Wednesday, July 1, 2015
The media and activists are now claiming there is marriage equality. That is like saying there was freedom for all men in the early years of the United States. One of your calling points- the founders claim freedom but not for all. This is the same. You claim there is marriage equality – but it is only for the privileged.
There are millions born with a proclivity for multiple spouses. However, I did not see anyone marching and calling for equality for bigamist marriage. Where is their equality? Bigaphobes!
There are millions who are born with an affinity for tweens. Where is the equality for the 40 year old wanting to marry their 13 year old consensual lover? Where are the people enabling the love of a 14 and 12 year old that were born with a higher maturity than average and wish to only express their love in matrimony?Where is their equality? Pediphobes!
Equality in marriage? I hardly think so. Is equality special privileges for a few while the people you decide are not “normal” are left out of society? If so then you have marital equality.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Friday, April 24, 2015
School employees will soon be protected from liability for acting in their official duty at school functions under legislation signed into law Tuesday. Senate Bill 5, by retired educator Sen. Ron Sharp and Rep. Josh Cockroft, will provide immunity from liability for teachers and other school employees for use of necessary and reasonable force to control and discipline a student during any authorized school function.
“This bill is about keeping both students and school employees safe. When there’s an altercation, be it in a classroom or other school function, school employees should be able to do whatever is necessary to stop it. Sometimes, physical restraint of a student is required to calm the individual down and stop the fight,” said Sharp, R-Shawnee. “Unfortunately, because of fear of lawsuits, some school employees won’t get involved but will simply call for help allowing more time to pass and the fight to escalate, which can be extremely dangerous for everyone involved. This bill will allow school employees to use reasonable force to stop an altercation without fear of being sued by the kids’ family.”
SB 5 provides liability protection to school employees for the use of necessary and reasonable force to control and discipline a student during school hours, in transit to or from the school, or any other function authorized by the school district.
The new law will go into effect November 1, 2015.
Sens. Anthony Sykes and Dan Newberry Wednesday said the Legislature has acted to protect religious liberty with the passage of Senate Bill 788 and House Bill 1007. Authored by Newberry, SB 788 would prevent any church or clergyman from being required to solemnize a marriage in violation of his or her right to the free exercise of religion as protected under the First Amendment.
Newberry said the passage of SB 788 marked an important victory for clergy members.
“This legislation will ensure that clergy members are not forced to act in violation of their religious beliefs or conscience,” said Newberry, R-Tulsa. “Given the decision of the Supreme Court not to take up our appeal of a lower court’s ruling on our ban on same-sex marriage, it was critical that the Legislature take action this session to defend religious liberty. With the passage of these two bills, we have fulfilled our promise to protect religious liberty in Oklahoma.”
Sykes, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, praised passage of the measures, saying the Legislature has taken strong action to protect members of the clergy. Both bills were heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“The Senate remains dedicated to supporting and defending the rights of clergy members,” said Sykes, R-Moore. “Senate Bill 788 and House Bill 1007 provide meaningful protections and affirm our commitment to defending religious liberty.”
Rap. David Brumbaugh, author of HB 1007, said the measures were critical for protecting clergy members.
“HB 1007 precludes pastors or religious officials from violating their conscience or religious beliefs to solemnize or recognize a marriage that violates their beliefs. With 66 lawsuits nationwide pastors are rightfully concerned about civil claims or cause of action for public accommodation.”
Rep. John Echols, House sponsor of SB 788, said he was pleased by the approval of both measures.
“The passage of these laws sends a clear message that the Legislature has acted to protect religious liberty. I am pleased we were able to pass legislation to implement meaningful protections for members of the clergy.
The House of Representative approved SB 788 by a vote of 87-8. House Bill 1007 includes language similar to SB 788 and was approved in the Senate by a vote of 38-5.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
A measure filed Wednesday in the Senate will help ensure that the visitation rights of law-abiding noncustodial parents are protected. Sen. Ron Sharp filed Senate Bill 1612 after visiting with attorneys and community leaders from around the state and learning about the growing problem of noncustodial parents being denied their visitation rights by bitter custodial parents.
“We have noncustodial parents who are paying their child support and doing everything else the court ordered them to do but the custodial parents are still not allowing them to see their children because of past animosities. Just as noncustodial parents can be punished for not paying their child support, we need to hold custodial parents responsible for honoring court ordered visitation,” said Sharp, R-Shawnee. “While these custodial parents may think they’re hurting the other parent, they’re really only hurting their children. This is wrong and has to be stopped.”
Sharp pointed out that nearly every District Attorney’s office in the state now has a division completely dedicated to securing child support payments from noncustodial parents. Those who do not pay their child support face imprisonment and fines. However, there has hardly been any effort to protect the visitation rights of noncustodial parents.
SB 1612 would require the custodial parent to provide the noncustodial parent, who is current on child support, the court ordered visitation schedule. Offenders would face a fine. The legislation would also create a form that noncustodial parents could fill out at their local courthouse informing the district court that their visitation rights have been denied by the custodial parent.
The bill is coauthored by House Assistant Majority Whip and family law attorney Rep. Jon Echols who has seen firsthand how many noncustodial parents are not able to see their children because they simply cannot afford the legal expenses to fight for their visitation rights.
“One of the major problems facing many noncustodial parents is that after paying all of their support obligations they cannot afford an attorney to secure their visitation rights when the custodial parent has violated the schedule,” said Echols, R-Oklahoma City. “This bill would allow the noncustodial parent to directly file a claim to the District Court, similar to completing a small claims form. The court would then decide whether or not an attorney is necessary to restore the visitation rights. We must protect children, and that includes being able to see both of their parents.”
SB 1612 would also require that future divorce decrees define the penalty should the custodial parent deny the visitation rights of the noncustodial parent. The decree would also explain that the custodial parent must show cause as to why the visitation schedule was violated.
“This bill is an effort to ensure that both parents are involved in the child’s life regardless of the circumstances of the divorce. While a marriage may not last forever, these individuals will be parents for the rest of their lives, and their children need them,” said Sharp.
The bill reportedly has the support of numerous district attorneys, family law attorneys and community leaders from around the state.
A Colorado woman says she did the only thing that she felt would save his life: breastfeeding the sickly pup from her own breast when the puppy refused to eat anything.
“I just felt like he just had an hour left. That’s how weak he was, he wasn’t moving and I just did it,” the woman, whose identity has not been revealed, told local news outlet KRDO-TV of her decision to breastfeed the dog. "I
didn’t know what else to do, I was desperate and I just couldn’t bear sitting there watching it die."
According to KRDO, is the runt of a litter of orphaned pups that the woman fostered. She has a 15-month-old child and admits that she felt "weird" about breastfeeding the dog, but she insists that the puppy would've died had she not taken action. The puppy is reportedly now doing much better and is no longer being breastfed.
A photograph of the puppy suckling on the woman's breast has been making the rounds on the Internet after the woman posted the picture on her personal Facebook page with an explanation of why she chose to breastfeed the dog.
While many netizens wondered why the woman didn't rush the pup to a vet before choosing to breastfeed it, some leapt to her defense. "I think it's great she did that to save the puppy, why not?" wrote a commenter on KRDO's website.
This isn't the first time that a breastfed dog has made headlines. In 2012, mother of two Terri Graham told U.K.'s Closer magazine that she had been regularly breastfeeding her daughter's dog, Spider, for the past two years.
"Having Spider suckle on my boob means I finally feel complete and a better mother," she told the magazine.
We are coming to the time of year employers may be receiving an increased number of resumes or job applications from recent graduates who are still looking for their first job out of college or even high school. While they bring many positive attributes to the workforce such as technologically savvy, confidence, and have high expectations, there are negative stereotypes associated with the group as well.
While The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) clearly states that you may discriminate against younger age. While it unlawful for you to “discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.”, it is important to note that only workers who are at least 40 years old are allowed to file a claim under the ADEA.
The Supreme Court’s February 2004 decision in General General Dynamics Land Sys., Inc. v. Cline was a stunning legal development in that it allowed the discrimination of younger employees. The Court observed that “if Congress had been worrying about protecting the younger against the older, it would not likely have ignored everyone under forty.”
Writing for the majority, Justice Souter explained that while the ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges
of employment, because of such individual’s age,” the word “age” can have two meanings. “Age” can either refer to any number of years lived, or it can be regarded as common shorthand for old age. The majority concluded that “age” had the latter meaning in the context of the ADEA’s prohibition against age discrimination. Therefore, it did not prohibit discrimination against the young.
Justice Scalia dissented on the grounds that the word “age” was ambiguous, and the Court should defer to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s understanding, which was that the ADEA barred
employers from making any age-based employment decisions.
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Kennedy, dissented separately, stating that “age” was not ambiguous and clearly was not intended to mean “old age.”