Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Louisiana National Guard refuses to accept Pentagon policy on same-sex benefits
NOLA.com | The Times Picayune ^ | September 04, 2013 | Lauren McGaughy

Posted on 09/04/2013 3:36:56 PM PDT by BBell

The Louisiana National Guard won't process benefits for same-sex couples because the state Constitution does not recognize gay marriage, a spokesman confirmed Wednesday. The directive directly contradicts a Pentagon policy issued Tuesday requiring the military to honor such benefits requests.

"The state of Louisiana does not recognize same-sex marriage, nor does it allow a state officials to take part in an act that recognizes same-sex marriage. We would refer those individuals interested in applying for such benefits to seek guidance at a federal military installation," said Lt. Col. Michael Kazmierzak.

An amendment to the Louisiana Constitution, passed in 2004, states marriage "shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." Any status "identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."

However, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, unconstitutionally denied equal access to benefits for same-sex couples, the Department of Defense took another look at its own policies.

On Tuesday, it issued a statement announcing the Pentagon would make spousal benefits available to all service members who had a valid marriage license. Most entitlements, such as family separation allowance and housing, are retroactive.

(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: Louisiana
KEYWORDS: abortion; deathpanels; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; la; louisiana; obamacare; zerocare
Interesting.
1 posted on 09/04/2013 3:36:56 PM PDT by BBell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

Poll ping


2 posted on 09/04/2013 3:40:55 PM PDT by BBell (The Blue Dog is Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BBell
Texas is doing the same thing.
In my opinion, they should rewrite their advisory:

We would refer those individuals interested in applying for such benefits to seek guidance at a federal military installation move to another state.

3 posted on 09/04/2013 3:41:37 PM PDT by grobdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BBell

When will someone with courage running for office promise to get rid of this very destructive policy? I don’t know of any candidate out there advocating such a thing.


4 posted on 09/04/2013 3:54:10 PM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters for Freedom and Restoration of the Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BBell

So, there you are and there you have it.

Just REFUSE TO COMPLY.

Enough people do it, it will OVERWHELM their SYSTEM.

Now just how they gonna courts marshal all those grunts anyway?


5 posted on 09/04/2013 4:01:28 PM PDT by ConradofMontferrat ( According to mudslimz, my handle is a HATE CRIME. And I HOPE they don't like it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BBell

good for them, they are showing how it’s done. Truth be told Federalism is very tenuous, we need to have a lot of push back. As Mitt said, States have rights, the feds have enumerated powers


6 posted on 09/04/2013 4:10:03 PM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BBell

More states seem to be joining the resistance. Could this be the impetus that thrusts us into the coming civil war?


7 posted on 09/04/2013 4:19:13 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BBell

The Second American Civil War comes one step closer.


8 posted on 09/04/2013 4:21:21 PM PDT by MeganC (A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll never need one again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
"....comes one step closer."

One baby step in a never ending marathon.

Never gonna happen.

9 posted on 09/04/2013 4:41:01 PM PDT by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: diogenes ghost

The same thing was said in Tunisia not so long ago.


10 posted on 09/04/2013 4:47:40 PM PDT by MeganC (A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll never need one again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BBell

It will get even more interesting if the federal government decided they will fund the the benefits to same-sex partners instead of charging the state and Louisiana files an equal protection suit against the feds for not providing the same benefits to spouses.


11 posted on 09/04/2013 4:59:25 PM PDT by jz638
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BBell
However, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, unconstitutionally denied equal access to benefits for same-sex couples, the Department of Defense took another look at its own policies.

Lauren McGaughy is evidently clueless about the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers enumerated in the Constitution where "government" laws which address sexual preferences are concerned.

More specifically, the Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarifiy that the Constitution's silence about things like marriage means that government power to regulate marriage is reserved uniquely to the states, not the federal government. This is evidenced by the statute in Louisiana's Constitution which defines marrage as union of one man and one woman.

Likewise, since the states have never amended the Constitution to protect so-called gay rights, the states are free to make laws which discriminate against overt sexual orientation as Lousiana's laws do, as long as such laws respect all constitutionally enumerated rights of all citizens.

Regarding DOMA, according to Wikipedia, the Supreme Court evidently struck down the provision that officially defined the word "marriage" in federal laws and official federal government correspondence as a reference to traditional one man, one woman marriage.

Section 3. Definition of marriage (ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

I think that if patriots want to protect traditional one man, one woman marriage that they need to work with their state lawmakers to appropriately amend the Constitution. Such an amendment would reverse the Court's decision to strike down Section 3 of DOMA imo.

Also bear in mind that amending the Constitution to effectively overturn a Supreme Court case decision is nothing new. Note that when state lawmakers actually understood the Constitution that they swear to protect and defend, they knew that they could effectively reverse a Court decision by appropriately amending the Constitution. If fact, the 11th, 16th and 19th Amendments are examples of the states doing so.

12 posted on 09/04/2013 5:18:19 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BBell; 2ndDivisionVet; 45semi; A knight without armor; Alexander Rubin; all the best; ...
Thanks to BBell for da ping!

FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. (multiple votes using multiple internetz devices are allowed!) And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)

13 posted on 09/04/2013 6:19:57 PM PDT by dynachrome (Vertrou in God en die Mauser)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BBell

God Bless ‘Em!


14 posted on 09/04/2013 6:30:16 PM PDT by left that other site (You Shall Know the Truth, and the Truth Shall Set You Free...John 8:32)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BBell

This is precisely why the military as a federal institution was targeted in the first place. This dispute will now go to a federal court where Louisiana will... Promptly lose.


15 posted on 09/04/2013 6:43:32 PM PDT by Tallguy (Hunkered down in Pennsylvania)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BBell

Yes. Louisiana should follow Alabama’s example and implement the Pentagon directive even if it conflicts with the state Constitution. 73.47% (565 votes)

No. The state Constitution strictly forbids the move so the Guard did the right thing. 23.8% (183 votes)

I don’t know. I’d have to learn more about the state Constitution or Pentagon directive before deciding. 2.73% (21 votes)

Total Votes: 769


16 posted on 09/04/2013 6:48:49 PM PDT by EXCH54FE (Hurricane 416,Feisty Old Vet !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BBell
Yes. Louisiana should follow Alabama's example and implement the Pentagon directive even if it conflicts with the state Constitution. 73.54% (592 votes)

No. The state Constitution strictly forbids the move so the Guard did the right thing. 23.73% (191 votes)

I don't know. I'd have to learn more about the state Constitution or Pentagon directive before deciding. 3% (22 votes)

Total Votes: 805

22 idiot voters who just had to mark something - utterly amazing.
17 posted on 09/04/2013 7:11:06 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BBell

Surprising results:

Yes. . 74.55% (656 votes)

No. 22.73% (200 votes)

I don’t know. 3% (24 votes)

Total Votes: 880


18 posted on 09/04/2013 8:34:33 PM PDT by Bon of Babble (Didn't make it to the gym today. That makes 5 years in a row.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome; BBell
Forgive them, O Lord, for they know not what they do.

At least I certainly hope that they're doing this out of ignorance.

Yes. Louisiana should follow Alabama's example and implement the Pentagon directive even if it conflicts with the state Constitution.
77.77% (990 votes)


No. The state Constitution strictly forbids the move so the Guard did the right thing.
19.8% (252 votes)

Huh? Whuh?
2% (31 votes)

Total Votes: 1,273
19 posted on 09/05/2013 11:58:13 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson