A lot of times people assume that all conservatives are against gay rights and all liberals are for them.
A federal gay marriage case is risky, they say, because the Supreme Court has a conservative majority. Or, as they said before, Maine voters will uphold gay marriage because it’s such a liberal state. Turned out that wasn’t the case.
Political ideologies don’t necessarily predict support for gay rights, as last week’s Adar v. Smith decision shows. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguably the most conservative circuit after the Fourth, said that Louisiana must recognize the New York same-sex adoption of a Louisiana child even though Louisiana does not itself grant same-sex adoptions.
Conservatives tend to put precedent over public policy, and that’s what the court did here. While Louisiana might have its own public policy reasons for not allowing gay adoptions, the court said that the full faith and credit clause requires the state to recognize out-of-state ones.
That’s why gay rights cases relying on more conservatives arguments are more promising than ones that rely on public policy reasons. Take, for example, Gill v. OPM, the Massachusetts case asserting that marriage rights should be left up to the states, a typical conservative argument.
Especially if the Supreme Court keeps its historically conservative bent, arguments like these may have the most success in recognizing more rights for same sex couples.
There should be NO exceptions to the Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution. Louisiana is a State beholden to the United States as ruled by Mr. Justice Marshall, in the 19th century, when he established the Federal Government as Supreme over the rights of States and Individuals.
Nor should they be any exceptions to Human Rights irregarless of genders or sexual orientations involved. The chief problem in cases as these as the opposers are basing their refusal to observe guaranteed civil rights based on Religion as well as traditions that have no rational right for being.
While the Constitution does grant Freedom to worship as one pleases—such freedoms are not absolute because e.g. a religion might demand the murder of its believers which is contrary to Law not only in this country but in most countries around the world. The Consititution also says that we have the right to be FREE of Religion and its influence and in Lousiana the culprits here chiefly reside in the Christian Faith namely the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Church both of which regularly intrude upon the right to be free of religion and its influence in the people’s daily lives as well as the Governments. These two branches of Christianity not only try to do this in Lousiana (and succeed to varying degrees) but also in all of the Southern States and California just to mention a few. Clergy have been elected and allowed to run for office who are in active Office that should not be because the presents a conflict of interest and ethics and we have seen that when clergy serves in political office–evil often results and religion manages to creep in the door.
It should be unlawful for any member of the Clergy to hold any political office outside their faith, temple et al. I would like to suggest that the punishment for such violations should be the same as applied to the Church of England during the Revolution—disenfranchisement and disestablishment for a period of a minimum of 100 years and any repeats—100 years added for each violation along with stiff prision sentences for those bringing about such disestablishment for up to 70 years for contempt of the Constitution.
It was such taking of exceptions to Article IV and patchwork of laws that led to the Civil War which folks in Louisiana call the ‘War of Aggression’. It has been more than 150 years since the Civil War and it is high time the South cease thinking the same way that it did in 1850. This is not to say that States do not have rights—they do but only what the Federal Constitution says it does. The Attorney General of Lousiana should be brought to trial because he was the impetus for the clerk acting as she did.
The US Consitution is not in the business of restricting freedoms nor should be but in the business of expanding them as much as possible. Furthermore the Government is amoral thing and not in the business nor should be of telling people what their morals should be nor should it be legistlating morality according to what the christian faith or other religions believe is moral.
As such; the right of people to marry without interference from Religious groups should be absolute as it is a basic human right and futher recongnized in the case of Love vs Virginia and should be so without any further qualification including sexual orientation, gender, economic status, etc. The Court should examine Court Record an evidence presented to Judge Walker for his consideration in ruling that banning same sex marriages is unconsitutional. Louisiana and similar states is in violation of the civil rights of its citizens and should pay each of them for the damages that it has and is doing to its citizens.
Now having said the above; this writer is not against religion per se. The founders of this country were not religious per se but were mostly religious in name only because the Government of the United States and Constitution were founded in an age of Reason and what is more unreasonable that religion —especially when some religious figure supposedly overcomes gravity and natural laws and walks on water or turns by magic water into wine et al. Thomas Jefferson re-wrote the New Testament taking out such passages that were unreasonable. George Washington required the reading of COMMON SENSE by Thomas Paine–and that expresses the general view of religion by the founding fathers.