• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mary Fallin blocks same-sex benefits

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
States with constitutional amendment banning gay marriage......We shall see if the SCOTUS takes up the appeal that is sure to come......I don't believe the Court will touch it with a 10 foot.........Its called states rights.
 
States with constitutional amendment banning gay marriage......We shall see if the SCOTUS takes up the appeal that is sure to come......I don't believe the Court will touch it with a 10 foot.........Its called states rights.

Why do you hate our troops? I wonder how you would react if some one made it harder for you to get your military benefits just to score political points with a few people...
 
Why do you hate our troops? I wonder how you would react if some one made it harder for you to get your military benefits just to score political points with a few people...

I follow the law...so will the SCOTUS.........that has nothing to do with hating anyone....
 
I follow the law...so will the SCOTUS.........that has nothing to do with hating anyone....

The law is these service members are entitled to benefits. Do you approve of making it harder for service members to get their benefits?
 
The law is these service members are entitled to benefits. Do you approve of making it harder for service members to get their benefits?

Not in the states that have a constitutional amendment . I love my shipmates but like all Americans they must obey the law...........Are you for breaking the law?
 
Not in the states that have a constitutional amendment . I love my shipmates but like all Americans they must obey the law...........Are you for breaking the law?

State law cannot deny federal benefits, nor is she trying to. She is simply making it harder for them to get their benefits. Applying for the benefits you are entitled to is not against the law, nor is any one claiming it is, except you since apparently you have not actually read about what you ate talking about.
 
State law cannot deny federal benefits, nor is she trying to. She is simply making it harder for them to get their benefits. Applying for the benefits you are entitled to is not against the law, nor is any one claiming it is, except you since apparently you have not actually read about what you ate talking about.

SSM is not universal. In fact there are only 13 blue states that allow it. As much as you want to redress you can't pick and choose the laws you want to obey......as I said the SCOTUS does not like to interfere in state issues.....You have all the blue states your going to get. Live with it.
 
SSM is not universal. In fact there are only 13 blue states that allow it. As much as you want to redress you can't pick and choose the laws you want to obey......as I said the SCOTUS does not like to interfere in state issues.....You have all the blue states your going to get. Live with it.

You might want to read your source article. All she blocked is guardsman applying for federal benefits they are entitled to at state guard bases. All she is accomplishing is making it harder for our service people. These people are legally married according to federal law and applying for federal benefits. Again, read your source article.
 
SSM is not universal. In fact there are only 13 blue states that allow it. As much as you want to redress you can't pick and choose the laws you want to obey......as I said the SCOTUS does not like to interfere in state issues.....You have all the blue states your going to get. Live with it.

Did you even read the post you quoted? Because you didn't address it in the least.

They're entitled to those benefits because they are Federal benefits. It doesn't matter what your state says.
 
States with constitutional amendment banning gay marriage......We shall see if the SCOTUS takes up the appeal that is sure to come......I don't believe the Court will touch it with a 10 foot.........Its called states rights.

If we strip the CONvoluted right wing spin out of this My Governor has not blocked same sex marriage benefits in the NATIONAL Guard. She simply bars STATE offices from processing same sex benefits requests. A grand total of TWO(2) were processed prior to the ban.

OKNG soldiers can still go to Tinker, Altus, or Vance AFBs, or to Ft.Sill Army Post for IDs and paperwork processing. The way it worked in my day the NG had to go to Ft.Sill in SW OK to get IDs, medical and paperwork done anyways.

Same Sex Marriage NG soldiers will receive their FEDERAL Benefits no matter what my governor says.

How did the 'state right' to have slavery turn out? Since then our government doesn't put state over national- yes it will be interesting to see what the future holds...
 
You might want to read your source article. All she blocked is guardsman applying for federal benefits they are entitled to at state guard bases. All she is accomplishing is making it harder for our service people. These people are legally married according to federal law and applying for federal benefits. Again, read your source article.
She followed the Oklahoma law......You should read it.
 
No, what you are arguing for is called, "state rights for the times that it suits me."

You don't know me I am for a small Federal Gov. and all state rights that are law and this clearly is.............
 
You don't know me I am for a small Federal Gov. and all state rights that are law and this clearly is.............

Is that why you were for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage because other states were legalizing it?
 
You don't know me I am for a small Federal Gov. and all state rights that are law and this clearly is.............

Ummm...you supported DOMA. That makes what you say here a lie.
 
Is that why you were for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage because other states were legalizing it?
No red states and in most of the blue states where its legal it was done by activist judges and not the will of the people.
 
States with constitutional amendment banning gay marriage......We shall see if the SCOTUS takes up the appeal that is sure to come......I don't believe the Court will touch it with a 10 foot.........Its called states rights.

That argument falls apart when you consider precedent is being set that declares those bans unconstitutional. But you spiteful hatred of gays is noticed and how you wish to hurt those who serve our country has also been noted. But hey, maybe we should support taking your benefits away until every member of the military gets the same ones, and that includes gays.
 
No red states and in most of the blue states where its legal it was done by activist judges and not the will of the people.

Ah, so here's a problem. You advocated for a Constitutional amendment which would deny that right of the states to decide in favor of gay marriage as well. You would prevent "the will of the people" at the state level at the very least.
 
That argument falls apart when you consider precedent is being set that declares those bans unconstitutional. But you spiteful hatred of gays is noticed and how you wish to hurt those who serve our country has also been noted. But hey, maybe we should support taking your benefits away until every member of the military gets the same ones, and that includes gays.
No state with a ban have had it overturned.......Only the SCOTUS can do that and they won't touch it.
 
Ah, so here's a problem. You advocated for a Constitutional amendment which would deny that right of the states to decide in favor of gay marriage as well. You would prevent "the will of the people" at the state level at the very least.



THe states already decided by voting for and amendment........Even you know that.
 
THe states already decided by voting for and amendment........Even you know that.

And what of those states that did not, and in fact voted in favor of gay marriage? What of those that have yet to decide, or could overturn their state amendments? The use of the federal government is a means to prevent that from happening, yes?
 
No red states and in most of the blue states where its legal it was done by activist judges and not the will of the people.

That's not even true any more. The majority of states who have it either voted on it or had it enacted by their legislature. And at the very least all the states except Iowa who had it implemented by judges favor it now anyway.
 
No state with a ban have had it overturned.......Only the SCOTUS can do that and they won't touch it.

Actually, california had a ban and it's state judicial overturned it. The supreme court wouldn't touch it because no one had standing to fight for the ban since the state would not fight for it. If you have a state that is willing to fight for it SCOTUS will touch it. In the end since precedent is set and the language was set in place to call it unconstitutional we already know that decision is coming when it does get there.

You can cheer for the small victories of spiteful denial of equal rights to gays, but slowly the courts will iron out any loopholes and each one of those victories will turn into defeat for you. So cheer now because we all know later we will be laughing as people like you get personally offended as the courts keep stepping on your ability to discriminate.
 
Back
Top Bottom