UPDATE: Controversial bill targeting same-sex couples in Oklahoma passes committee

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

UPDATE: A controversial bill that has gained national attention passed a committee, making it one step closer to becoming law.

The Judiciary and Civil Procedure Committee passed House Bill 1599, which would create the ‘Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act.’

The bill was approved 5 to 3 by the committee, made up of Oklahoma representatives.

Rep. Kevin Calvey, Rep. Jon Echols, Rep. Randy Grau, Rep. Chris Kannady and Rep. Mark McCullough all voted in favor of the bill.

Rep. Richard Morrissette, Rep. Ben Sherrer and Rep. Emily Virgin all voted against the bill.

 

OKLAHOMA CITY – An Oklahoma lawmaker has proposed a controversial bill that targets same-sex marriage.

Rep. Sally Kern is known for her staunch stance on gay marriage.

Last year, same-sex marriage was legalized in Oklahoma after the state’s constitutional amendment that banned it was challenged.

Now, Kern has filed several bills that take aim at the decision to legalize gay marriage.

Rep. Sally Kern proposed House Bill 1599, which would create the ‘Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act.’

The bill would make it illegal for any state employee, including judges, to recognize same-sex marriages in the state.

The act would prohibit “public funds for any activity licensing or supporting same-sex marriage.”

The bill states that no “taxpayer funds or governmental salaries” should be paid for licensing or support of same-sex marriage.

It would also forbid “public employees from recognizing same-sex marriage licenses” and prohibit public funds being spent to “enforce certain court orders.”

“No employee of this state and no employee of any local governmental entity shall officially recognize, grant or enforce a same-sex marriage license and continue to receive a salary, pension or other employee benefit at the expense of taxpayers of this state,” it reads.

The bill would also direct state courts to dismiss challenges to the act and prohibit interference with the “implementation of the act.”

It says that if an employee interferes with the law, they will no longer “receive a salary, pension or other employee benefit at the expense of taxpayers of this state.”

If a judge violates this act, the judge will be removed from office.

See a mistake? Report a typo here.