired in 2010 after 25 years of USAF and US Army, 19 of it in Guard units.

  9. The “Oaky from Muskogee” image of the OK citizen is always present. There is hope, however, based on the young woman in OK asked by Wolf Blitzer if she had any prayers, where she proclaimed on national TV that she was actually and Atheist. It is states like OK where activists need to be encouraged to take on religious ignorance. More billboards please!

  10. 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:

    The soldiers and their extended families will know how to vote next election!

  11. Even if we agreed that the bible says unequivocally that “thou shalt not do homosexual sex”, I cannot find anywhere in the bible a mandate for believers to go out and persecute gays. Why don’t they go out and persecute adulterers? It is easily argued that adultery constitutes a significant social problem and according to the bible adulterers are also hated by god and will go to hell. Choosing gays over adulterers for persecution is evidence of their homophobia.

  12. It’s hard to tell from the information given, but I believe this only applies to Technician status or those on State AD orders. So it actually means very little for the present. Except, of course, that it’s a moral outrage, a contract violation, and I believe it’s outside her authority to order.

  13. This is so ridiculously hilarious in the worst possible sense that I had to reread it to make sure I wasn’t missing the pun! She was obviously elected in by what I can only imagine are people who share similar views (our wonderful democracy in action) but are virtually her entire electorate as foolishly homophobic as her? I don’t think so for a minute but what does she offer that other non -homophobic candidates don’t? I must admit to being utterly bemused by this entire affair, which I’m sure is far from over. I mean, what if she even retracts her decision now, will she ever be as confidently regarded by her electorate again or will she have lost the credibility she clearly had before her incredibly archaic and nauseous decision? It really does amaze me that politicians of her ilk can be consistently elected. All she needs now is a photo opp’ with her pointing a fully automatic weapon at the heads of homosexual couples! “America, America…” Jeez!!!

Leave a Reply