Louisiana won't recognize gay marriage yet

Well at least one State so far is turning their back on the Supreme Court decision that says the 14th Amendment allows anybody to marry anybody.

Louisiana Governor Jindal says they must wait because an open court case has been on hold waiting for the SCOTUS to act.

Perhaps some hyperbole is evident.

Louisiana will wait for a court order from a lower court where the case in question is stalled.

So now it takes a Lower Court to "validate" the Supreme Court?

Many people will say "I've heard everything now"

Has this ever happened before?


Bobby Jindal administration says Louisiana won't recognize gay marriage yet

Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration says gay marriage will currently not be offered or recognized in Louisiana, but his staff acknowledged it's likely coming.


"Our agencies will have no choice but to comply with the Supreme Court's decision when the 5th Circuit Court orders the ruling into effect – even though we disagree with it and believe it was wrongly decided, and has nothing to do with the Constitution," said Mike Reed, Jindal's spokesman in the governor's office.


The Jindal administration has said Louisiana's state government won't recognize gay marriage until a lower court rules on the issue. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has taken up a gay marriage case, but was waiting on the Supreme Court ruling before moving forward with it. The Jindal administration is now delaying recognition of gay marriage in Louisiana until this appeals court decision is issued.

Never a Dull Moment !!

a reply to: xuenchen

Simple solutions (IMHO):
1. Haul Mr. Jindals ass of to a Federal court on charges of Obstructing justice.
2. Stop any and all federal money going to the state, until such moment as the state accepts and adopts the law.

originally posted by: BobbyRock
a reply to: xuenchen

Simple solutions (IMHO):
1. Haul Mr. Jindals ass of to a Federal court on charges of Obstructing justice.
2. Stop any and all federal money going to the state, until such moment as the state accepts and adopts the law.

Going to be hard to do when half of the Federal Government is obstructing justice and failing to enforce the law daily.

Jindal is an idiot. The SCOTUS has said it is legal in this nation so some ruling by a lower court is nothing but a waste of time. But this could score him some points with some of the right wing voters.

I've lost track has anyone addressed whether this issue is truly constitutional and therefore within the Supreme Court's privy ?

Let me be clear I approve of gay marriage. I am only trying to look to the next issues that might be brought up about this subject .

EDIT:

Actually, my two points made is valid in any and all states that "objects" to the ruling of the Supreme Court.

a reply to: infolurker

I'm only talking about this case..............

a reply to: Greathouse

I've lost track has anyone addressed whether this issue is truly constitutional and therefore within the Supreme Court's privy ?

How could it be unconstitutional? Marriage is not defined in the constitution as being between a man and woman and churches will not be forced to marry gays. So religion is not being forced to go against their faith because that would be unconstitutional.

a reply to: Greathouse

I'm a Swede and I know there are holes in my knowledge of both the US Constitution and Laws....
But to me it's pretty clear cut.
If it takes a law to get people equal rights...... Then the Supreme Court has every right to make a ruling.......

a reply to: buster2010

Here is section 1 of the 14th amendment which they ruled on .

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I see the concern that may be coming as . States that banned gay marriage would have to remove that ban. The gray area is can this ruling make states pass laws that allow it ?

I do not see any type of wordage in the Constitution that the federal government can make states create laws .

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: buster2010

Here is section 1 of the 14th amendment which they ruled on .

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I see the concern that may be coming as . States that banned gay marriage would have to remove that ban. The gray area is can this ruling make states pass laws that allow it ?

I do not see any type of wordage in the Constitution that the federal government can make states create laws .

Where in the constitution does it say that states can make laws that supersede federal laws? States had to drop their laws that allowed segregation they will have to do the same with laws that block same sex marriages.

a reply to: buster2010

That is exactly what I said .


Then I asked where in the Constitution it says that the federal Government can make states create laws ?

Why do you always get so aggressive ?

So the government say this is a law, good. Free choice means I can agree or disagree with this law, and I respect the individuals rights to marry, to own a gun or to ban a flag.

Just as others should respect my right to think a certain way about laws pertaining to same sex marriage or owning a gun or owning a flag.

The door swings both ways and those that want it all one way (their way) are doing the law and freedom of speech and choice a disservice.

a reply to: Greathouse

*Snip* - the SCOTUS hasn't forced anyone to make any law.

Well some local governments have decided to stop issuing marriage licenses to everyone.
Some states are also considering stopping the issuance of marriage licenses to all.
www.newsweek.com...
www.clarionledger.com...

I understand, because now pop culture decides what marriage is according to the supreme court.
So can polygamists now be denied marriage licenses? I think not.
Can polyandrists be denied marriage licenses? Probably not after the supreme court ruling.
Can the state refuse to issue a license to a person and their pet, well most likely not because the definition of marriage is now a moving target.

The Supreme Court should have left it to the states, there was a lot of headway going there and it would have happened eventually. By the way, I support gay marriage. I do not support the ruling that now leaves the field so wide open in the definition of marriage, that states and localities may decide to no longer be in the business of making marriage legal at all.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

Can the state refuse to issue a license to a person and their pet, well most likely not because the definition of marriage is now a moving target.

Two consenting adults getting married is fundamentally different from a person marrying a non-human animal that is unable to give its consent.

Your comment is just asinine.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: buster2010

That is exactly what I said .


Then I asked where in the Constitution it says that the federal Government can make states create laws ?

Why do you always get so aggressive ?

Well I'm not being aggressive unless you consider asking a question aggressive. The government only makes federal laws not state and the states being part of the union has to abide by those laws.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Can the state refuse to issue a license to a person and their pet, well most likely not because the definition of marriage is now a moving target.

Seeing how you made this comparison do you consider homosexuals to be animals or mentally ill?

the SCOTUS hasn't forced anyone to make any law.

Because they have no ability to, that is my point . So if the states decide not to make laws approving gay marriage how will the Supreme Court's ruling be enforced ?



As I've said I support gay marriage . All I'm trying to do is look forward to what the next issue on the subject will be .

ATS should be a place of forward thinkers ahead of the trend . Not stuck in a position of reacting to trends after they're over .

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: buster2010

That is exactly what I said .


Then I asked where in the Constitution it says that the federal Government can make states create laws ?

Why do you always get so aggressive ?

The would be the Obamacare ruling they just handed down yesterday where state now equals Federal Government whenever they choose to want it to. Basically, that sets the precedent that the 9th and 10th Amendments no longer apply or only apply so long as the Feds are nice enough to allow them to.