Btw - half of the numbers on the state of Oklahoma’s child protective services website don’t work, and DHS keeps losing a lot of sexual abuse cases…
“The Legislature has made it abundantly clear that sexually explicit performances have no place in public spaces, especially in front of children,” Daniels said. “Unfortunately, drag shows continue to spark controversy in Bartlesville and across the state, underscoring the need for further legal guidance.”
Hold up. Wait a minute. I thought that law was about keeping children safe from sexual stuff in public. Who could have possibly thought that they would conflate drag performances with sexually deviant acts, that must be outlawed in order to protect children. That is absolutely not what the law was intended for, right?
Bringing back obscenity laws surely won’t be used to criminalize wearing clothes that do not align with someone’s assigned sex at birth, right? Putting the now illegal trans people in prisons that correspond to a persons sex assigned at birth is not a threat to their safety, right? I thought it was about protecting women?? Stopping their access to hormone therapy, mental health services, and proper clothing while imprisoned surely is not a punishment for being an illegal person, right?
Banning trans health care for minors is only about protecting children as well, right? Surely they will not use that as a basis to prohibit trans health care for all trans people, right?
There’s no way any of this could be about erasing, and eventually cleansing, a minority population, right?
I think that Senator Julie Daniels does have a valid point. People of one gender wearing clothing traditionally worn by the other is prohibited in the Bible:
A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
I mean, that’s pretty explicit.
And I suppose that one could call exposing children to view of an adult doing so obscene. Maybe society would be best off if we jailed people with the temerity to do such things.
On an entirely-unrelated note, I see that in the article’s picture, the senator cuts quite a striking figure in her pantsuit and with her short hair.
Sen. Julie Daniels, R-Bartlesville, awaits votes on a veto override during the Senate session on Thursday, May 29, 2025. (Photo by Janelle Stecklein/Oklahoma Voice)
Ironic that all the paintings of Jesus show him with long hair.
That’s one butch-looking senator they’ve got there. And all decked-out in those eye-catching Satanic colors. The whole outfit looks 100% polyester “male-ordered” from a 1970s Sears catalog. Some kind of odd kink I guess, I’ll have to check Reddit for the explanation. No judgment from me, the 70s were weird fun.
The whole outfit looks 100% polyester
I would certainly hope so!
“‘Keep my decrees.
“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.
“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
Here’s a legal opinion. Keep your damn noses outta people’s legal entertainment
My legal opinion is they are FABULOUS!
I think it would be a hard case for a serious lawyer to make that a man wearing women’s clothing is obscene (or vice versa), seeing as PG rated movies have had men dressed as women for decades. That doesn’t mean the AG here won’t decree it, just that it should be easy to challenge in federal court.
Drummond wants the governors seat. Could be a good stunt to get the MAGA 15 minutes of fame.
