Okla Drops National Guard Benefits For All Couples To Avoid Serving Same-Sex Couples

[KevinWestern]

As I stated, the American traditional heterosexual married couples are going to have to sacrifice their benefits for the greater good of preventing married gays from fleecing the system that has been subverted by them for political correctness purposes. The governor is doing Gods will.

Why on earth would I choose to eliminate my own benefits in an effort to thwart two gay people who I don't even interact with from being able to access one another's medical records, or file joint taxes???!!! What difference would that make to me?

 

[g5000]

Does this mean they are going to turn the wives away from the commissaries and PX? Are they going to deny them access to the medical clinics?

This division of Americans could get interesting.

 

[ClosedCaption]

FALLIN: Oklahoma law is clear. The state of Oklahoma does not recognize same-sex marriages, nor does it confer marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

Man, people sure spend a whole lot of time worrying about making sure the two gay guys down the street who they never interact with can't enjoy some basic marriage benefits.

Lol, seems like a waste of time for everyone.

I disagree. Gays should not be allowed to be married. Marriage was meant for one man and one woman in order to procreate and build a family foundation. That's how you nation build and establish your identity.

Where does this bullshit come from? I always here it but the reasons always why seems to be the same. And the answer is always "uhhh because...it just is"

 

[g5000]

I disagree. Gays should not be allowed to be married. Marriage was meant for one man and one woman in order to procreate and build a family foundation. That's how you nation build and establish your identity.

And as every good conservative knows, that kind of family procreation just would not happen without a lot of government involvement in marriage. Tax credits, deductions, supports, etc.

It seems the more the government has gotten involved, the stronger the family unit gets in America. Gosh, before the married tax return and hospital visitation rights, our country was going nowhere!

And now that military wives will have to travel hours to get an ID, things will be MUCH better!

 

[Jughead]

Hat's off to Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin. Oklahoma as a state has every right to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

For many of us, gay marriage is in direct conflict with our faith. We should not be forced to acknowledge gay marriage if it interferes with our religious beliefs. Forcing someone of faith to provide benefits to a gay couple would be equivalent to asking them to renounce their faith. This would be unconstitutional.

I'd likely still be living in Tulsa if it were not for the twisters.

 

[g5000]

Forcing someone of faith to provide benefits to a gay couple would be equivalent to asking them to renounce their faith. This would be unconstitutional.

What a loon. Forcing the GOVERNMENT to observe the tenets of YOUR faith is what is unconstitutional.

 

[Jughead]

Forcing someone of faith to provide benefits to a gay couple would be equivalent to asking them to renounce their faith. This would be unconstitutional.

What a loon. Forcing a GOVERNMENT official to observe the tenets of YOUR faith is what is unconstitutional.

As my faith does not accept gay marriage, I don't acknowledge it. I do have a right under the constitution to practice my faith.

 

[Claudette]

This is a good move by Oklahoma's governor. I like it and it is a step in the right direction in order to end spousal benefits for married gays. One man.............one woman! That is how marriage should be defined. It is the quintessential tradition that built this nation and made it a superpower to be proud of. Right now, there is nothing to be proud of when married gays are fleecing the system collecting benefits in order to further their nefarious gay agenda. But for now, heterosexual couples in Oklahoma who are married might have to suffer for a little while in order to prevent married same sex couples from getting spousal benefits until this situation is made right like it used to be. A little sacrifice will be worth it in order to return to those roots of one man and one woman defining traditional marriage.


Oklahoma Drops National Guard Benefits For All Couples To Avoid Serving Same-Sex Couples [UPDATED] | ThinkProgress

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) announced earlier this month that state-owned National Guard facilities will no longer allow any married couples to apply for spousal benefits, regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex. The Supreme Court’s decision overturning the Defense of Marriage Act means that service members with same-sex spouses are now eligible for federal benefits. Fallin’s unusual tactic is designed to avoid having to recognize those couples, which she asserts would violate Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman:


FALLIN: Oklahoma law is clear. The state of Oklahoma does not recognize same-sex marriages, nor does it confer marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

If its a State Law I can see it.

Personally I could give shit one about gays. If they want to marry big deal. Let em deal with divorce court like the heteroes do. Good Gawd. One would think it was a national emergency.

Who fucking cares??

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Man, people sure spend a whole lot of time worrying about making sure the two gay guys down the street who they never interact with can't enjoy some basic marriage benefits.

Lol, seems like a waste of time for everyone.

I disagree. Gays should not be allowed to be married. Marriage was meant for one man and one woman in order to procreate and build a family foundation. That's how you nation build and establish your identity.

Where does this bullshit come from?

It comes from moral common sense thinking. That's why the founders established in the beginning that the ones citizenship should always take after the father in order to be American and establish a national identity through marriage between a man and woman.

 

[g5000]

Forcing someone of faith to provide benefits to a gay couple would be equivalent to asking them to renounce their faith. This would be unconstitutional.

What a loon. Forcing a GOVERNMENT official to observe the tenets of YOUR faith is what is unconstitutional.

As my faith does not accept gay marriage, I don't acknowledge it. I do have a right under the constitution to practice my faith.

I don't care if you don't personally recognize a gay marriage. But you do not have a right to force your particular brand of religion on the government.

This is about a government entity. The National Guard is not your church.

You are free to abstain from government service if you don't like gay marriage.

 

[Jughead]

What a loon. Forcing a GOVERNMENT official to observe the tenets of YOUR faith is what is unconstitutional.

As my faith does not accept gay marriage, I don't acknowledge it. I do have a right under the constitution to practice my faith.

I don't care if you don't personally recognize a gay marriage. But you do not have a right to force your particular brand of religion on the government.

This is about a government entity. The National Guard is not your church.

Of course not. I was concerned on what affect this would have a an individual's livelihood. Let's say hypothetically that I was employed as a Justice of the Peace. My job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. With the legalization of gay marriage I would very likely lose my job as I could not perform the ceremony for a gay couple. I would surely not renounce my faith as it supersedes all else. That was my concern.

 

[bodecea]

Meh...the Governor of Oklahoma doesn't care about inconveniencing Dependent wives and children....after all, they are only dependents.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Of course not. I was concerned on what affect this would have a an individual's livelihood. Let's say hypothetically that I was employed as a Justice of the Peace. My job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. With the legalization of gay marriage I would very likely lose my job as I could not perform the ceremony for a gay couple. I would surely not renounce my faith as it supersedes all else. That was my concern.

I know this will sound cold, but the reality of the working world is that the employer defines the duties and responsibilities for the position in which you are employed. If you are unwilling to perform those duties then start polishing your resume.

Think about how you want to handle the situation in advance though. If you know the duties and can't perform them and come up to me and say "I can't do this work, so I'd like to give my two weeks notice". That's cool and you'd probably get a good reference (assuming good work habits). On the other hand if you know you can't perform the required duties and wait until you can make a political statement by refusing a customer, then don't expect a good job reference.


>>>>

 

[OKTexas]

Gotta love them Baptists.
When growing up in OKC the baptist would not allow dancing at school proms, burn books and records they considered evil and protested concerts.

Your even more pathetic than your dear leader, make shit up just to have something to say. I was born and raised in OK and never saw anything like you described and had relatives all over the state, including OKC, and never heard of anything like you describe. So with this first hand knowledge I must conclude that you are nothing but a liar.

 

[Jughead]

Of course not. I was concerned on what affect this would have a an individual's livelihood. Let's say hypothetically that I was employed as a Justice of the Peace. My job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. With the legalization of gay marriage I would very likely lose my job as I could not perform the ceremony for a gay couple. I would surely not renounce my faith as it supersedes all else. That was my concern.

I know this will sound cold, but the reality of the working world is that the employer defines the duties and responsibilities for the position in which you are employed. If you are unwilling to perform those duties then start polishing your resume.

Think about how you want to handle the situation in advance though. If you know the duties and can't perform them and come up to me and say "I can't do this work, so I'd like to give my two weeks notice". That's cool and you'd probably get a good reference (assuming good work habits). On the other hand if you know you can't perform the required duties and wait until you can make a political statement by refusing a customer, then don't expect a good job reference.


>>>>

I absolutely agree. I would get fired for refusing to do the job. Same would apply for countless other jobs like an IRS official who refuses to process a joint tax return from a gay couple. What is unfair though is that when many of us starting working these jobs, these issues were not present. My faith has not changed, but I could still get fired because my faith "now" interferes with my work.

I guess if someone had signed paperwork that outlined their job description when accepting the job, they could always go to court to keep their job as the job description has since changed. They could argue their constitutional right to not have to renounce their faith in order to keep their job.

 

[ClosedCaption]

See this is why repubs try to trick people with that "states rights" bullshit. To allow legal discrimination and make it a "right"

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I worked and gave money to the effort to include in the Oklahoma Constitution the passage that reads that a marriage is and shall always be defined as between one man and one woman. I believe that the state of Oklahoma will continue to uphold and enforce that law. I have made it clear to every state official, elected and otherwise, that I wish it to remain so.

Now before (probably too late) everyone left of center begins screaming 'homophobe' at the top of their voice, if you have read any of the posts I have made concerning this subject, you will know that I did not reach that position lightly nor do I take the position now with a motive of 'punishing' someone for a perceived transgression. But I believed then and now that it is the correct position to take.

If you have the desire to know why, then simply ask. Try it without the personal attacks and you will get a respectful answer. But to dismiss such stances with the pointing of a boney finger and the screaching of labels will get you the same thing.

Why?

First, I am really not liking the idea that the United States government or any of the states have ANYTHING to do with defining marriage. But I understand the need to have a definition of marriage included in the statutes based upon penalties/benefits that couples will receive. Taxes, laws regarding probate, etc. are all hinging upon those definitions. So, somehow the representatives of the people who write laws must come up with a viable definition.

You can't write a law that says that what ever a person wants a marriage to be qualifies as a marriage. If that's the case, you're going to get the guy (I forget from where) that is having an intimate relationship with his own daughter, and he's going to marry her. You're going to get pedophiles marrying children or multiple wives, etc. I think we all agree that is not acceptable. So you have to draw the line somewhere.

Some of the arguements for same sex marriage is that 'they are born that way' and therefore should not be discriminated against. But the argument can and is being made that so are pedophiles, those who engage in necrophelia, and others. We say that they cannot do what they are 'born to do' all the time. Are we, as people, defined by our characteristics? What about kleptomaniacs who are "born" with a need to steal. Does that excuse their acts since it is possibly within their genetic makeups? No, as people we are called to rise above our characteristics, genetic or otherwise, all the time.

So I hear that since they are two consenting adults, we should not have a say whether their relationship is lawful or not. Not true at all. We regulate what 'consenting' adults do all the time. And I hear that we shouldn't 'judge' people, especially if we are Christians. Statements made by people who have NO CLUE what being a Christian means. We are called by Christ to identify what is sin and to do the opposite, yet 'love' the sinner.

I don't take this stance lightly at all. But it is what I feel is correct.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Of course not. I was concerned on what affect this would have a an individual's livelihood. Let's say hypothetically that I was employed as a Justice of the Peace. My job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. With the legalization of gay marriage I would very likely lose my job as I could not perform the ceremony for a gay couple. I would surely not renounce my faith as it supersedes all else. That was my concern.

I know this will sound cold, but the reality of the working world is that the employer defines the duties and responsibilities for the position in which you are employed. If you are unwilling to perform those duties then start polishing your resume.

Think about how you want to handle the situation in advance though. If you know the duties and can't perform them and come up to me and say "I can't do this work, so I'd like to give my two weeks notice". That's cool and you'd probably get a good reference (assuming good work habits). On the other hand if you know you can't perform the required duties and wait until you can make a political statement by refusing a customer, then don't expect a good job reference.


>>>>

I absolutely agree. I would get fired for refusing to do the job. Same would apply for countless other jobs like an IRS official who refuses to process a joint tax return from a gay couple. What is unfair though is that when many of us starting working these jobs, these issues were not present. My faith has not changed, but I could still get fired because my faith "now" interferes with my work.

I guess if someone had signed paperwork that outlined their job description when accepting the job, they could always go to court to keep their job as the job description has since changed. They could argue their constitutional right to not have to renounce their faith in order to keep their job.

Nope, I work in HR. We change Job Descriptions all the time. Just because the duties of your job change, if you refuse, that is cause for termination (unless of course you want to voluntarily resign).

Now, if you are working under a contract (much different then a Job Description) which specifies your duties and does not include a general clause such as "and other duties as assigned" you might have a case for the period of that contract only which will normally be renewed annually. Once that contract period is over, then you are offered a new contract which you can accept or decline. If the contract contains the "other duties as assigned provision" or adds "perform all legal Civil Marriages as required", then there would not be legal protections for that.

Now if your contract specifically said, "The performance of a Civil Marriage is not considered an essential function of the job." Then you could refuse to perform all marriages or choose to not perform any marriages, however Public Accommodation laws would prohibit you from doing some but not others.

Finally for public sector jobs, there are no guarantees that the legislature will not change the nature of the job and that is perfectly legal. If in good conscience you can't perform the duties, find a new job. I was in the military for 20 years, my enlistment contracts contained a provision putting me on notice that Congress could change the conditions of my contract after the fact and there wasn't a thing I could do about it. Just the way the cookie crumbles.


>>>>

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

This is a good move by Oklahoma's governor. I like it and it is a step in the right direction in order to end spousal benefits for married gays. One man.............one woman! That is how marriage should be defined. It is the quintessential tradition that built this nation and made it a superpower to be proud of.

God I really think you're just jerking everybody around.....Nobody blows this kind of bullshit unless they actually believe that every person who came over here and established this nation....Every single soldier who fought in every one of our wars prior to 1900 was ....straight.

You push these people back in the closet and you will force them to live a lie and marry your straight children and have fucked up kids....and that IS a social and moral debacle.

 

[Davocrat]

As my faith does not accept gay marriage, I don't acknowledge it. I do have a right under the constitution to practice my faith.

I don't care if you don't personally recognize a gay marriage. But you do not have a right to force your particular brand of religion on the government.

This is about a government entity. The National Guard is not your church.

Of course not. I was concerned on what affect this would have a an individual's livelihood. Let's say hypothetically that I was employed as a Justice of the Peace. My job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. With the legalization of gay marriage I would very likely lose my job as I could not perform the ceremony for a gay couple. I would surely not renounce my faith as it supersedes all else. That was my concern.

You could renounce your job.