It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Louisiana won't recognize gay marriage yet

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I don’t either... its disgusting!

/




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

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


That has been my position all along . When I quoted the 14th amendment on the fact that a state cannot make or enforce any laws in violation of the Constitution . So SCOTUS with this rolling struck down any laws against gay marriage . But seeing as how marriage is recognized by the state my question was how is this ruling going to force states to adopt laws approving gay marriage ?





and the states being part of the union has to abide by those laws.


And the states will have to abide by that ruling if they issued a ban on gay marriage . All I'm doing is contending that that will be the next ripple in this justful cause.

I could think of several other complications that may arise. But now I am hesitant to bring them up ? And that is not right on a board like this that should be open to discussions .


Once again I support gay marriage.


Edit;

My that certainly didn't take long .


As the state's governor and lieutenant governor condemned the court’s decision, state House Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson began studying wants to prevent gay marriage in Mississippi. Governor Phil Bryant said he would do all he can "to protect and defend the religious freedoms of Mississippi.” To Bryant’s point of doing “all” the state could do, Gipson, who is a Baptist minister, suggested removing marriage licenses entirely.


source

So if the state takes action in the way I speculated ( accurately I may add ) Does the US Supreme Court have the authority to force states to an act laws that the states retract?

Remember although this decision was groundbreaking it was on a 5 to 4 vote with four of the justices a dissenting because they did not feel it was a constitutional issue.





edit on 26-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
IMO, both Louisiana and Mississippi will fold under the slightest rebuke from Corporate America just like Indiana did with there religious freedom law.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I would like to second and agree that Jindal is an idiot.

He is going the Sarah Palin route and likely will be humiliated in his run for president.

No one likes him not even the GOP in his own state


Here he is just curry favoring to his base and pretending he will fight this as if he could defy the Supreme Court



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I agree with gay marriage.
However, I agree with states rights as well.
It's a slippery slope.
Without states rights we wouldn't have marijauna being sold legally in some states.

And everyone loves marijauna. I know I do.

I thinks states should have the right to fine tune any law or do away with them if need be. The federal laws should be seen as more of a guideline to adopt, completely if the state wants to, or not.

This way, people with all of the diverse lifestyles available today, can choose which state works for them.

Bible Belt, rainbow strap on, nature preserve, super crowded hedonistic megaliths, open range tractor sweat.

Everyone's happy. After they resettle.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Plus he has big ears !!!!! Lol




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse

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 ?



They don't have to make laws approving gay marriage - it is does not need "approval".



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

It's already happening read the first post from me on this page .

If there's no law on the books how is the federal government going to make states enforce the supreme courts decision ?
edit on 26-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I don't care what the Evil Empires Supreme Court has no say. Congress would need to pass it.

This is Illegal Gay propaganda. I support Texas, and Louisiana. I hope they don't back down on the issue, the mark of the beast is getting clearer and clearer.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
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.



I Called This one before the supreme court decision. Removing state licenses puts it back into the hands of the churches. It becomes a religious rite again but it also requires people in those states to give up tax breaks. Though I'd bet on a federal level would still get them. Also if enough states make this move this would cause the supreme court to revisit the issue. One of the major factors of theit decision is it wouldn't hurt the act of marriage. I just wish everyone would understand it makes no diffrence one way or the other.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   
So someone who wants to run for president and "Protect" the constitution, now wants to "Deny" the Constitution... ok hows that going for you



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I thought this country was founded on having a stronger state government and a weaker federal government.

If you believe in a strong federal government then you are supporting the failure of the United States.

Tell Washington and Colorado that weed is still illegal. And that their populace is criminals demanding justice from the federal government.

Thank you Americans for representing everything unamerican.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Boy oh boy, illegal gay propaganda, you sir are a special kind, at least your not hiding how you feel about people.

Mark of the beast, i wish i had a jesus face palm picture, just for you.
edit on 27-6-2015 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLotLizard

America was built for everybody to be equal, so yea the only un american things is to cry fake outrage about this decision.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

If people were meant to be equal in America since 1776, why hasn't gay marriage gay marriage been legalized since the beginning?

Also about equality... What about segregation and slavery? Or how about how women weren't allowed to vote until this last century.

Sound about equal to you?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

He is doing it to get the anti gay vote.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: TheLotLizard

America was built for everybody to be equal, so yea the only un american things is to cry fake outrage about this decision.


It was built for everybody to be equal except for blacks and women and Indians and white men who owned no property. Basically the vast majority of the people living there at the time.

But yeah I see your point.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Your wish is my command





posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

It's already happening read the first post from me on this page .

If there's no law on the books how is the federal government going to make states enforce the supreme courts decision ?


But there are laws on the books covering marriage.....what the SCOTUS (the constitution's final say on constitutionality) says is that any law that discriminated against same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

You can take that to the bank if any state tried to do otherwise.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul


says is that any law that discriminated against same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.


Actually as I pointed out to you the pertinent part of the 14th amendment reads .

" No state may in act or enforce any law that abridges the civil rights or immunity of a citizen of the United States ."

And as I I have said every time you post that remark I agree with your position on that . Yet I've ask you where in the Constitution it says a state has to make a law that follows SCOTUS rulings. Marriage licenses are issued by the state not the federal government . Again as I've told you before if any state had a law against gay marriage that law is null and void because of the decision . You keep saying there's laws on the books. Who cares if there's laws on the state books in existence the federal government cannot make states enforce them .

You have addressed my position as wrong and not at all viable since your first post. Yet by the second page links have popped up to show states are already doing what I pondered on. Seeing as how you took my original position as ludicrous . Then it was shown to be correct by the very issues popping up almost immediately .

Are you really going to still say I was wrong while my position was already proven ?

Anyway ........

I have had solid backing for my opinion on federal enforcement at the state level. But what do I know I only have a actual source on a ruling from the Supreme Court dealing with that exact issue .


Finally, the majority cited previous rulings by the Supreme Court in similar situations. In New York v. United States, the Court invalidated a provision in a bill that "coerced" states to comply with a federal radioactive waste-disposal regime, holding "[t]he Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program". New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 188 (1992).


Printz vs The United States

The only way the federal Government could enforce this ruling in states that oppose it would be to create a federal law dealing with marriage and supply federal agents to enforce it .


edit on 27-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)


Edit;

By the way it's time I should reassert my position on gay marriage . I completely approval of it and have so for a long time . The only reason this position was brought up was that I was speculating on how the states that don't agree will respond to this .

Within an hour of my first post. I was proven right and I linked a source on different ways certain states are using not to follow the Supreme Court's ruling . I can think of several other issues that are going to arise because of this ruling. But at this point I figure why bother bringing them up because instead of rational discussion those valid points are going to be attacked too.

.
edit on 27-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join