Someone with a better understanding of Constitutional law please help me understand this, but doesn't this violate the Full Faith And Credit Clause of the US Constitution?
- Roy Winfred Pitchford · New Orleans Baptist Theological SeminaryIf we really wanted to base our laws on the Bible we wouldn't eat catfish or shellfish and we would stone adulterers to death, Jesus daid to rnder unto Ceasar what is Ceaser's. The govrnment had the final say on taxes, not the church.
- Phil Beaver · Top Commenter · Works at RetiredThanks for reaching out.
The era when people can influence the public by citing Jesus or the Bible has past. Failure to recognize persons for whom this era has passed will mean the ruin of the church. Don't consider my opinion, but do consider, for example, the failure of DOMA.
The act made reference to the "Judeo-Christian" tradition of marriage. That phrase was cited in the dreadful decision by the Supreme Court as a reason to negate the act. It was justifiably deemed federal endorsement of religion. It was a product of the unofficial American theocracy, which has failed (back to my opinion).
The clergy, whatever their doctrine may be, must learn to find the secular moral of each issue and express their church's views for the public with secular words and references.Reply · · September 15, 2013 at 8:31am
- Fro Deaux · Top Commenter · FKIC Fart Knocker In Charge at Seymour & DoolessWhy should these people be afforded special privileges just because they like taking it up the butt?
- Jimbaux's JournalWhat? Yeah, university of slow learners, that's for sure! They're not asking for "special privileges"; they're asking to get the same treatment as everyone else. How is that "special privileges"???Reply · · September 14, 2013 at 10:41pm
- Phil Beaver · Top Commenter · Works at RetiredJimbaux's Journal reminds me of "rightiswrong," and "GardenVariety" and "JimmyD7" and some others I used to know as the same sex crowd (SSC).
Using the almost universal appreciation for monogamy for life between two adults to achieve some approval of promiscuous sexual practice is indefensible, and the persons who have fallen for it need to reform.
Fro Deux, justifiably anon in pic, nickname, and qualifications, suggested privileges for queer bait. Who wants queer bait to be treated like everyone else? I don't. I want them to be discovered and shunned for their natural (a certain percentage of all animals do it) perversion.
I want Louisiana to license both heterosexual monogamy for life and homosexual monogamy for life.Reply · · September 15, 2013 at 8:50am - Jimbaux's JournalPhil Beaver what does that mean? What is "promiscuous" about two adults who are already a couple affirming their commitment to each other in the eyes of the law? If that's a problem, then why isn't marriage itself a problem?
I also don't see how same-sex marriage harms me or anyone else, and gay people are ALREADY gay; so, what's the problem?Reply · · September 15, 2013 at 12:14pm
- Old Man KenseyWe could avoid all our 'budget crises' is Jindal would just stop forcing all these law suits..
What another waste of money from the so-called fiscal conservatives.. - Debbie Underwood · Top CommenterRecognizing a marriage under the law is not the same as allowing a certain filing status on a tax return. A comparable situation is when Louisiana tax law allows an unmarried, widowed person to file as "married filing jointly" when that person is, in fact, not married under any other aspect of Louisiana law. It seems that if Louisiana doesn't want to allow this as a filing status, Louisiana needs to change its tax law.
- John Mark Theriot · Top Commenter · LSULeadership comes from the top. If our President went through the legislative process instead of ruling by regulations there wouldn't be wiggle room at state level. Vouchers are not unconstitutional. If they are DOJ would have filed suit on those grounds. If gays want to rally the public around this finite issue just push for terminating LA income tax. I will be on board for that.
- Jay Sellers · Top Commenter
- John Mark Theriot · Top Commenter · LSU
- Phil Beaver · Top Commenter · Works at RetiredI hope Louisiana will negotiate a deal with the feds to license both heterosexual monogamy for life and homosexual monogamy for life, leaving marriage to the churches.
- Jay Sellers · Top CommenterThe US Contitution is not up for this type of negotiation. I think I understand that you would like a different approach. Marriage is up to the churches as they can marry who they want. This is about civil marriage recognized by the state. I may be misunderstanding your point. My appologies if I am.
- Phil Beaver · Top Commenter · Works at RetiredOld Man Kensey The US Constitution specified responsibilities of three branches of federal government, leaving all other responsibilities to the States, all under the literal responsibility of We the People of the United States, as specified in the preamble. The literal translation of the preamble was asserted in Federalist 84. We the People of the United States are in charge (consider slavery as an example), even though for 225 years the majority have indolently deferred to the US ceremonial God.
It is not the constitution that I propose to debate; it is the Supreme Court's recent decision on DOMA, which was an ill-conceived, religion-based act by Congress. An act that was recently countered by legislatures in 13 States and D.C. It's a case of Congress not being able to have 1) license for church in state and 2) variety in app...lication of DOMA. Yet, according to the US Constitution, those bodies cannot force Louisiana to conform.
"Monogamy for life" would strengthen each couple's mutual understanding of their declaration of union. Some heterosexuals would not make such a commitment, and thereby, heterosexual divorce rates would decline. For the heterosexuals who did, mutual commitment might be strengthened in comparison with "marriage" commitments, and in a second way heterosexual divorce rates might reduce. All the better for children of heterosexual marriages and for We the People of the United States.
Also, homosexual monogamy for life licenses would clarify the issue: We the People of the United State would show our appreciation for such unions without condoning homosexual promiscuity. I am not prepared to talk about homosexual monogamy and children and do not want to study it at this time in my life, but that is the major issue. I would welcome constructive ideas; "children are none of Phil Beaver's business" does not work. See MoreReply · · September 15, 2013 at 9:34am
- Thomas Winn · Top Commenterthis is such a miniscule number in the total of La. filers, why not just go with the federal guides and not waste money on this. if it goes to federal court, La. will lose and we'll be doing it anyway. the war of northern aggression proved that the federal government triumphs over state rights.
- Joseph Piper Sr. · Top Commenter · Baton Rouge, LouisianaStates Rights? The same states rights that gave us years of Jim Crow law right after the Union defeated the Southern slaveholders? Is this what you miss so much, Tradewinns? In Sisterville, W. Virginia, they just discovered, while investigating the city's charter, that only men are allowed to vote. The politicians decided it would be too expensive to change their charter, but that the Federal 19th amendment would supersede and cover the women. The constitution should supersede all the racist and bigoted "states rights" laws that exist in the deepest, darkest south.Reply · · September 14, 2013 at 10:20pm
- Jimbaux's JournalOld Man Kensey, can't you do better than such simple ad hominem?Reply · · September 14, 2013 at 10:43pm
- Rhonda Browning · Top Commenter · Northwestern State UniversityHere we go with another expensive lawsuit. Is LFF going to finance this one so the taxpayers don't have to??
- Rhonda Browning · Top Commenter · Northwestern State UniversityWhen is Ayatollah Gene Mills retiring as the real governor of Louisiana? Bobby is bad enough but this hater is straight from Satan.
In the conservative Islamic countries, regardless of who is elected the final word is that of the mullahs. We are supposed to be under rule of American law, not Sharia. Yet the Louisiana Family Forum has power even over our tax returns.
