Congress, Constitutional Law, Military, Politics, Society

Oklahoma Joins Other States In Refusing To Benefits To Same-Sex Couples

220px-Mary_Fallin225px-OklaJFHQssiThere is an interesting conflict growing between the federal and state governments over same-sex benefits after Oklahoma joined Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana this week in limiting the benefits for same-sex benefits. Yesterday, Oklahoma decided that the Oklahoma National Guard will no longer process benefit requests from same-sex couples by order of Gov. Mary Fallin. The Obama Administration maintains that the national guards must comply with federal law on such benefits in what could be a test of the remaining state control over national guard units.


The Guard is the direct descendent of the state militias from the founding of the Republic. The state control of such militias was always a problem in the Revolutionary War where their command and frankly fighting consistency remained controversial. The units could be called into federal service under Article I, Section 8; Clause 14 by Congress when “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The Militia Act of 1903 created the present National Guard system.

After Vietnam, the federal government cannot uniform training and standards for state units to make them more interchangeable with regular units. The federal government has progressively asserted more and more control over the units. In 2007, The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 declared that the Governor of a state would no longer be the sole commander in chief of their state’s National Guard during emergencies within the state — allowing a President to assert control. Then in 2008, in the National Defense Authorization Act 2008 Congress expanded the authority of a President to call up the National Guard of the United States during national emergencies. These changes were opposed by many governors, but Congress (showing a continued disconnect between members of Congress and their states). In 2006, all 50 governors opposed the expanded control of the federal government over the state units.

This latest controversy is different in one respect. It does not deal with military readiness or conditions for services, but the collateral question of marriage benefits. It could be the last fight over whatever remaining state control exists for the units. It is also the natural progression of increment but consistent federalization of these state units — making them effectively part of the federal military and simply at the disposal of the states. In that sense, it has elements reminiscent of the Obamacare fight where Chief Justice John Roberts recognized federalism and then gutted it by creating a huge hole for things declared to be taxes.

The odds favor the federal government in such a fight, but there are strong state interests and good-faith arguments to be made here. Moreover, it will be interesting to see if the White House welcomes such a fight at this time. The National Guard remains a prized institution for many who still do not accept that they are merely an auxiliary federal force.

Source: Ok.com

61 thoughts on “Oklahoma Joins Other States In Refusing To Benefits To Same-Sex Couples”

  1. Oky1,
    Reading any article once, at Infowars or Prisonplanet, is a waste of my time. I’m not going to do it twice.
    Conspiracy nuts and faux history. I can make up better fantasies by myself.

  2. Bob K,

    re-read it a few times, use google to help you understand what the words mean.

    Not everyone got 1776 in 1776, & I’m not expecting a full house to defend the Republic even today.

    BTW: Where do you get your water & meat from? 🙂

  3. The dissenting states are engaging in a form of nullification. It won’t work, but it’s a tried and true method of pandering to the folks you actually care about. As usual, states’ rights are being trotted out as an excuse to deny another socially disfavored group its civil rights. We’ve seen this movie before.

  4. Oky1,

    I read the article at prison planet. It’s just another neo-Confederate, wannabe insurrectionist, trying to justify another Civil War.

    I hope he gets what he wishes for.

  7. History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts
    By Tia Ghose, Staff Writer
    June 26, 2013
    http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html

    Excerpt:
    Moonstruck partners pledging eternal love may be the current definition of marriage, but this starry-eyed picture has relatively modern origins.

    Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it.

    “What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman,” said Stephanie Coontz, the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage,” (Penguin Books, 2006). “It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force.”

    But as family plots of land gave way to market economies and Kings ceded power to democracies, the notion of marriage transformed. Now, most Americans see marriage as a bond between equals that’s all about love and companionship. [I Don’t: 5 Myths About Marriage]

    That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage and Wednesday’s (June 26) Supreme Court rulings, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissed a case concerning Proposition 8.

    From polygamy to same-sex marriage, here are 13 milestones in the history of marriage.

    1. Arranged alliances

    Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.

    2. Family ties

    Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.

    3. Polygamy preferred

    Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages. [Life’s Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy]

    4. Babies optional

    In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.

    “The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive,” Coontz told LiveScience.

    5. Monogamy established

    Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries, Coontz said.

    “There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say ‘I can take a second wife,'” Coontz said.

    The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century.

    6. Monogamy lite

    Still, monogamous marriage was very different from the modern conception of mutual fidelity. Though marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the 19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs, Coontz said. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would be illegitimate, with no claim to the man’s inheritance.

    “Men’s promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy but tolerance — basically enabling — of informal promiscuity,” Coontz said.

    Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and censure.

    7. State or church?

    Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple’s word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

    8. Civil marriage

    In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.

  8. Posted: 1:54 p.m. Monday, Sept. 9, 2013

    Pilot program allowing fecal matter to remain on meat in US markets
    Program has failed worldwide

    By Rick Couri

    The pilot program and guidelines are meant to speed up the production time at meat plants nationwide.

    But using fewer USDA inspectors and faster lines have resulted in three of the five plants where the standards are being tested ranking as the worst in America.

    And we’re not just talking cutting corners here. Fecal matter has been found on the meat in all three.

    Workers say government inspectors did catch some of the bad pork at the end of the line but that’s considered too late.

    The Washington Post reports the industry will perform an analysis with the intention of expanding the findings to each of the 608 pork plants in the US.

    But some USDA inspectors who wouldn’t go on the record claims workers in the pilot plants were threatened if they make noise about the lack of oversight.

    Even more disturbing, the USDA has given the go-ahead to plants in Canada and Australia to use the same methods and then deliver that meat to the US.

    One representative for an Australian inspectors union said “tremendous amounts of fecal matter remain on the carcasses. Not small bits, but chunks.”

    http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/pilot-program-allowing-fecal-matter-remain-meat-us/nZq8L/

  9. Bob Kauten,

    Even the USDA has a limit on the amount of Bull$hit you can put out to the public. 🙂

    I think the govt’s position is 15% crap yet some of you people take your EBT cards down to the local Wally World & actually believe you’re getting a discount.

    Enjoy your restaurant meals as well & have some water.

  10. Oky1,

    Let’s see:

    Karl Rove, two shits, fools, slaughter, commie/nazi, head for the hills, guidance at no charge.

    I knew you’d live up to your moniker sooner or later.

  13. rafflaw,

    I’ve no reason to lie to you, but don’t trust me.

    Go do your own DD, research, for yourself.

    See what you find & act upon it.

    All I’m saying is I believe you have very little time to act to protect yourself & your friends.

    Seriously, my friends have given up on attempting to help those that are to lazy to help themselves.

    I fully understand their position as I’ve spent over a decade attempting guidance at no charge.

    Best of Luck Rafflaw, my charity has it’s limits.

  14. rafflaw,

    I suggest you google: Save my azz.Commie/Nazi

    You & your buds are completely out of time & up against exponential math.

    Your Commie/Nazi utopia fantasy isn’t happening & Obamacare just drove it off the phkin’ cliff!

    Dry out man, you need a few days of detox I’m thinking. I wish I was joking.

  15. rafflaw,

    Listen if you have ears,

    “”Friends far sharper the I have”” completed written you people off as zombies for the slaughter of the Neo Cons/Karl Rove,Ralph Reed types & their Obama buds. (NO JOKE!!! THEY”VE NOTHING TO SAY TO YOU PEOPLE & I will not link them to you.)

    The only reason I give 2 $hits is that you people are endangering my people, knock it off fools is all I’ve to say friend.

    Side bar: slaughter is an interesting word from the stand point without the S it’s Laughter dearest so U screwed ..,, 🙂

  17. They are federal benefits paid by the federal government. OK has made it a question of where they can pick up their checks. Why did Turley fail to mention it?
    Anyway…. Can’t pick up the checks at a state office – has to be at one of the federal forts. Another case of people acting like jerks. Guard members will have to travel greater distances in order to pick up checks. OKY posted correct info at 12:35.

  18. rafflaw,

    I’m not the guy against you!

    But you & your small group of camp followers are hurting my & OS’s efforts.

    You have no strategy & only bad tactics.

    I’m not saying this to harm you, but to hopeful help you, SM, Blouise, etc…,

    You guys fell good posting/harping your position, but you only enrage the opposition which in turn insure the re-(S) election of people like Sen Jim Inhofe, people that dislike you & your positions.

    And me, OS & our family & friends, all we get is more dirty Phkin Air, Water, Food, Vaz’s, etc….

    Stop playin their Blue team/Red team bull$hit game!

    Screw the electric car BS, get some solar/wind/forklift batteries backup for your homes/offices!

    Get your foolish butts outside the box trap you people are in, I & my friends don’t have the time to waste with your butts. My friends no longer even bother with your zombie Neo Con Bush/Obama types!!!

    Screw the Lying Polecat Aholes, beat them on your home turf! Just Phk’in Do IT!

    No hard feelings, I’m just saying.

  19. Which benefits are at issue?

    Federal benefits or state benefits?

    Federal benefits are, of course, a pure question of federal law.

    State benefits would be governed by state law- such as Oklahoma’s marriage amendment.

Comments are closed.