"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/20/13, 11:56 AM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
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 servicemembers 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. 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.

Sounds like Oklahoma wanted to not break the law. Something you seem to
advocate.


Hey, if Oklahoma wants to **** over its Guard personnel, it's no skin off
my back. Perhaps the Feds should just withhold funding until the state
comes into compliance with federal law.

Love these backwards states...they're a shining example of what is wrong with America.


Right there is a prime example of our problems. Withhold funding. Why
there is little states rights anymore. And why the federal government is
so bloated!

On 11/20/13, 1:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/20/13, 11:56 AM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
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 servicemembers 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. 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.

Sounds like Oklahoma wanted to not break the law. Something you seem to
advocate.


Hey, if Oklahoma wants to **** over its Guard personnel, it's no skin off
my back. Perhaps the Feds should just withhold funding until the state
comes into compliance with federal law.

Love these backwards states...they're a shining example of what is wrong with America.


Right there is a prime example of our problems. Withhold funding. Why
there is little states rights anymore. And why the federal government is
so bloated!


States rights...a concept that should have been discarded generations
ago. And why don't you tell us what percentage of a state's National
Guard funding and materiel comes from the federal government?

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/20/13, 1:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/20/13, 11:56 AM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
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 servicemembers 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. 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.

Sounds like Oklahoma wanted to not break the law. Something you seem to
advocate.


Hey, if Oklahoma wants to **** over its Guard personnel, it's no skin off
my back. Perhaps the Feds should just withhold funding until the state
comes into compliance with federal law.

Love these backwards states...they're a shining example of what is wrong with America.


Right there is a prime example of our problems. Withhold funding. Why
there is little states rights anymore. And why the federal government is
so bloated!


States rights...a concept that should have been discarded generations
ago. And why don't you tell us what percentage of a state's National
Guard funding and materiel comes from the federal government?


States rights. From the first they were important. But to someone like
you who wants central control, I see where it is an anathema.

"F.O.A.D." wrote:


States rights...a concept that should have been discarded generations
ago.


Wow. What a concept!

Let's declare the Constitution as being unconstitutional, **** can it
and start all over. Our new "founding fathers" in DC should be able
to draft, debate and approve a new one in, oh ... about 100 years.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 20:31:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote:


States rights...a concept that should have been discarded generations
ago.


Wow. What a concept!

Let's declare the Constitution as being unconstitutional, **** can it
and start all over. Our new "founding fathers" in DC should be able
to draft, debate and approve a new one in, oh ... about 100 years.

I couldn't believe you let that hang out there as long as you did. In a pure 'union' of 'socialist'
states, as FOAD would like, there wouldn't be any of those miserable 'states rights'.

Utopia.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:34:59 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:22:15 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


States rights...a concept that should have been discarded generations
ago. And why don't you tell us what percentage of a state's National
Guard funding and materiel comes from the federal government?

That is one of the founding tenets of the Constitution. The framers
had a fear that big urban states would try to impose their will on
smaller rural states and that is why every state gets 2 senators and
why they have that representation in the Electoral College.
It is natural that those urban residents resent it.
Nobody is forcing people to live in Oklahoma, Mississippi or Alabama.
They can move to California or New York if they want and many have.

Most of them have much better sense.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On 11/20/13, 3:34 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:22:15 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


States rights...a concept that should have been discarded generations
ago. And why don't you tell us what percentage of a state's National
Guard funding and materiel comes from the federal government?

That is one of the founding tenets of the Constitution. The framers
had a fear that big urban states would try to impose their will on
smaller rural states and that is why every state gets 2 senators and
why they have that representation in the Electoral College.
It is natural that those urban residents resent it.
Nobody is forcing people to live in Oklahoma, Mississippi or Alabama.
They can move to California or New York if they want and many have.


You forgot it being used as a justification for segregation.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 11/20/13, 4:14 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:03:22 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 11/20/13, 3:34 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:22:15 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


States rights...a concept that should have been discarded generations
ago. And why don't you tell us what percentage of a state's National
Guard funding and materiel comes from the federal government?

That is one of the founding tenets of the Constitution. The framers
had a fear that big urban states would try to impose their will on
smaller rural states and that is why every state gets 2 senators and
why they have that representation in the Electoral College.
It is natural that those urban residents resent it.
Nobody is forcing people to live in Oklahoma, Mississippi or Alabama.
They can move to California or New York if they want and many have.


You forgot it being used as a justification for segregation.

That is not what we are talking about now though is it? Don't go all
"Kevin" on me.

Do you feel the same about the states with medical marijuana laws or
the states that defied DOMA when it was the federal law?
The 9th and 10h amendments clearly give the states and he people wide
latitude with any powers that are not granted to the federal
government by the Constitution.
That has been eroded constantly for the last 60 years.


Sure. Discrimination by gender is a form of segregation.

I proposed a solution. Withhold federal funds for Oklahoma's national
guard until it complies with federal regulations. Oklahoma can either
comply, fund its guard on its own, or disband its guard.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 11/20/13, 4:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:19:38 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

You forgot it being used as a justification for segregation.

That is not what we are talking about now though is it? Don't go all
"Kevin" on me.

Do you feel the same about the states with medical marijuana laws or
the states that defied DOMA when it was the federal law?
The 9th and 10h amendments clearly give the states and he people wide
latitude with any powers that are not granted to the federal
government by the Constitution.
That has been eroded constantly for the last 60 years.


Sure. Discrimination by gender is a form of segregation.

You really have to twist the definitions to get there.

If I was willing to do that much twisting I could easily get to
smokers rights


You probably could. I could not.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 11/20/13, 5:46 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:37:43 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

If I was willing to do that much twisting I could easily get to
smokers rights


You probably could. I could not.

I know, you, like most liberals, are very selective about which rights
you think are valid.


As long as I don't have to inhale the stench of smokers or what they
smoke...hey, let them kill themselves.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.