The last time we really covered Oklahoma State Rep Josh Cockroft was when the Batman impersonator introduced legislation to wipe out the arts in Oklahoma. Knowing that, I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that he apparently steals other people's thoughts and words and tries to pass them off as his own.
Yesterday, an Ogle Mole alerted me to a recent blog post that Cockroft published under his own name on his website titled "The Case For Traditional Marriage."
Here's the intro:
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal to a federal district court’s earlier ruling, essentially removing Oklahoma’s ban on homosexual marriage.
I, as well as multiple other state officials, immediately expressed my outrage to the blatant disregard of the very moral fibers upon which this country was founded and for the gross overreach of the federal judicial system. In an issue which boils down to state's rights, three individuals in a federal district court overturned what 1.1 million people stated in defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
I have spent the last several days stating and restating my personal opinion, but for this column, I want to take a step back and look at this issue from a practical standpoint, ask a few questions and provide answers on this important issue.
What is marriage, why does traditional marriage matter for public policy, and what would be the consequences of redefining marriage?
Yes, those are interesting questions. In fact, they are so interesting that Ryan T. Anderson with the Heritage Foundation asked the same exact questions in his 2013 article "Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage" and abstract "Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It?"