Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages


Recommended Posts

Kinda tired of seeing rainbow crap all over the net... can't wait for it to die down and people stop pushing their beliefs onto others.

Images push their beliefs onto you?

 

Wow, you are one impressionable fellow.

 

I'd recommend you steer clear of movies involving mass murder.

I'm impressed at the level of back patting going on in this thread, as well as the sheer intolerance of certain groups of people. Just goes to show even a good cause can have its fair share of bigotry when everyone here resorts to calling people who disagree with them names and inferring they are somehow superior to them.

 

Complete disrespect for differing opinions, but hey I suppose that's the internet for you.

 

Imagine if the supreme court ruled in the opposite direction and banned same sex marriage. I'm sure statements like "This day was our 9/11" would be uttered by the LGBT community just as easily and not so heavily criticized. It's funny the double standards people have.

If your opinion involves mixing church and state, it doesn't deserve to be respected.

 

This is my opinion., I bet you don't respect it, and that makes your statement rather hypocritical.

  • Like 3

Justice Moore made the unprecedented claim that he was not bound by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that conflict with his view of the U.S. Constitution.  Indeed, he stated that it would violate his

  • Like 2

That's not how things work. :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

I am on another (non-technical) site where there are people from around the world. I'm sure it is often easy to misinterpret things on our news. (Even our own people do that continually). 

Justice Moore would never be allowed to do that.

If he said that, it's just for show. Probably playing up to his own political backers. 

 

The President could send C-130's full of Abrams tanks down there to prevent anything like that. 

let me google that for you

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/judge-grants-gay-divorce-florida-article-1.2049363

 

its not rocket science is it?

It's rocket surgery!

 

I love how these anti-same-sex marriage guys keep pulling out all of these contrived scenarios from their nether regions as if we painted ourselves into a corner by legalizing it.

There are more important things in the world to fight about anyway, such as ISIS, AIDS and cancer, ebola,and more violence. I'd say gay marriage is the very last thing to waste our government's time with.

That's why the SCOTUS ruling is welcomed. States can stop wasting their time trying to implement laws banning same-sex marriage.

  • Like 2

I still haven't heard a valid reason to be against same sex marriage from anybody.

Wonder why everybody is up in arms about this.

Letting other people get married has no effect on you personally what so ever.

So what is it then?

  • Like 2

I'm impressed at the level of back patting going on in this thread, as well as the sheer intolerance of certain groups of people. Just goes to show even a good cause can have its fair share of bigotry when everyone here resorts to calling people who disagree with them names and inferring they are somehow superior to them.

 

Complete disrespect for differing opinions, but hey I suppose that's the internet for you.

 

Imagine if the supreme court ruled in the opposite direction and banned same sex marriage. I'm sure statements like "This day was our 9/11" would be uttered by the LGBT community just as easily and not so heavily criticized. It's funny the double standards people have.

 

LOL! Another "Christian persecution" whine post. It's not intolerance for "certain groups of people". It's intolerance of intolerance. Have all the Christianity you want. Just stop being intolerant of others.

 

And don't confuse respecting one's right to have an opinion with respecting what that opinion is. You're obliged to do the former, but you are NOT obliged to do the latter. What's the point of free speech if you have to just respect whatever anybody says? Free speech is all about criticizing what you believe are BAD IDEAS. I find that ideas requiring religion dogma to back them up are almost universally bad ideas, and I'll freely use my right to free speech to share that opinion.

I still haven't heard a valid reason to be against same sex marriage from anybody.

Wonder why everybody is up in arms about this.

Letting other people get married has no effect on you personally what so ever.

So what is it then?

When you're left with characterizing proponents of the legalization of same-sex marriage as being "intolerant", you're completely out of reasons that even remotely resemble "valid".

If your opinion involves mixing church and state, it doesn't deserve to be respected.

 

This is my opinion., I bet you don't respect it, and that makes your statement rather hypocritical.

 

First of all, this is a great example of what's going on here. Both of the people quoting me have assumed my position about all this and immediately placed me opposed to their views. How can you possible jump to that conclusion when all I've remarked on is the fact that everyone in here is effectively circle-jerking about this issue and putting others down because apparently they're just "stupid rednecks" that don't deserve an opinion.

 

Does this at all seem like a civilized way to handle the issue? To slander and bully people who don't conform to your own world views because you can?

 

My opinion is that the states should grant marriage at all, but civil unions. Marriage is that of the church and is nothing but symbolic while a union granted by the state has nothing to do with marriage. It's just a legal contract to share assets and responsibilities under the law. If that was the way it was from the start this wouldn't even be an issue.

 

LOL! Another "Christian persecution" whine post. It's not intolerance for "certain groups of people". It's intolerance of intolerance. Have all the Christianity you want. Just stop being intolerant of others.

 

And don't confuse respecting one's right to have an opinion with respecting what that opinion is. You're obliged to do the former, but you are NOT obliged to do the latter. What's the point of free speech if you have to just respect whatever anybody says? Free speech is all about criticizing what you believe are BAD IDEAS. I find that ideas requiring religion dogma to back them up are almost universally bad ideas, and I'll freely use my right to free speech to share that opinion.

 

I don't really call statements like these being "intolerant of intolerance". The seem quite obvious what their intentions were. You may not be obliged to respect an opinion, but it's not an excuse to behave like five year olds.

 

Damn rednecks. 

 

Attorney General James D.

  • Like 2

 

My opinion is that the states should grant marriage at all, but civil unions. Marriage is that of the church and is nothing but symbolic while a union granted by the state has nothing to do with marriage. It's just a legal contract to share assets and responsibilities under the law. If that was the way it was from the start this wouldn't even be an issue.

 

 

But this is exactly what is going on, except for the naming.

I don't think gay people were fighting for the right to be married at a church. They just want to have the same legal rights as hetero couples.

I don't really call statements like these being "intolerant of intolerance". The seem quite obvious what their intentions were. You may not be obliged to respect an opinion, but it's not an excuse to behave like five year olds.

 

They're examples of ridiculing people for their ignorance and intolerance. If you see calls for having separate drinking fountains, lunch counters, and schools for "rednecks", let me know.

 

 

Yes, cause it's as simple as boiling down the entire South as a bunch of idiot rednecks. Totally reasonable.

And this is an example of a straw man. Try being a little less hyperbolic with your claims, and maybe you'll have even an inch of ground to stand on.

That's why the SCOTUS ruling is welcomed. States can stop wasting their time trying to implement laws banning same-sex marriage.

For the record I do NOT support gay marriage, but it doesn't affect me much anyway though I know it will affect freedom of religion in the future when churches are forced to marry homosexuals against their doctrine (pretty much every religion out there). 

 

Don't screw with society and use your freedom without oppressing others views and you are good. Don't make a big deal because somebody thinks what you do is immoral (note: I am not referring to you TMYW, but to the homosexuals). I don't expect the gays to force their views on me, nor do I expect the churches to force their views on me either.

 

Jehovah Witnesses are a different story though.....

First and foremost, I am not a Christian, and for me growing up in the south its always been amusing to see the conservative christians push their beliefs on others and even into government. When I bring up the fact that these very same people always are the ones that argue we have to stick to the constitution, I bring up we have separation of church and state for a reason in the constitution. They then refute. Now I saw this in a facebook comment earlier this weekend from one of the local papers

 

I get sick and tired of folks using the Bible to say "The Bible says" and beat up people! I love the Bible, I do believe it is the inspired word of God. BUT The Bible tells me how to treat my slaves, how to treat my multiple wives and how to sacrifice my lambs and doves. It forbids eating catfish, shrimp and crab. It forbids me wearing a polyester suit and a cottom shirt. It says growing a garden of more than one crop is a sin, like having parsley and sage in a herbal garden. It forbids women speaking in church and being ministers. It says I can not get divorced. Why don't people quote those parts?

 

Gay marriage is highly offensive to the Islamic religion. In fact, the act of sodomy in an Islamic country results in harsh jail time. Let's face it, marriage was never designed nor worded for the joining of two same sex couples. They can have a civil union but the word marriage cannot be used.

Gay marriage is highly offensive to the Islamic religion. In fact, the act of sodomy in an Islamic country results in harsh jail time. Let's face it, marriage was never designed nor worded for the joining of two same sex couples. They can have a civil union but the word marriage cannot be used.

heterosexuals engage in sodomy every day. To pretend that it's only a homosexual act would be disingenuous and you know it.

For the record I do NOT support gay marriage, but it doesn't affect me much anyway though I know it will affect freedom of religion in the future when churches are forced to marry homosexuals against their doctrine (pretty much every religion out there). 

 

 

Priests aren't going to be forced to marry homosexuals, just like they're not forced to marry heterosexual couples. They choose to do so everyday.

Gay marriage is highly offensive to the Islamic religion. In fact, the act of sodomy in an Islamic country results in harsh jail time. Let's face it, marriage was never designed nor worded for the joining of two same sex couples. They can have a civil union but the word marriage cannot be used.

 

 

Why should anyone care if anyone else is offended? Being offended is personal and in all fairness nothing happens when you're offended. It's not like you wake up the next day with ebola because you got offended. Given that this isn't a Islamic country, it's meaningless, so they can deal with it. 

  • Like 2

First and foremost, I am not a Christian, and for me growing up in the south its always been amusing to see the conservative christians push their beliefs on others and even into government. When I bring up the fact that these very same people always are the ones that argue we have to stick to the constitution, I bring up we have separation of church and state for a reason in the constitution. They then refute. Now I saw this in a facebook comment earlier this weekend from one of the local papers

He forgot the most laughable - its OK to rape a woman, as long as you marry her, and giver her dad 50 pieces of silver.

Or, if an angry mob is at your house and they want someone who is a guest in your house - you can offer your daughter for them to do as they wish....

Yeah, it says that - and they claim its the "divine word of god" - funny how he hates the things they hated back then, and loved the things they loved back then - so lucky for them the way that worked out :rolleyes:

Gay marriage is highly offensive to the Islamic religion. In fact, the act of sodomy in an Islamic country results in harsh jail time. Let's face it, marriage was never designed nor worded for the joining of two same sex couples. They can have a civil union but the word marriage cannot be used.

USA is not an Islamic theocracy.

Jindal: Louisiana Will 'Comply' With Same-Sex Marriage Ruling:

 

Presidential candidate Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La., said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that while he disagrees with the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states, his state will abide by the Court's decision.

"We don't have a choice," Jindal said Sunday. "Our agencies will comply with the court order."

 

Jindal said the Court ignored the Tenth Amendment when it issued its ruling Friday that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. He said the fight will now focus on maintaining religious freedom.

"I think it is wrong for the federal government to force Christian individuals, businesses, pastors, churches to participate in wedding ceremonies that violate our sincerely held religious beliefs. We have to stand up and fight for religious liberty. That's where this fight is going," he told Chuck Todd. "The left wants to silence us. Hillary Clinton wants to silence us. We're not going away."

 

- http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/jindal-louisiana-will-comply-same-sex-marriage-ruling-n383381?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=507ece0bea5d429d1674c7a2a3ebe383

 

 

Why are these people making everything about them and their religion? How selfish. Friday's ruling has no effect on you if you do not wish to marry into the same sex. No one is forcing these pastors to do anything. If you don't want to officiate a wedding, fine, the engaged couple can go elsewhere. I hear having ordained friends is quite popular today.   

  • Like 3

I am on another (non-technical) site where there are people from around the world. I'm sure it is often easy to misinterpret things on our news. (Even our own people do that continually). 

Justice Moore would never be allowed to do that.

If he said that, it's just for show. Probably playing up to his own political backers. 

 

The President could send C-130's full of Abrams tanks down there to prevent anything like that. 

 

Uhm, no. That would be illegal.

Let's face it, marriage was never designed nor worded for the joining of two same sex couples. They can have a civil union but the word marriage cannot be used.

Actually the word marriage CAN be used. The SCOTUS just said so. That's how we roll here in the USA, so you are the one who needs to face it. 

 

And so you know, I couldn't care less about the Islamic or any other religion. Religion is simply a tool used to control the weak-minded among us.   :p

But this is exactly what is going on, except for the naming.

I don't think gay people were fighting for the right to be married at a church. They just want to have the same legal rights as hetero couples.

I disagree. I think the name is at the core of this whole issue.

 

True, I don't think most care about churches. But if the right to be civilly joined was the only thing they asked for, I doubt many would have been opposed. I believe two (or more) people should be free to enter into whatever legal agreement they want. The real question is whether such unions should be afforded special privileges under the law.

 

In the case of marriage, there are certain legal privileges -- particularly involving taxes, power of attorney powers, and other benefits. I believe gay couples should have complete access to all of these so long as their unions are as legally binding as those of non-gay couples.

 

But I don't think it should be called marriage. That word already has a definition. And I believe the activists want that definition changed not only to grant themselves access to the aforementioned privileges (which they do deserve), but also to weaken the influence and the mindshare of religion and other so-called "traditional values". I see a systematic and sometime concerted effort in this country and others to undermine and deconstruct traditional values and religion -- in particular, Christian religion.  Islam, for the moment, seems to be off-limits. But Christianity is under assault on multiple fronts.

 

If you don't believe, then don't -- it is your right. But we who do believe are also exercising a protected right -- at least until that right is taken away (which I believe is the goal of many). By the language of many of the posters in this thread (and the replies that are sure to follow this post), I'm sure many of you would support the removal of that right. But I caution you not to pledge your support to quickly. A government that can take away such a right can take away almost anything. Today you might be on the benefitting side of such a government. Tomorrow you might not be so lucky.

 

-Forjo

  • Like 3

Marriage isn't a religious construct, it's a legal one. It's also a federally protected right under US law, so you can't restrict it to people just because a religion disagrees (Especially because the US isn't a "religious country")

Uhm, no. That would be illegal.

Yeah, it'd be the national guard, not the army.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why Delta Chat is the best decentralized messenger you have probably never tried by Paul Hill There is no shortage of messaging apps out there; we have WhatsApp, Messenger, and Telegram, just to name a few. While Meta has taken steps to incorporate encryption into Messenger and WhatsApp, they still leave a lot to be desired. If you are in the market for a messaging app that promotes security, privacy, and optional anonymity, you'll want to read what I have to say about Delta Chat. For those not familiar with Delta Chat, rather than relying on centralized servers as you do with Facebook Messenger, it relies on email. Essentially, it is a chat interface that feels like a messaging app, but secretly in the background, it is firing off emails. In the past, you used to have to sign in with your email account. When you sent messages to people, it would just be sending encrypted messages to their inbox, which their Delta Chat client would decrypt. When I first learned about Delta Chat, it required users to sign in with an email account, but I was pleasantly surprised upon trying it in 2026 that this is no longer a requirement, or the preferred method was to use the app. Recently, I’ve tried UAD-ng on my old Nokia 3.4 to disable most of the Google apps because the bootloader is locked, and this is the next best option. While finding replacement apps in F-Droid, I came across Delta Chat again, and it has undergone quite a big change since I last used it, with its new chatmail relays, which no longer require you to sign in to your own email account, providing anonymity, and they offer greater security. Android and Desktop Delta Chat apps. Not only does it run on my de-googled phone, but it also works on desktop computers and iOS, making it truly ubiquitous. For me, Delta Chat is a wonderful alternative messenger because it gives you more control. It supports switching between different profiles, which you can set up super quickly; you don’t register a username, you don’t register a password. The only thing you do have is a random string email address on a chatmail relay (which you don’t have to memorize). To maintain access to your profile, you just need to add a second device to your account via QR code or make a backup of your account, which you can restore later. Fail to do these, your account is gone - as it should be if you don’t want to leave accounts that could get hacked later on. My decision to block Google stuff on my Nokia was done for practical reasons; the device sucked when it launched, and it sucks even more now. The nice thing about F-Droid and the apps within is that they’re usually lightweight, free of bloat, and work well on that device. What was inconvenient for me was that it was hard to send messages from that device, say if I wanted to copy a code over to my main phone or send family members a link from that device. That’s when I decided to look at the available chat apps and saw Delta Chat. Another nice thing about Delta Chat is its notifications. Some messaging apps rely on Google’s ecosystem for notification transport on Android; however, with Delta Chat, it can use Google’s solutions if you have Play Services or MicroG installed. Otherwise, it is able to keep a background connection to the chatmail relay server so that you can get notified when you receive a message. As free software, the code of Delta Chat is open for all who want to take it and build upon it. In the future, if the developers of Delta Chat make a catastrophically bad decision and take the app in an undesirable direction, users can take the code and fork the project. This contrasts with closed-source apps from corporations that can take their products in any direction they like. By relying on free software instead of closed-source programs, you actually control your computing. I’ve spoken at length about how running this type of software is like owning your own home rather than renting it. The same applies here; if you use Delta Chat, you don’t need to worry about it going away in the future. Whether it is Telegram, WhatsApp, or Messenger, you are required to register a username and password to use these services. A major flaw in this design is that anyone can try various passwords and potentially break into your account with your complete chat history intact. Sure, there is encryption in Messenger, where you need a second PIN and two-factor authentication in Telegram, but breaches happen all the time. Unlike before, when you used to sign in to your email account to send and receive messages, the primary way to do it now is to create an account on a chatmail relay. The resulting email address is a random string followed by the name of the relay you pick. This means you can start and begin adding contacts Without a username and password, you either need to ensure you have a backup or at least one device running your Delta Chat profile. The primary way to log in on another device is to go to the settings and add a second device. Then, you’ll just scan a QR code with your new device, and it’ll log in to your account and sync all your chat history and contacts. To end users, Delta Chat just looks like any instant messenger; however, it is really sending your messages as encrypted emails to your contact. This is pretty cool from a censorship perspective, as it makes the service more difficult to block. Previously, the main way to use the app was by logging in with email, but nowadays, it’s recommended that you use chatmail relays. Chatmail relays temporarily hold messages in case your device is offline. They are cheap, simple servers that don’t store data as group states. Other information, like your name and avatar, only exists on your device and the devices of those you share your contact information with. The relays are also decentralized and operated by various groups and individuals. It is even possible to set up your own chatmail relay, but most people will want to use one hosted elsewhere. To keep your messages secure, Delta Chat uses a secure subset of the OpenPGP standard that gives you automatic end-to-end encryption. It also uses Secure-Join to exchange encryption setup information through QR-code scanning or invite links. Autocrypt is also used to automatically establish end-to-end encryption between contacts and all members of group chat, but sometime this year Autocrypt v2 will be rolled out, bringing post-quantum resistant encryption and forward secrecy. The Delta Chat FAQ is an interesting read that explains many more details about the app. Credit: Pexels Delta Chat is unique among messaging apps because it is built on email, a technology that’s decades old and isn’t going anywhere soon. What’s more is that email is not centralized either, so it’s far more difficult for any authoritarian regime to disrupt the Delta Chat app. I haven’t spoken too much about features yet, so I will do that now. Delta Chat allows you to do one-on-one chats, group chats, and create channels. It also supports file sharing and making audio and video calls when chatting one-to-one, but it’s not available for group chats right now. At the time of writing, the calling functionality is disabled and can be enabled in Settings > Advanced > Debug Calls. I have used the video calling feature, and the quality is excellent. It works over WebRTC, another open standard. The app also lets you send voice notes, enables disappearing messages, and has its own app ecosystem. I did try playing chess one time there, but it was a bit spotty; though, we did manage to complete the game with a victory for me. To add people to Delta Chat, you can either give them your Delta Chat link or your QR code to scan. These are the only ways to add users, so you won't have any spam bots bothering you. If the people you want to chat with don't have the app yet, just send them your link, and it will take them to a webpage where they can install the app and then add you. It's really quick for them to install it and get started, which is nice. Credit: Microsoft. The Majorana 2 quantum chip unveiled in 2026. I do not think quantum computers are too far out now, and I do hope that Delta Chat is able to push out Autocrypt v2 sooner, rather than later, so bad actors do not attempt to collect encrypted communications and then decrypt them in the future using quantum computers. By getting people’s messages post-quantum-safe now, users won’t have to worry when quantum computers start cracking legacy encryption. Overall, I would recommend this app to people who are already past WhatsApp and Messenger and have perhaps begun using apps like Telegram or Session. It shares a lot of characteristics with these apps and goes a lot further than Telegram in terms of security. By being based on email, it is also resistant to censorship, and the lack of a username and password makes you anonymous (if you want to be) and safe from brute force password cracking attempts. Let me know in the comments if you’ve tried Delta Chat recently. Do you think it's a good bulwark against governments that are tightening their grip on the internet?
    • Putin was behind Farage/Brexit and behind Trump/MAGA. Different idiot lying beasts, same fascist master. Same screwed up results for both nations.
    • For me the Final Fantasy games, Langrisser I & II, Hardspace: Shipbreaker, Horizon Forbidden West Complete Edition, Metaphor: ReFantazio and LUNAR Remastered Collection
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      465
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      217
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      155
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!