LOUISIANA GOVERNOR SUPPORTS RIGHT OF STATES TO REGULATE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION
|| By FITSNEWS || We’ve long admired Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal for his support of free market education reforms … and his willingness to take on the federal government in defense of such reforms (and in opposition to Common Core).
Those stances are among the reasons Jindal is receiving attention as a possible 2016 presidential candidate.
Of course Jindal’s position on the issue of gay marriage is threatening to end his presidential aspirations before they really begin … alienating him from libertarian-leaning voters.
“I hold the view that has been the consensus in our country for over two centuries: that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Jindal wrote last week in The New York Times. “Polls indicate that the American consensus is changing – but like many other believers, I will not change my faith-driven view on this matter, even if it becomes a minority opinion.”
Not only does Jindal personally oppose gay marriage, he supports government’s right to regulate marriage at the state level.
Jindal touted these views at a big evangelical event in early voting Iowa last week – saying his home state wouldn’t give in to government or corporate pressure on the issue.
“We’ve got legislation in Louisiana to protect people of faith and conscience who hold a traditional view of marriage,” he told Iowa conservatives.
And as for corporate critics of that legislation?
“They might as well save their breath, because corporate America is not going to bully the governor of Louisiana.”
According to Jindal, defending freedom called for “populist social conservatives to ally with the business community on economic matters and corporate titans to side with social conservatives on cultural matters.”
“This is the grand bargain that makes freedom’s defense possible,” he wrote.
Interesting logic …
We find it very easy to embrace Jindal’s contention that a certain amount of “discrimination” in defense of one’s religious beliefs is permissible – in fact we’ve argued as much. But for a true limited government “conservative” to claim the “right” of government to regulate a religious institution?
That’s heresy in our book …
No government (at any level) has the right to tell an individual congregation whom it can or cannot marry … period. And for Jindal to cast his support for such a policy under the guise of “religious freedom” is profoundly disappointing.
Not to mention self-limiting politically …
88 comments
Who cares? This guy won’t ever be president.
Bobby has reached his limit. I hope he likes the backwater of Baton Rouge.
Yeah,wonder why Fits cares about him?Jindal is a Republican and Fits isnt!(heh heh heh)
Because we need information – do you think the Democrat party is sitting back and only talking Hillary? Or the Republican party only talking about Bush?
I was getting ready to break my good natured statements. Thanks to you, I can just click like ;)
I think Bobby should take the next step in gov’t regulated marriage by mandating that Lord Krishna be present at all official gov’t sanctioned marriage.
It’s an appropriate homage to his personal history and really shows us that even though his parents believe marriage to be the domain of Krishna that he can still find a way for gov’t to help us all be better people by regulating who can take marriage vows recognized by our glorious, all seeing and caring gov’t masters.
Amen.
He’s positioning himself to run for Vitter’s Senate Seat – no gay marriages, and mens can have all the whores they want.
Just like the gays, any woman who lets Vitter, Me, or anyone else to pay her for sex is an abomination in the eyes of god.
“Just like the gays, any woman who lets Vitter, Me, or anyone else to pay her for sex is an abomination in the eyes of god.”
We are not talking about church here so who the fuck really gives a shit what your god sees and thinks?
Sic, you mean his deeply-felt and principled opposition to Common Core which he supported until the “religious right” scared him so about his future political prospects he flip-flopped?
“Marriage is one man and one woman,” Barack Hussein Obama….You IGNORANT hypocrite F*#k…LMAO…Dumb@$$….Hahahahaha
Point is, Hussein changed his mind and came to the future, Jindahl is just living in the past – like you.
LMAO….That MoFo waited until he had to have the Billions in political payoffs, and votes from the gays to get his Greedy @$$ elected…
Exactly. Jeb and Jindal were the biggest proponents of Common Core anywhere. Until the nutty GOP base got involved. Jindal has tanked the LA economy too, primarily with tax cuts for the rich. Too bad we don’t hear more about that.
Freedom to marry who we want you to through bans on gay marriage and interracial marriage.
Freedom of the religion we approve of to be forced down your kids’ throat in public schools.
Freedom of expressing only religions we approve of on public property.
Freedom of privacy in the bedroom, but only if you are married and only if we don’t think who you are doing it with or what you are doing is icky.
Freedom of being forced to carry a product of rape or incest to term, even if it endangers the life of the mother.
Freedom of not being covered for birth control regardless of the reason, because your employer knows best.
Freedom of being openly discriminated against by businesses open to the public because separate is totally equal.
And, the most important freedom of all: Freedom to spend as much money as you want bribing Republican politicians!
Don’t you just love your “freedom” guys?
Bobbie has a lot to say these days since he can’t run for President. All of it ugly, crazy, uncivil, Bobbie Jindal’s worst enemy is himself.
Absoluckingfutely!
And here we go. In an effort for the second and third tier candidates to have a chance against the Jeb – Marco – walker tier, they’ze gonna be coming at ’ems with the social issues. Firsts, we’z gonna beat up on them homos. Everyone in da Iowa caucus knowz we’z hates de homos. Den, afters we get closer to Jeb-uan and Marcocito, wez gonna beat up on dem illegal ‘spanics. Now Jeb – he’s married to one. And Marco, well, he is one. Den we gonna gang up on Walker, but he pretty dumb, we can nix him. So, No Gay Marriages!!! Gays is parts of ISIS.
Obama opposed it BEFORE he was FOR it…you Ignorant, hypocrite F*#k…LMAO….
It’s 2015 now Tango, come over to the future.
So are you telling me Obama will be Pro-America in a few years????…LMAO….
Well, maybe you’ll be pro-American in a few years. Maybe.
That’s about right. That will be the thrust of the clueless wings, fur sure.
When you can’t beat ’em, you have to degrade and disparage the character of the opposition.
It matters not to me since ALL candidates have signed onto tax reform, most for a Flat Tax. (The exception being the Hildabeast, but she ain’t electable, so no one cares.)
Yeah, she not electable but she leads every GOP candidate in every poll.
Republicans are apoplectic about this issue. After years of openly calling gay people an abomination in the eyes of god, they are realizing they are on the wrong side of history and desperately want this whole issue to go away. Four of my favorite Repugnut positions on gay people.
Rubio – I dont’ think being gay is a choice, but I oppose gay marriage. I.E. no logical position at all.
Ted Cruz – I think gay people are an abomination. Gay marriage should be prohibited. Being gay is a choice. if my daughter were gay I would love her anyway???
Rand Paul – What was the question again? I am sorry I did not hear you. Are you asking me if happy people should be allowed to marry? Sorry I have to go.
Walker – opposed to gay marriage, will not say whether being gay is a choice, would not attend a gay wedding but would attend the reception thereafter.
Sexual preference is NOT a Civil Right…your rights as an American citizen are ALREADY protected…even if all you is B!*ch that they are not…
But why must you FORCE the government to redefine what you want to call ‘marriage’ for a VERY small percentage of the population…very few of whom get into that lifestyle for a committed relationship???
You’re just trying to Cram S#!t down our throat so you can show how your NAZI politicians will give you EXTRA rights…based on your bedroom proclivities…
That said: I just as soon the Government stay the F*#k out of hetero marriage…and give their blessings to you…and you only…and then if you ran your mouth…I’d SLAP the F*#k out of you….
But I bet if they dissolved “hetero marriage control…and gave you government marriage…how long before you be whining…demanding your Bull-S#!t political sham be dissolved, too…Dumb@$$…
Government is already involved in hetro marriage. You want a divorce, it goes through the courts and you divide up the assets. You want to get married, you have to get a marriage license. Same for hunting BTW. So get over it. Same sex couples deserve a right to marriage – and that requires courts to issue marriage licenses, and oversee the desolving of those marriages. Tough titties – if it bothers you too much go ready Taylor’s post for today. Nice pics. You gay basher.
They have the right to marry you Dumb@$$…I know gay people who got married, and even had a “pastor” perform the ceremony. Gay marriage has been going on for years…
Homosexual activists don’t have the right to pervert the definition of marriage based on the whims of a small gaggle of political partisans and lobbyists…
You realize you just contradicted yourself. They have the right to marry you Dumb@$$, followed by don’t have the right to pervert the definition of marriage by having the right to marry. What the front door are you talking about. 1 I’m glad you’re not an attorney. 2 I’m glad your not my attorney.
Theres: marry and there’s “marry”….
You even have “pastors” in certain “churches” who will perform ceremonies for you…I regularly make that distinction.
But if you are too stupid and/or ignorant to get it…it does no good to explain it to you.
… hetro marriage…
If the Spelling Nazis don’t get to you first, the Dept. of Redundancy Bureau would like a moment of your time…
“Sexual preference is NOT a Civil Right?”
So are you saying the government can pass a law requiring you to be gay? Especially since you admit you were not born straight. Did you decide to go straight before or after you went on welfare.
You don’t get EXTRA rights based on bedroom habits. You DON’T get the right to define marriage as you please, just because you sleep w/ men…
There is NO rule in the Constitution that makes it OK for you to make marriage mean what you want it to mean…You can’t SCREW over the people who INVENTED marriage…and made it an institution. Get married all you want. No one is stopping your miserable, whiney @$$hole…
I’ll be GLAD to have gov’t get the F*#k out of my household. But you’re just an IGNORANT F*#k pushing a cause talking about government sanctioning your marriage. It’s a right you invented because you want to weaken traditional families…by making them not special, and on the level w/ your carnal-based lifestyle choice..
“So are you saying the government can pass a law requiring you to be gay? ”
Howard – I cannot personally verify GT’s sexuality and have no plans to ever be able to personally verify GT’s sexuality but I can say that GT is obsessed – ridiculously obsessed and crazed – with homosexuality. If you are a regular reader of this forum you may notice that any time there is a mention of hot and nasty man-on-man sex GT gets a little hot and bothered – well, let me rephrase that – GT gets a LOT hot and bothered – and you’ll see lots more of the *@#%* slip into his posts. Now my personal opinion as to why more of the *@#%* slips into his posts at the mention of hot and nasty man-on-man sex is that GT at that point is one-handing it on the keyboard. Of course I have no idea what GT’s other hand might be doing at the mention of hot and nasty man-on-man sex but I have a pretty too idea. Thank you for your time.
He may oppose redefining and a new government-recognition of two people of the same sex calling themselves ‘married’…
But it’s none of your F*#king business how he fells about it…you ignorant- mind-controlling Totalitarian F*#k…
It’s my business if he’s running to represent my country as President – you moronic cussing old fart of a man.
Then you opposed Obama in 2008, when he was AGAINST perverting the definition of marriage????…or are you a F*#king LIAR…and a hypocrite?????
Rocky – why do waste your time with him? Just respond
……………………
You are never going to get a consensus, you know that. He is a waste of our time. He wants FITS to pay him for being an asshole.
I wouldn’t kick him off, but I wouldn’t respond. You and I can find enough to argue about and do it kindly .)
” He wants FITS to pay him for being an asshole.”
FITS pays himself for being an asshole?
LOL – GT made a comment he thinks FITS should pay him, I’m guessing he feels being an asshole 24/7 entitles him to some kind of pay?
It is none of my business who marries who and for the life of me don’t understand why some people think it is theirs.
Did you vote in favor of the amendment to the SC Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman?
Do you vote for politicians who oppose same sex marriage?
Isn’t this a great country, I don’t have to tell you how or who I voted for. If you are voting for a politician because of one issue, you may find yourself not voting for anyone.
Ok, then how did you vote on the Constitutional Amendment?
Like I said it’s a great country but I did say it’s none of my business or did you miss that?
No, I see you said that, and that is why I asked how you voted on the Constitutional Amendment. its OK to say I am not going to tell you, because that gives me the answer.
You know the answer, not really, since it’s none of my business, I didn’t vote yes or no. I left it up to the people that had an axe to grind, I’ll bet that really pisses you off.
No, it does not piss me off for a couple of reasons. First, if you did not care who had the right to marry you would have voted no; since that did absolutely nothing. Second, not voting is a statement of I do not oppose such an Amendment. i.e. I am ok with the state denying same sex couples the right to marry.
I never vote one issue by the way. I am an independent. But I never said this was none of my business. What my state does to other people is in fact my business.
Not always the case Bill, some of us know when to hold them and when to fold them, when to walk away and when to run. (kenny rogers)
Unfortunately you can’t play that game with a single issue Constitutional Amendment targeted at a specific group of people. That is what is referred to as a Call. In this case the same sex couples were the target.
A vote yes was a statement you oppose the right of same sex couples to marry. A vote no was a statement of you do not want the state to restrict the right of same sex couples to marry. Not voting means you don’t oppose the state restricting the right of same sex couples to marry. I opposed the state restricting anyone’s rights in this regard, so I voted no on the Amendment.
Yes, but we do have those Amendments to the Constitution which is called the Bill of Right. Not that I am telling you anything you don’t already know.
I personally think same sex couples deserve the same rights as married, but there is this big tug of war – left and right. It is nothing more than wedge issue to keep the people divided.
I personally don’t really give a care, I am married. I do believe they have rights. Constitutional rights.
We can debate all day, but I doubt I will change your mind, nor you mine. In the big picture it really doesn’t matter – the next generation will decide. I’ve given my opinion to the next, so there it is.
I am a strong believer in individual freedom. Whether I agree with it or not – doesn’t matter. We are all human. We have one life here. Most people don’t regret at end game what they did do, but more specifically what they didn’t.
I’ll with my choices, as I think others are entitled to live as theirs.
they did play that “Constitutional Amendment” targeted at a “specific group” – all those who drank. Look at prohibition. Look at slavery.
I don’t really understand where you are coming from, hard to on this medium. things easily misinterpreted. But …. IMNSO the constitution is framework upon which to build. It allowed change, but with a balance.
The truth is – the balance of power still resides with the people if they ever exercised it.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, it shouldn’t be a issue to begin with.
“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, it shouldn’t be an issue to begin with.”
Uh-huh. But it is. So not voting one way or the other says I don’t give a damn about the rights of anyone else and since my Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is not directly affected I’ll just sit and jack off and pleasure myself – as all I really care about is ME, ME, ME.
Anger management might help you but I doubt it.
LOL Turning on the lights in the basement might help but I doubt it – maybe you actually ought to go outside in the natural light sometime and you wouldn’t be such a constipated old fool.
“all I really care about is ME, ME, ME.”
People that don’t put themselves above others eventually go crazy and hurt themselves beyond repair.
Singles issues, unfortunately are what most people vote on. :(
You know we probable agree more than we disagree.
We probably do, I tried to point that out earlier ;)
I know that, I just don’t like people that take what I say as if I’m speaking for more than myself.
I don’t either. We are both individuals. With our own thoughts, doesn’t mean we can’t agree – when we do?
“I know that, I just don’t like people that take what I say as if I’m speaking for more than myself.”
I don’t even think you are speaking for yourself as I don’t think you know that the fuck you’re babbling about most of the time . . .
Do you feel better now?
LOL Do you???
” If you are voting for a politician because of one issue, you may find yourself not voting for anyone.”
Isn’t this a great country, if I want to vote for someone because of a single issue or because of a zillion issues it ain’t none of your fucking business and don’t really give a fuck why you think I vote for someone. Isn’t this a great country – or what?1?
I guess you’re not feeling better.
LOL I feel wonderful – have you turned on the lights in the basement yet?
That would be The Federal Department Of In Your Pants … Right down the hall from The Small Animal Administration.
In other news, the person buried in Grant’s tomb has been discovered by our intrepid reporters to be ….. Grant.
Uh oh…don’t look now but:
HUMA WITH CNN REPORTER AT WHITE HOUSE DINNER…
CNN GETS LEAK OF HILLARY BENGHAZI EMAILS…
Candidate Clinton ignores media; Longest time without interview…
Foundation admits mistakes on taxes…
Combined govt grants and donations…
Boss defends…
Hey FITS…you might want to wipe that S#!t off your face that Hillary’s blown all over you…
Y’all in a heap a’ trouble, boy…LMAO….O’Malley is first off the bench…and look at Baltimore….Hahahaha…it just keeps getting better…and you’re handling it like the Dumb@$$ you are…
Om Kring Kalikaye Namah
Om Kring Kalikaye Namah
Om Kring Kalikaye Namah
Om Kring Kalikaye Namah
What exactly does this chant mean to you?
Nomyohorengaykio.
Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
still interesting – but where is this from and what does it mean?
The direct path to enlightenment, chanted by Randy Quaid in the Last Detail
he said that = I can’t remember
hmm., interesting – but where is this from and what does it mean?
ok, interesting – but where is this from and what does it mean?
Kali Mantra: transforms the devotee to pure consciousness.
He probably shouldn’t get one then?
You can marry a goat for all I care … as long as it doesn’t raise my taxes.
Bingo!
I’m not even going to limit it to goats, they can marry dogs, donkeys, sheep, and even snakes for all I care – LOL
No mention of the federalism aspect of this, Will, which was Jindal’s major point especially considering his possible presidential run
It’s OK… America opposes Booby Jindal as President so all good.
how about some coverage of the massive success that has been Jindal’s education policies? i’d love to hear about it. maybe you should send your kids to school in lousiana?