Comments on: My Response to the Lankford/Lamb Editorial On SQ790 https://bluecerealeducation.com/blog/my-response-lankfordlamb-editorial-sq790/ Sun, 04 Jun 2023 20:20:33 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.2 By: John Murphey https://bluecerealeducation.com/blog/my-response-lankfordlamb-editorial-sq790/comment-page-1/#comment-264 Thu, 03 Nov 2016 17:08:05 +0000 http://localhost:8888/bluecerealwp/blog/my-response-lankfordlamb-editorial-sq790/#comment-264 SQ 790
This purely partisan political position espoused by Mr. Langford and Mr. Lamb is full of issues and problems. My “NO” vote next Tuesday has absolutely nothing to do with not insuring religious liberty for our state, and everything to do with being a responsible Christian citizen of our great state. The editorial comments of these gentlemen are misleading at best, and clearly intended to appeal to the emotions of Christians, who are so rightfully alarmed at the direction our nation seems to be headed in attacking many of our constitutionally protected rights, particularly the ones found in the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Oklahomans need to understand that, with all due respect to Mr. Langford and Mr. Lamb, passing SQ 790 would be opening a Pandora’s box of problems that Oklahoma doesn’t need. Our religious liberties are guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, and applied to our state by the 5th and 14th Amemendments. We don’t need SQ 790 to help with those, and passing it would not be a responsible decision for our state.

]]> By: Bruce Prescott https://bluecerealeducation.com/blog/my-response-lankfordlamb-editorial-sq790/comment-page-1/#comment-263 Thu, 03 Nov 2016 11:29:22 +0000 http://localhost:8888/bluecerealwp/blog/my-response-lankfordlamb-editorial-sq790/#comment-263 SQ 790 & Blaine Amendment
U.S. Senator James Lankford and OK Lt. Governor Todd Lamb are encouraging Oklahomans to vote for SQ 790 because it repeals a Blaine Amendment inserted in the OK State Constitution in 1907. This proves that they are woefully ignorant about the issue they are supporting. Had they bothered to read the State Supreme Court decision that SQ 390 is trying to reverse, they would know that even the justices who dissented from the decision agreed that the language of the article in question had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. Here is a quote from Justice Combs dissenting opinion in the decision to deny the petition for a rehearing:

“¶11 Although initially raised on appeal in the Appellee’s answer brief, on rehearing the parties did not brief the issue of whether Okla. Const. art. 2, § 5 is a state Blaine Amendment; however, other Justices of this Court have addressed this issue. The Blaine Amendment was a failed 1870’s proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to bar aid to sectarian institutions. Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 828 (2000). The proposed amendment “arose at a time of pervasive hostility to the Catholic Church. and it was an open secret that ‘sectarian’ was code for ‘Catholic’. Mitchell, 530 U.S. at 828. This amendment would have applied almost exclusively to Catholic parochial schools. Id. at 829. The Appellee had previously cited a 2003 law review article written by Mark E. DeForrest, for the purpose of demonstrating, after the Blaine Amendment’s failure, states adopted similar provisions in their own constitutions.15

¶12 The parties have not cited any decision of this Court where we have referred to Okla. Const. art. 2, § 5 as an Oklahoma version of the Blaine Amendment or construed it so narrowly to only apply to sectarian institutions, or in other words, parochial schools. On this issue I would agree with the other Justices of this Court that Okla. Const. art. 2, § 5 is not Oklahoma’s version of a Blaine Amendment. The breadth and scope of Okla. Const. art. 2, § 5 differ significantly from the failed Blaine Amendment.”

Don’t take my word for this. See for yourself. Here’s a link to the OK Supreme’s decision: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=476438

]]>