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

[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;48065378] Only Rubio, Rand, Jeb, and the CEO left standing after the gay marriage bloodshed.[/QUOTE] Aren't they all opposed to gay marriage tho?

[QUOTE=Maegord;48062814]They'll just try to slow down the procedures, paperwork, and general roll out of it. They'll slightly delay it, but nothing more. Even the Republicans aren't dumb enough to actively defy the Supreme Court.[/QUOTE] In a sense they can't actually recognise gay marriage just yet legally. Since that would be going against the current legal and standing legislature and iudicature. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48065931]As I understand it, there are procedural steps that need to be followed through in order to complete this whole process, and Jindal is merely maximizing the amount of time he can take to go through with those. A more enlightened state would say "Okay, marriage licenses are available starting tomorrow, and we'll just work on this paperwork in the background, don't you worry about it, you kids go get married and have fun, now." Jindal's going, "NOTHING IS CHANGING UNTIL THE INK HAS DRIED ON THE FINAL ORDER." That's not treason, it's being a stubborn cunt, which is not against the law or else we'd be hanging most of Congress right now. If Jindal was legitimately obstructing it, he'd be in contempt of court or in some other way failing to fulfill the duties of his office, and there'd be other ways of dealing with him, but it's not treason unless he starts a civil war or sends weapons to ISIS to help them fight Gaymerica.[/QUOTE] It's questionable. For instance, what if they say, that marriage for gay people is fine. People get hitched and 4 months later someone challenges the state and all the marriages performed before the whole legal process came to an end. Would they have to not recognise said marriages or not? A lot of people forget that the legal process isn't as cut and dry as the moral one.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;48066190]It's questionable. For instance, what if they say, that marriage for gay people is fine. People get hitched and 4 months later someone challenges the state and all the marriages performed before the whole legal process came to an end. Would they have to not recognise said marriages or not? A lot of people forget that the legal process isn't as cut and dry as the moral one.[/QUOTE] I'm not qualified to answer this question because, as you can see at the beginning of the thread, I questioned how LA's courts could in any way defy the supremacy of the Supreme Court's ruling, but apparently there's some procedural shit of some kind that means not yet, so that has to resolve itself somehow. But I can't see that lower court doing something that then overturns the Supreme Court's ruling, unless the actual case before the SCOTUS was fundamentally unsound for some reason. If there is the possibility that the lower court is capable of fucking up the SCOTUS' ruling (what) then holding off on issuing marriage licenses is a logical, if unpopular, move, because it saves you from procedural clusterfuck down the road when thousands of couples suddenly have Shrodinger's marriages that died without warning, yeah. But I don't know that this is the case. I don't even know what is going on; my best understanding is that some legal machinery has to move in order for the ruling to fully light up, and right now the assembly line cuts through Jindal's jursidiction where he can choose to reduce it to the slowest possible speed but not actually stop the belt.

[QUOTE=CreeplyTuna;48066164]Aren't they all opposed to gay marriage tho?[/QUOTE] Yes but they've yet to openly state they would fight the law to the death. IIRC Rubio and Rand have both stated they won't let their personal belief that gay marriage is wrong "due to religion" interfere with how they act in office. Rand has said he'd leave it up to the states anyways. Unsure about Jeb and CEO.

[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;48069653]Yes but they've yet to openly state they would fight the law to the death. IIRC Rubio and Rand have both stated they won't let their personal belief that gay marriage is wrong "due to religion" interfere with how they act in office. Rand has said he'd leave it up to the states anyways. Unsure about Jeb and CEO.[/QUOTE] Even Ben Carson is of the opinion that he doesn't support it, but wouldn't stop it (because like a lot of other republicans, he doesn't think he should dictate what goes on in your bedroom).

"has nothing to do with the Constitution" where in the Constitution it says everyone has equal rights..? (Minus felons obviously who have had their rights taken away from them.) [editline]28th June 2015[/editline] and even felons can marry probably

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;48062752]Let's keep appealing to religion and traditions maybe if we plug it enough we'll get the support we need to stop this happening[img]http://sae.tweek.us/media/emoticons/emot-downsrim.gif[/img][/QUOTE] [I] This version of this religion defines marriage as such, so no other religions or versions of such matter in this debate[/I] Keep appealing but the state very well defines what marriage is and as the sc pointed out the state means the federal government as well [editline]28th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Bat-shit;48071131]"has nothing to do with the Constitution" where in the Constitution it says everyone has equal rights..? (Minus felons obviously who have had their rights taken away from them.) [editline]28th June 2015[/editline] and even felons can marry probably[/QUOTE] 14th amendment, equal protection clause. Everyone has equal rights under the law

Lol are they trying to pull a Jackson?

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;48062786]at this point I doubt he cares, look at how all the other conservatives howled when the decision passed Why do people care so much about something that doesnt harm them at all lmao[/QUOTE] Because they're convinced that America is a Christian nation, despite the Constitution saying otherwise in the very first Amendment. A lot of the people that realize we aren't/never were a Christian nation desperately WANT us to be so, but what they fail to realize is you can either uphold the Constitution, or you can have a Christian nation. The way the Constitution was designed and the way the founding fathers constructed it with intent for freedom for ALL religions, you can't have both.