Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages


Recommended Posts

Government being religious or not has nothing to do with them granting power to marry to priests and other religious figures. The documentations is still state documentation, it's just that you can do it at some churches. But now, that power may be stripped from many churches making the process of marriage to go to a courthouse.

If they breach the conditions of being a 501c3 yes they would have to pay their taxes, This is the same with any issue abortion, which president we should pick etc.

 

And I have no idea what you mean by the the "power grab" statement. How does a non-profit having tax exemption indicate a power grab? You really like to pull issues out of thin air TPreston.

because you are asking for special treatment for churches you cite them losing tax exempt status if they breach the conditions as a problem that needs to be fixed.

 

Churches, priests and other religious figures shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples. Thats a church matter and if they feel they need protection from that, then maybe that will be a separate issue that needs to be talked about.

Yeah we might have to create some rule preventing government from interfering with the free exercise of religion... Oh wait we already friken have that and this is just a red herring for the power grab I mentioned.

Would be awesome if they also refused taxes from gay people.  :woot:

:laugh:

Can't be bothered reading this whole thread but is this mostly dumb people cherry picking parts of the bible to deny the rights of others, while ignoring the parts of the bible they violate constantly?

Nah you got it all wrong ! We are the mistaken ones!

Yeah we might have to create some rule preventing government from interfering with the free exercise of religion.

 

The solution is really quite simple, you can do one of two things.

 

1.  Create a law that gives churches the right to refuse to marry someone, you can still go to a judge etc, who can't refuse to perform it, for a secular ceremony.  

 

2.  Alternatively (and better IMO), take the legal part of a marriage away from the church completely. You go to a judge etc to get legally married and sign the license; EVERYONE does that if they want to be married.  Then after that, you can go to a church if you like for a religious ceremony so that the requirements of your faith are met.

The solution is really quite simple, you can do one of two things. Either add in a law that gives churches only the right to refuse to marry someone. Alternatively (and better IMO), take the legal part of a marriage away from the church completely. You go to a judge or whatever to get legally married and sign the license. EVERYONE does.  Then after that, you can go to a church if you like for a religious ceremony so that the requirements of your faith are met.

Or just let the first amendment do its thing ?

because you are asking for special treatment for churches you cite them losing tax exempt status if they breach the conditions as a problem that needs to be fixed.

 

So censorship. Nice. This is the government encroaching on the church, what was that thing you stated? Separation of church and state? The power grab isn't of the church, but the people opposed it. We could also just stop tax exemptions rather than letting the government use them as bargaining chips on political issues.

 

The solution is really quite simple, you can do one of two things.

 

1.  Create a law that gives churches the right to refuse to marry someone, you can still go to a judge etc, who can't refuse to perform it, for a secular ceremony.  

 

2.  Alternatively (and better IMO), take the legal part of a marriage away from the church completely. You go to a judge etc to get legally married and sign the license; EVERYONE does that if they want to be married.  Then after that, you can go to a church if you like for a religious ceremony so that the requirements of your faith are met.

 

I can agree with this, but people need to be patient and allow it to happen. The problem here is we have a situation where these things weren't in place beforehand and people are going to be on edge because of it.

Or just let the first amendment do its thing ?

 

Well, unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be good enough any more...

I can agree with this, but people need to be patient and allow it to happen. The problem here is we have a situation where these things weren't in place beforehand and people are going to be on edge because of it.

 

Well, if those opposed had stopped acting like babies and got together with their opponents to sort this out fairly and equitably, something sensible could be in place NOW and SCOTUS wouldn't have been forced to ram it down their throats.  I'm glad they did it, but it was always going to make a lot of people very angry.

So censorship. Nice.

No it most certainly is not censorship any more than having a job is slavery if you want to be able to tell everyone vote Romney then pay your taxes and stop living off the government.

 

This is the government encroaching on the church, what was that thing you stated?

No its the church obeying the same rules as any other non profit organisation.

 

Separation of church and state? The power grab isn't of the church, but the people opposed it. We could also just stop tax exemptions rather than letting the government use them as bargaining chips on political issues.

Nobody is forcing them down the churches throat.

This is not a new issue its exactly the power grab I spoke of before.

Government being religious or not has nothing to do with them granting power to marry to priests and other religious figures. The documentations is still state documentation, it's just that you can do it at some churches. But now, that power may be stripped from many churches making the process of marriage to go to a courthouse. If more people are going to government facilities they could get crowded (especially now in states where their infrastructure isn't meant to handle it). You can't just handwave away the problems with making the changes  by saying "It shouldn't have been that way". Well sorry but it is that way. They are still problems.

 

And I have no idea what you mean by the the "power grab" statement. How does a non-profit having tax exemption indicate a power grab? You really like to pull issues out of thin air TPreston.

 

You do realize that the government clerks has to do the same amount of work wether the churches who perform a ceremony are also allowed to have the sign a legal paper. it's still the government clerks who need to process all of it, and receive the papers from the church, the only difference is they now receive the papers directly from the couple instead of the church. 

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/06/30/3675451/texas-ag-religious-liberty/

 

Things are getting crazier and crazier.

 

I've said this before, but one of the worst things to ever happen to humanity was the invention of religion.

 

 

T

 

And the second worse thing was leaving the ocean to begin with!

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=5144

 

Looks like the Texas Attorney General is allowing state officials to refuse to marry if they feel their religious beliefs are being harmed. 

Oh the comments on his facebook announcement are great, Texans are tearing this guy a new one and requesting he resign for putting religion above his job and the law. 

 

I just don't get why its so hard for these guys to see a non Christians point of view on this issue. If your religious views were that violated you need to step aside and let someone else who can uphold the constitutional laws do the job. 

 

Actually, I'd say his statement is a reasonable compromise. He isn't forbidding officials from marrying, but allowing them to do so or not according to their views. Nothing is preventing the couple in question from just going to another official who has no such issue. The statement doesn't prevent anyone from getting married - it just means people aren't forced to conduct the ceremony if it conflicts with their faith. I don't see it as a problem unless every official refuses, which is unlikely.

Actually, I'd say his statement is a reasonable compromise. He isn't forbidding officials from marrying, but allowing them to do so or not according to their views. Nothing is preventing the couple in question from just going to another official who has no such issue. The statement doesn't prevent anyone from getting married - it just means people aren't forced to conduct the ceremony if it conflicts with their faith. I don't see it as a problem unless every official refuses, which is unlikely.

And im sure you guys TOTALLY! forgot to mention this when this was going on :roll:

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20091015/ARTICLES/910159860

Actually, I'd say his statement is a reasonable compromise. He isn't forbidding officials from marrying, but allowing them to do so or not according to their views. Nothing is preventing the couple in question from just going to another official who has no such issue. The statement doesn't prevent anyone from getting married - it just means people aren't forced to conduct the ceremony if it conflicts with their faith. I don't see it as a problem unless every official refuses, which is unlikely.

Sure its reasonable, but these are officials that have an obligation to uphold the laws of the constitution. I wasn't aware that government officials could opt in or opt out of which laws they want to enforce based on their beliefs. I thought thats where separation of church and state came into play.  

 

 

@TPreston Again another case of over stepping bounds based on beliefs. Sure that official has a point about inter racial kids, but thats not her business or her job, she has to uphold the laws of the constitution. If she cares that much maybe she should switch to marriage counseling 

 

Remember these officials swore on oath to defend the laws of the constitution not the bible

Actually, I'd say his statement is a reasonable compromise. He isn't forbidding officials from marrying, but allowing them to do so or not according to their views. Nothing is preventing the couple in question from just going to another official who has no such issue. The statement doesn't prevent anyone from getting married - it just means people aren't forced to conduct the ceremony if it conflicts with their faith. I don't see it as a problem unless every official refuses, which is unlikely.

 

Did you not read the post I did a few above yours?

 

By allowing them to deny marriage on their views opens up an entire can of worms.  

 

What if you're a member of one religion and the Clerk is a member of a different one - now you're screwed because he doesn't like you.  

 

The use of any religious test or practice to deny a state service is a tacit governmental approval of one religion over another, which is completely Unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment.

 

We are supposed to have a wall of separation between Church and State, and for a good reason. 

 

 

T

And im sure you guys TOTALLY! forgot to mention this when this was going on :roll:

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20091015/ARTICLES/910159860

 

What exactly does that have to do with this particular circumstance? You just love tangents, don't you?

What exactly does that have to do with this particular circumstance? You just love tangents, don't you?

Don't you approve ? Observe the unintended consequences.

Did you not read the post I did a few above yours?

 

By allowing them to deny marriage on their views opens up an entire can of worms.  

 

What if you're a member of one religion and the Clerk is a member of a different one - now you're screwed because he doesn't like you.  

 

The use of any religious test or practice to deny a state service is a tacit governmental approval of one religion over another, which is completely Unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment.

 

We are supposed to have a wall of separation between Church and State, and for a good reason. 

 

 

T

 

I don't know of any religion that forbids couples of other faiths to marry, so that's not a valid comparison.

 

Which particular faith is being approved over the others in this case? Most have a prohibition when it come to gay marriage, so they would be equally served in this case. So it's not approval of one religion over another, but a protection of freedom of religion. An upholding of the Constitution, rather than a violation.

 

But I thought in this case it was performing the ceremony that was being left up to the officials. When did it become about the paperwork?

 

The forcing of a person to violate their religious beliefs is also completely unconstitutional, but let's just ignore that, shall we?

 

How about a compromise that protects the gays' right to marry without compromising the religious freedoms of the officials? There has to be a middle ground. Certainly arguing over whose freedoms are being violated more accomplishes nothing.

The forcing of a person to violate their religious beliefs is also completely unconstitutional, but let's just ignore that, shall we?

So you support the actions of this justice of peace ??? http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20091015/ARTICLES/910159860 ?

The forcing of a person to violate their religious beliefs is also completely unconstitutional, but let's just ignore that, shall we?

 

Law overrides beliefs. If you can't handle that, you're in the wrong job.

But I thought in this case it was performing the ceremony that was being left up to the officials. When did it become about the paperwork?

 

The forcing of a person to violate their religious beliefs is also completely unconstitutional, but let's just ignore that, shall we?

 

umm...did you not read the quote from the article?

 

Let me quote it again....emphasis mine....

 

 

 

Set into motion, efforts like Paxton

So you support the actions of this justice of peace ??? http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20091015/ARTICLES/910159860 ?

 

 If there's a religious element there it isn't mentioned, so this case isn't relevant. Once again, you're veering off on a tangent.

umm...did you not read the quote from the article?

 

Let me quote it again....emphasis mine....

 

 

A state employee would now have the right to look at your paperwork and refuse to perform the job they have been assigned to do because of religion.  That is a violation of the First Amendment because there can be no religious test or law applied to any government action.  If a state employee is using a religious test as part of their job and denies you service, you could sue and there would be a thousand lawyers at your beck and call that would love to take this case.

 

 

T

 

That's just speculation at this point. If concerns about churches possibly being expected to marry gay couples (regardless of their laws) are not an issue yet (as both Hawkman and TPreston have stated) then neither is this.

...sigh...

 

You didn't read it completely.

 

**This is already happening in North Carolina**

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/11/north-carolina-gay-marriage_n_7561886.html

 

 

The law effectively allows magistrates to opt out of performing same-sex, or even interracial or interfaith, marriages. If an official declines to officiate a marriage on religious grounds, that official will be barred from performing any marriages for a period of six months.

 

For some people, that's a small price to pay for their religious beliefs - and I'll bet they'll claim that they're being persecuted for their faith on top of it....which is completely wrong.

 

You can't use religion as an excuse to be discriminatory.  

 

 

T

...sigh...

 

You didn't read it completely.

 

**This is already happening in North Carolina**

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/11/north-carolina-gay-marriage_n_7561886.html

 

 

For some people, that's a small price to pay for their religious beliefs - and I'll bet they'll claim that they're being persecuted for their faith on top of it....which is completely wrong.

 

You can't use religion as an excuse to be discriminatory.  

 

 

T

 

Honestly, as stated in that article, it reads more like the law is against declining - you can't officiate at a wedding for 6 months after you decline for religious reasons. Since when is a 6 month suspension, even if just in one area, considered allowing? Seems more like punishment.

 

So in NC you can opt out, at the cost of 6 months of work (in that one function at least). Where is the allowing in that?

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • NetSpeedTray 1.3.3 by Razvan Serea NetSpeedTray is a lightweight, open-source Windows network monitor that shows live upload and download speeds directly on the Taskbar. Designed for efficiency, it quietly sits in the system tray, conserving CPU and battery with dynamic updates. It blends seamlessly with Windows 10/11, adapts to light/dark themes, and auto-positions to avoid overlaps. Features include accurate interface detection, customizable display, optional mini-graph, color coding, granular font and unit control, detailed per-interface history graphs, safe data management, and easy CSV export—bringing the network monitoring Windows forgot. NetSpeedTray key features: Lightweight & Efficient Runs quietly in your system tray without consuming resources. Features a "Dynamic Update Rate" that lowers refresh frequency when the network is idle to save CPU and battery life. Native Look & Feel Blends seamlessly with Windows 10/11 UI. Smart detection for light and dark taskbar themes ensures text is always visible. Intelligent & Adaptive Positioning Automatically finds empty space next to your system tray and shifts to make room for new icons, preventing overlaps. Seamless OS Integration Behaves like a native Windows component. Hides instantly with auto-hiding taskbar Hides when a fullscreen app is active Smart Network Monitoring Accurate by Default: Auto mode identifies your main internet connection and ignores noise from VPNs or virtual adapters. Easy Interface Selection: Switch effortlessly between Auto, All, or Selected network interfaces via intuitive radio buttons. Total Visual Customization Free Move Mode: Unlock and place the widget anywhere on your screen. Optional Mini-Graph: Real-time graph of recent network activity with adjustable opacity. Color Coding: Customize colors and speed thresholds to quickly see network status. Granular Display Control Text & Font: Adjust font family, size, weight, and alignment. Units: Automatic (B/s, KB/s, MB/s) or fixed Mbps display. Precision: Set decimal places and always show them for uniform appearance. Detailed & Intelligent History Graph Smart Scale: Logarithmic scale shows low-level traffic and large spikes clearly. Per-Interface Filtering: View speed history for specific adapters (Wi-Fi, Ethernet, VPN). Safe & Efficient Data Management: Adjustable retention, automatic cleanup, optimized database. Easy Data Export: Export raw data to .csv or save high-quality graphs for reports. NetSpeedTray v1.3.3: The Updater Fix A stabilization release that repairs a critical regression in v1.3.2: the app shipped without OpenSSL, which silently broke every HTTPS request — including the built-in update checker (the "Could not check for updates" error many of you hit). This release restores it, hardens the build so it can't happen again, and fixes a startup crash plus four other reported bugs. Changes: Fixed update checking — Resolved a critical issue that prevented the app from checking for updates ("Could not check for updates"). Fixed startup crash with Auto-Cycling — The app no longer crashes on launch after enabling Cycle display mode. Fixed incorrect network speeds on 10GbE adapters — Multi-gigabit network cards now display speeds correctly instead of being stuck at 0. Improved color coding — Default color is shown when idle, and color/threshold changes now apply immediately without restarting. Fullscreen visibility fix — The widget now correctly stays visible over fullscreen apps when Keep Visible is enabled. Improved AMD Ryzen temperature detection — More reliable CPU temperature monitoring for Ryzen processors. Cleaner upgrades — Installer now removes outdated application files during upgrades, preventing DLL/version conflicts while preserving user settings. Improved stability — Fixed potential DLL loading issues by excluding critical OpenSSL and NumPy components from UPX compression. Better settings window — Scrollbars removed and layout improved for a cleaner experience. Localization improvements — Updated translations and completed missing UI text across all supported languages. More reliable releases — Added regression tests covering recent critical fixes, bringing the test suite to 196 passing tests. [full release notes] Download: NetSpeedTray 1.3.3 | 87.9 MB (Open Source) Download: NetSpeedTray Portable | 101.0 MB View: NetSpeedTray Home Page | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • 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?
  • 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
      468
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      217
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      155
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      73
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!