Posted on 01/25/2015 11:09:30 PM PST by Steelfish
Jindal: Gay Marriage Should Be Decided By States, Not Courts Jan. 24, 2015, By Tom Howell Jr. January 25, 2015 Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, the Republican leader of one of 14 states that do not perform same-sex marriage, said Sunday he’ll defend the right of states to define marriage as they see fit.
The Supreme Court is set to decide the gay-marriage question this term, but Mr. Jindal said his Christian views will not sway according to the polls.
If the justices make gay marriage a national right, Mr. Jindal said he’ll support congressional Republicans pushing for a constitutional amendment that leaves the question up to the states.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Problem with that is we have men in black who unilaterally decreed what they think is right and apparently the people have no recourse.
“Hi, I’m Bobby Jindal and let me make an emotional conservative sounding speech to you so you’re distracted from Ted Cruz.....is it working yet?????”
Yep. States Rights is a dead doctrine until we reign in the black robed tyrants.
homo marriage shouldn’t exist at any level
once we’re officially the United Fags of America, i’ll be moving.
no point in hanging around sodom
I what ever you do...don’t look back....yikes!
Bobby..........Well DUH.....
AND scale back fedgov to constitutional limits.
given that the very core of the homosexual lifestyle is opposed to monogamy, and the core idea is to be able to have same sex acts anytime, anywhere, with anyone,
gay marriage is a non-starter.
It’s why hardly any even get married. They hate the way “breeders”, ie normal people, live.
Judicial fag marriage is the symptom of a larger problem, the absence of the states from the senate.
God decided it. Long ago.
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
It's not a state question.
Freepers should form the 58th state!!
He’s right. The states have always had varied laws concerning marriage liscensure. This issue isn’t unique in that regard. Also state and federal laws have consistently taken into account gender as differentiation for application of laws and benefits. If justices have a problem with the fact that certain benefits are attached to marriage liscensure they could easily rule that states/federal government must decouple such benefits or provide adequate alternatives to resolve inheritance issues, guardianship issues etc. The problem we have is that there is an elite that crosses both parties which intends to amend the constitution by ruling and has on this issue, property rights, abortion, etc. The sad truth is that we really don’t have an active Constitution any more we have a Constitution that is only followed by the power classes when it supports them but it is entirely disregarded when it does not and if it does not they are happy to just make things up knowing that no one will dare stand up to them.
Jindal is right.
The whole point of a federal system is so that people in one state do not have to live like the people in another.
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.