[...]here are a couple of listings to internet sites that we link to because we believe these are well worth browsing[...]…

The penalties found in Title 43, Section 14 of Oklahoma Statutes states that the penalties only apply to those circumstances contained in that chapter of the statutes. The vote of the people that dealt with same-sex marriage is found in the constitution. Since the penalties are specifically limited to those circumstances listed in Title 43 it could not be tied to circumstances addressed outside of Title 43.

The reason I requested a Title 43 bill is because I have been working with child support services at DHS and wanted to have a bill ready in the event legislation was needed. I was the House author of SB1126 last session which was passed and signed by the Governor. SB1126 was an attempt to keep parents from falling further and further behind in paying child support. If there turns out to be a problem with SB1126 I have a shell bill I could use this session to correct the problem if needed.

Late last year I asked House legal staff to prepare 18 shell bills including HB3408 by giving them a list of Titles of Statute or topics to draft the shell. If I want to add substantive language to a shell bill the language must be relevant to either the Title of Statute or topic contained in the shell bill I want to use. In other words, I could not put substantive child support language in HB3405 regarding elections.

Regardless, if my explanations have not been truthful what purpose would it serve to run a bill that only swaps one word for a synonym? What purpose would it serve to run a bill that contains language already in the law? How could Section 14 which was written in 1910 at the same time the restrictions listed in that same chapter of Title 43 address same-sex marriage? Same-sex marriage was not a hot political topic in 1910.

(The strike-through and underline formating is not showing-up in the following example bills but you can go to http://www.lsb.state.ok.us to look them up)

Here is the language in HB3401 which I introduced as a shell bill: “Section 21. It is hereby declared [to be] unlawful for any person or persons to mutilate, deface, mar or in any other way to damage the walls or other parts of the State Capitol Building.”

Here is the language of HB3404: “SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law not to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes reads as follows: This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Criminal Procedure Review Act of 2010″.”

Here is the language from HB3405: “SECTION 2. AMENDATORY 26 O.S. 2001, Section 2-106, is amended to read as follows: Section 2-106. The State Election Board shall perform (such) [the] duties as [may be] prescribed by law.”

These are three examples of shell bills out of the 18 shell bills I filed. Why is the Democrat party not up in arms because a Republican is amending the election laws? Because they understand two things. First, they can see that the amendments contained in HB3405 don’t change the meaning of the law, only the style. Second, they understand and recognize this as a shell bill.

I wouldn’t be surprised by all of this if I were actually doing something that would affect you and the numerous other people that have had such a strong reaction – many of whom have resorted to personal attacks on someone they don’t know over something that doesn’t exist. I’m being up-front about this and I’m not sure what else there is to say about this legislation to clarify the situation. I’ve provide information that anybody could verify with a little research and a conversation with someone at the Capitol they trust.

If I’m understanding you correctly, this statute does not specifically pertain to the same-sex marriage ban, which is addressed elsewhere. Are you saying then, that this language somehow does not apply to the same-sex marriage law passed by the state more recently? If so, why would it not apply?

I sincerely appreciate you being so responsive and taking the time to try to clear this up with us, by the way.

As this bill is a shell bill I was not familiar with the existing statute and therefore asked House legal staff to provide information about what Title 43, Sec. 14 relates to. I have included information based on their report to me.

First, the existing statutory language in the bill does not address same sex marriage. The language you suggest I’m attempting to pass has actually been in the Oklahoma Statutes since 1910.

Second, the current state law found in shell bill HB3408 addresses the following circumstances, “Marriages between ancestors and descendants of any degree, of a stepfather with a stepdaughter, stepmother with stepson, between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews, except in cases where such relationship is only by marriage, between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and first cousins are declared to be incestuous, illegal and void, and are expressly prohibited.” (Title 43, Sec. 2)

Additionally, current law addresses, “…no person under the age of eighteen … years shall enter into the marriage relation, nor shall any license issue therefor, except … upon the consent and authority expressly given by the parent or guardian ….” (Title 43, Sec. 3) Also, in section 3, “Every person under the age of sixteen … years is expressly forbidden and prohibited from entering into the marriage relation ….”

Section 3C of the 1910 law also states, “No marriage may be authorized when such marriage would be incestuous under this chapter.”

Section 4 of the 1910 law further states, “No person shall enter into or contract the marriage relation, nor shall any person perform or solemnize the ceremony of any marriage in this state without a license being first issued by the judge or clerk of the district court….”

Third, the 1910 text found in HB3408 makes clear that it is only concerned with this “chapter” of Title 43 for which I have included the relevant language above. The prohibition of same-sex marriage passed by a vote of the people is not included in this title or section of statute.

Please take the time to verify what I’ve written here. I assume you would object to removing the nearly 100 year old statute which provides penalties for performing marriages where the relationship is incestuous or involves a child — and which has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

If this law is on the books already, do you support repeal of it?

Bills like HB3408 are commonly called and recognized as “shell” bills. This shell bill just happens to be related to marriage. The language contained in this shell bill is already in the state statutes – it is currently state law.

The bill does absolutely nothing but change the words “State Penitentiary” to “custody of the Department of Corrections.” Everything else is already state law and the changed terms do not alter the meaning. If language in a bill is “amendatory” and not underlined it is understood to be existing law. Any language that is struck-through is existing law that is to be deleted and underlined text is new language.

When I asked staff to draft a shell bill related to marriage this is the part of existing law they pulled to reserve a bill related to the subject matter. This bill could be used to address any issue in Title 43 of the Oklahoma Statutes which relate to Marriage including such specific topics as divorce, child custody, alimony or any number of related issues.

I did see this bill mentioned on Scott Jones’ blog http://escottjones.typepad.com/myquest/ while doing a routine Google search and was surprised by the post and the misunderstanding. He has posted a clarification at http://escottjones.typepad.com/myquest/2010/01/clarification-of-hb-3408.html.

I actually don’t have any plans to run this bill or about 18 other shell bills out of the 26 measures I filed for this session related to issues from schools to the landlord and tenant act. You can go to http://www.lsb.state.ok.us and look up every bill I’ve filed and you will noticed the majority are shell bills related to nearly two dozen different subjects.

I filed House Bills 3401 to 3419 as shell bills this session. If you will look at each of them you will notice they don’t do a single thing but change a word or two while not altering the current law in any significant way or it will say it is creating some kind of act with no substance listed in the text of the bill.

Many legislators will file several shell bills “just in case.” Members must have all bills they wish to introduce submitted in December before session begins in February. So just in case some unforeseen issue arises after the deadline to submit bills passes members often file numerous shell bills to keep their options open. House members can actually only run a total of eight of the bills they file with some rare exceptions.

I wanted to make you aware of the facts and I hope this addresses any concerns you may have. If not, please don’t hesitate to contact me for further clarification.

Respectfully,

Jason Nelson

2. The existing statute does not criminalize same-sex marriage, which is not mentioned in the relevant statute.

3. Nelson has stated that this is a “shell bill” that he does not intend to try to pass in its current form:
http://escottjones.typepad.com/myquest/2010/01/clarification-of-hb-3408.html