By Constitution Staff

There has for some time been a question in my mind about what business the State has in requiring a license for a couple to be married. This has become even more a question with the proliferation in recent years of two individuals of the same sex demanding the "right" to obtain a marriage license and claim "marriage" status. Numerous law suits have been filed and questionable judicial decisions issued striking down State Constitutional laws passed by overwhelming majority of those voting stipulating that "marriage" is between one man and one woman.

It is my understanding that "marriage" has historically been a religious joining of a man and a woman and that the "state" did not become involved. Under those conditions the church under which umbrella a marriage occurred issued a certificate and/or made entries in church records and in a family Bible. That being the situation, it seems to me that the involvement of States in demanding that a license, with a fee and perhaps other requirements such as blood tests, be obtained before a couple could be married. On further thought, it follows that the purpose of requiring a license is just another way to obtain funds, thus it is a tax imposed.

Some states have gone further to require additional actions, such as blood tests, and now it is reported that there is a proposal in Colorado to require a ten hour marriage course for first time couples, with a twenty hour course if one has been divorced once, thirty hours if divorced twice, and so on. This seems to me to be overkill and an intrusion on the "rights" of the couple and an additional expense. In proposing such a bill, the argument is made that there is such a high divorce rate and it increases with those who have been through a divorce already. This appears to be a reaction to circumstances rather than a logical decision because the divorce rate soared after the conditions for divorce were radically lowered with the "no fault" divorce laws.

In the winter issue of the Oklahoma Constitution, there appeared an opinion column by Mr. Richard Engle which suggests that the State should get out of the marriage license business. If accomplished, such action would negate all those lawsuits being filed by same sex "couples" demanding marriage licenses and marriage. After all, everyone would then be on the same level, from a legal standpoint, and their claim would become moot.

Mr. Engle is the former President of the NFRA (National Federation of Republican Assemblies, a conservative activist organization) whose acquaintance with me dates to the early part of 2007. In a telephone conversation on January 30, he informed me that the State of Maryland was the last of the contiguous 48 to pass a marriage license law, and that was in 1935.

It is my contention that the implementation of a requirement for a license to be married was primarily to establish another way to raise "taxes" and to gain another way to control the lives of the citizens. Evidence of that was in recent decades a proposed bill to end the existence of the so-called "Common Law Marriage." This was where if a couple lived openly together for a set period of time, usually six months, or in some states introduced each other as "husband or wife" they were considered to be "married" for legal purposes. Information given to me indicates that the bill did not come out of the Legislature.

In any event, the opinion column of Mr. Engle serves to provide some food for thought and, if implemented would return the decision to the individual churches or denominations.

Robert W. McDowell, Jr.

Broken Arrow, OK

Why Another Flat Tax?

Why is it when we hear about tax reform we hear all about "a flat tax." What is it about a flat tax that is so appealing? I look at the flat tax bill in Congress and I see about ten co-sponsors. I look at history and see we've already done the flat tax thing. I look at the wording and it is just changing the tax rates but keep all the power in Washington and the government in my pay check before I even get to see my money. If it's so appealing to you, why no support? I talk to other people and they all say "we need a flat tax" but when I push them on "why" I get nothing but "well its better." How is it better? What changes?

I look at other tax reform bills and I see over 70 co-sponsors, but no one in congress talking about it. One bill called "The Fair Tax Act" lets you earn, save, invest and keep all of your money free of federal taxes and you only pay taxes when you spend above the poverty level. It's progressive, so the poor aren't hurt; its revenue neutral, so no one can complain about cutting programs; and it grows the economy without the need for government to do anything, except pass it and get out of the way. So I ask you…why in the heck do you want another flat tax?

Tony Leach

Oklahoma City, OK

UN Agenda 21 Destroying Rural Oklahoma

Let's start with a very honest and direct question, "how many gamecock farmers in Oklahoma should be killed by government agents defending chickens?"

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is one of the Non-Government Organizations (NGO's) that are attempting to institute the unconstitutional policies of UN Agenda 21 which are all based on the "New Age Movement's" ideology which is a satanic cult that practices paganism -- earth and animal worship.

UN Agenda 21 is a 340 page document making suggested policies based on communist control mechanisms encouraging every government around the world to institute these pagan ideologies.

As our government officials institute and/or support these policies in America, it means our government officials are destroying the Constitution of the United States as the governing document of America which protects our God given rights as they replace our Constitution with the individual animal worshiping pagan policies taken from the UN Agenda 21 Charter.

The HSUS's role in the UN Agenda 21 plan is to attack our animal agriculture industries, to vilify, demonize and denigrate America's farmers and ranchers through false propaganda promoted through public media based on emotional responses to sensationalized and over dramatic claims of animal neglect and abuse. Then use this false propaganda to institute policies that drive up the cost of animal production and destroy entire animal agriculture industries and the lives of America's farmers and ranchers.

God gave man dominion over animals, fish and fowl, our U.S. Constitution guarantees that all men are created equal and that one man cannot deprive another of the unalienable rights that are derived from God. Attempting to enact these types of unconstitutional laws is a direct attempt to separate Americans from our constitutionally protected rights and move animals, fish and fowl to a level of higher importance than our God given unalienable rights. This then becomes a violation of our 1st amendment rights as our government strips Americans of our God given dominion over the animals that we own as the government attempts to institute the satanic animal worshiping pagan ideology enforced through the control mechanisms of the communist UN Agenda 21 plan.

This is exactly the attack that the HSUS has conducted against America's gamecock farmers for many decades attempting to criminalize the Gamecock harvest industry. What is the purpose of this law? If the purpose is to protect a chicken -- the law is unconstitutional because the government "cannot prove a significant governmental interest" in protecting a chicken or any animal (property) from the owner of the animal (property).

Since the government cannot prove a significant governmental interest in protecting chickens from their owners this law therefore becomes a civil rights violation of providing one class of citizen "urban" a direct government enforced advantage over another citizen "rural".

Misguided urban voters fell for the lies of the New Agers with the satanic animal worshiping cult (HSUS) and voted to institute paganism in Oklahoma by passing an unconstitutional law.

This unconstitutional law deprives the gamecock farmer of their private property rights just as passing the equivalent law making it a felony to own and possess beef cattle for the purpose and/or intent of slaughter (harvest) against the cattle ranchers would be unconstitutionally depriving Oklahoma's cattle ranchers of their private property rights.

This then becomes a violation of the 5th amendment (an illegal taking of property) and a violation of the equal protection clause under the 14th amendment.

Enforcement of these unconstitutional laws becomes violations of the 4th and 8th amendment rights of the gamecock farmers being subjugated by these unconstitutional laws.

The enforcement of any law creates situations where government agents will rip families' apart, point guns at people, and may hurt, cripple and even kill people to force the people into compliance with the issue the law is meant to address. Now I'll ask again how many gamecock farmers in Oklahoma should be killed by government agents defending chickens?

B.L. Cozad, Jr

Indiahoma, OK