The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

13 March 2005

Worst bill of 2005

The session isn't over yet, but I can't imagine anyone coming up with anything more asinine than this. Witness HR 1746, by Dan Sullivan (R-Tulsa):

SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 3119 of Title 74, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

Any agency or governmental entity of this state that develops and implements a nondiscriminatory policy based on sexual preference shall be null and void.

SECTION 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2005.

Two possibilities:

1) Sullivan didn't realize that the text as written calls for the outright abolition of any such "agency or governmental entity";

2) He did realize that.

Either way, it's the sort of thing that makes you wonder if Sullivan was always this stupid, or if he had to train for it. No wonder the Tulsa World has such dripping contempt for the electorate: they vote for people like Sullivan.

Matt Deatherage has much, much more. Incidentally, this thing passed the House in its original form 65-28; there being only 57 Republicans in the House, somehow at least eight Democrats got sucked, so to speak, into voting for it. What were they thinking?

(With thanks to Matthew.)

Posted at 8:00 PM to Soonerland

Now if only someone would amend it to add, "...and any agency or governmental entity of this state that does not develop or implement a nondiscriminatory policy based on sexual preference shall likewise be null and void."

Though which is the baby and which the bath, I'll leave to others to decide.

Posted by: McGehee at 8:18 PM on 13 March 2005

Undoubtedly we have rather a large number of superfluous agencies. Sullivan's obvious target, though, was Oklahoma County, which posted a nondiscrimination policy last year, impelling two of the County Commissioners to abolish the county's Budget Board as some sort of punishment. Given the spectacularly corrupt record of Commissioners in this state, I would have thought badly of this move regardless of what I thought of the county's LGBT policy.

A neighbor of mine was at the vote on this measure, and posted this reaction.

Posted by: CGHill at 8:58 PM on 13 March 2005

Actually, they amended it on the floor before it passed, but it did come up for debate with the language above - and with four co-authors for the bad version.

And the original author is a lawyer.

God save this honorable state.

Posted by: Matt at 10:18 PM on 13 March 2005