by moc
In 1982 the Oklahoma Legislature saw fit to vote down the Equal Rights Amendment. The entire text of the ERA is: “Equal Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged, by the United States or any state on account of sex.” Not too radical, is it? What a breathtaking disregard for women’s rights it was, what a slap in the face, to vote against the ERA.
In April of 2004, the Oklahoma legislature again stepped up to the plate and hit a home run for hatred, bigotry, fear, meanness, small-mindedness, and provincialism. Having denied a constitutional amendment to extend rights to all people, they have now, twenty-two years later, voted for a constitutional amendment that will severely limit the rights of a large number of people. Here’s the language of the Ballot Question for the Mean, Selfish Amendment, aka the Marriage Protection Amendment:
“This measure adds a new section of law to the Constitution. It adds Section 35 to Article 2. It defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. It prohibits giving the benefits of marriage to people who are not married. It provides that same sex marriages in other states are not valid in this state. It makes issuing a marriage license in violation of this section a misdemeanor.”
This amendment even prohibits civil unions, which bestow at least a few of the many rights and responsibilities of marriage. It is just pure meanness - mean as in small, mean as in cruel. And in an absolute wallow of self-loathing, cowardice, internalized homophobia and sexism, there were women in 1982 who voted against the ERA, and there are glbt members of this legislature who voted for today’s amendment. Shame on them.
There were just eleven members who voted against the amendment. In the House, Representatives Opio Toure, Judy Eason McIntyre, Darrell Gilbert, and M.C. Leist, voted against it. If you feel inclined to thank them for their vote, the House switchboard is 405/521-2711, or you can email them using their last name and the first two letters of their first name; @state.ok.us; for instance gilbertda@state.ok.us .
In the upper chamber, Senators Maxine Horner, Bernest Cain, Cal Hobson, Dick Wilkerson, Penny Williams, Angela Monson and Ben Robinson voted against it. The Senate switchboard is 405/524- 0126; their emails: Lastname@state.ok.us, for instance, monson@state.ok.us. It is good but not surprising to note that a disproportionately large number of women and African-Americans legislators voted against the bill.
There will be a massive effort put forth on both sides of this proposed Amendment in the next six months. GLBT groups will be raising money for advertisements and commercials, doing voter registration, getting out the vote, and raising issues like these for the voters to think about:
• First you brand us as promiscuous and now you tell us you won’t let us get married?
• Are heteros being a little bit selfish here?
• How in the name of heaven can it matter to a heterosexual couple if their glbt neighbors have the same 1,300-plus rights and responsibilities and protections of marriage that they do?
• Why does it matter to Adam and Eve if Adam and Steve’s children have the same right to child support that little Cain and Abel have?
• Do they know the story of the dog in the manger? Are they proud to act that way?
• If they want to be biblically correct, why don’t they define marriage as being between one man and one woman, one time, for life? That’s biblical!
• If marriage is for procreation, why do we let old geezers get married? And why do we let married couples use birth control?
• Why would anyone fear that their church would be forced to perform gay weddings if they don’t want to - no one today can force a Catholic church to marry divorced people, for instance, or an Orthodox Synagogue to marry couples outside their faith.
• Sanctity of marriage? Please let’s get real.
Marrying for a million dollars on television (or in real life?) Britney Spears and her 36-hour marriage, this is sacred? Liz Taylor and her eight marriages? And let’s not even go to the divorce record and fooling around of our legislators and other elected officials - at least not unless we get it all documented.
• If you won’t let us get married, can we take like ten or twenty percent off our taxes, since we won’t get the same benefit from taxes that married folks can get?
• Is the pursuit of happiness for heterosexuals only? Are we going to use our constitution to restrict rather than expand the rights of our citizens? Or are we the land of the free and equal, and lovers of liberty?
• If we’re married to a man and our husband dies, do we really have to marry his brother?