Via Raw Story and the New York Times we have yet another Oklahoma legislator publicly embarrassing the state by trying to permanently institutionalize legal discrimination in matters “regarding sex, gender or sexual orientation.” Here are the five things that devoutly bigoted Oklahomans won’t have to do for people against whom they would like discriminate on any of the abovementioned grounds:
1. Provide any services, accommodations, advantages,facilities, goods or privileges;
2. Provide counseling, adoption, foster care, and other social services;
3. Provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement;
4. Solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; or
5. Treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid.
I’m sort of taken aback at the fourth item in the list, since I’ve never heard of a private individual being forced to solemnize anything, ever. That is nothing compared to the first two items, though, which on their face would allow any private business to discriminate against either men or women on the basis of sex, in basically any area of life, so long as they can claim some religious justification.
What sort of man thinks it so vitally important to discriminate against people for their sex, gender, or sexual orientation? What sort of ideas are driving his anti-equality agenda? How did these Bronze Age notions of human sexuality make their way into the State Capitol? I have a working theory about what really makes the difference in Silk’s case, drawn from his campaign website:
Well, there you have it. He told the voters of Broken Bow that he would uncompromisingly pursue a faith-based approach to legislation, and unlike many politicians, he is following through on his ill-conceived promises.
