Bobby Jindal: No Government Coercion Based on Marriage

April 23, 2015

by Maggie Gallagher


Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (photo credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0)

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (photo credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0)

Gov. Jindal has taken to the most prominent enemy territory he can find, the op-ed pages of the old grey lady herself, to say: “no retreat baby, no surrender”*:

In Indiana and Arkansas, large corporations recently joined left-wing activists to bully elected officials into backing away from strong protections for religious liberty. It was disappointing to see conservative leaders so hastily retreat on legislation that would simply allow for an individual or business to claim a right to free exercise of religion in a court of law.

There are two primaries going on simultaneously: the money primary and the voter primary.  Jindal knows which side he is on:

I plan in this legislative session to fight for passage of the Marriage and Conscience Act.

The legislation would prohibit the state from denying a person, company or nonprofit group a license, accreditation, employment or contract — or taking other “adverse action” — based on the person or entity’s religious views on the institution of marriage.

Some corporations have already contacted me and asked me to oppose this law. I am certain that other companies, under pressure from radical liberals, will do the same. They are free to voice their opinions, but they will not deter me.

The Marriage and Conscience Act prevents the government from punishing anyone because they refuse to participate in a marriage against their conscience. It is viewpoint neutral; that fab gay caterer doesn’t have to help faithful Catholics get married either.

Kudos, kudos, kudos to Jindal. Who else will step up to the plate? It is only the question of whether the Judeo-Christian ethic in America will be tolerated or whether government will be used to punish and strip the livelihoods of people who cannot in conscience serve a particular marriage.

Nationally, the pledge would be to fight for the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act.

Who, besides me, will follow where Jindal leads?  Please share this post with as many people as you can.

Maggie Gallagher is a senior fellow at American Principles in Action.

*Bruce Springsteen is for gay marriage yes he is I know.


Maggie Gallagher is a senior fellow at the American Principles Project.

Archive: Maggie Gallagher

128 comments on “Bobby Jindal: No Government Coercion Based on Marriage”

  • AlanfromBigEasy says:

    Sexual attraction is, for many people, an immutable behavior. And celibacy (see Catholic priests) is not a behavior option for many.
    Again I note your fixation with gay men and not women. Lesbians have never transmitted HIV, not once, unlike millions of heterosexual couples (see Africa), so they must be God’s Chosen People by your “logic”.
    You appear to be just a bigot looking for rationales for your bigotry. Just like the KKK members I grew up with. I know your type.

  • cahake says:

    AlanfromBigEasy cahake DimensioT Nor did I SAY that interracial marriage is immutable, so why are you making that point? 

    Of course, virtually NO behavior—the act of marrying included—is immutable (with the possible exception of involuntary behaviors like epileptic seizures). That is, virtually ALL behaviors (again, with the possible exception of involuntary behaviors like epileptic seizures) are a CHOICE—controllable and freely chosen by an act of human free will.

    And, as I said before (and which you’ve apparently twisted/misconstrued), race is an inborn, immutable, unchosen, uncontrollable, and morally benign/neutral TRAIT, whereas engaging in homosexual acts, for which God and our fellow man hold us accountable, is a behavior CHOICE that necessarily, as a freely chosen behavior, is NOT inborn, NOT immutable, NOT unchosen, NOT uncontrollable, and arguably NOT moral benign/neutral according the world’s major religions. 

    So again, what’s your point? Are you trying to say that people are irresistibly compelled to engage in homosexual acts? That they/we have no free will to choose our behavior? That we/they don’t have the power—and the moral responsibility—to control ourselves/themselves by abstaining from behaviors that are immoral and/or self-destructive, like homosexuality? (Google gay men’s HIV/AIDS rates for just one example of the destructive nature of anal intercourse, a dominant feature of homosexuality, as the human rectum—unlike a woman’s vagina—was not designed to accommodate a penis; its lining tears, breaks, and bleeds, allowing for rampant spread of STD’s.) 

    Or what IS your point???

  • AlanfromBigEasy says:

    cahake DimensioT 
    Interracial marriage is NOT “immutable” so your “logic” to claim that racial bigotry is not OK and gay bigotry is OK falls apart.

  • AlanfromBigEasy says:

    Dain B 
    Your arguments are not as sound as those before you that decried the sin of race mixing.
    Race may be immutable – and although there were de facto laws against being black – there were laws agianst both inter-racial sex and inter-racial marriage.
    Interracial sex and marriage are NOT immutable behaviors.

    Both sex and marriage are elected behaviors, they are not immutable. And they are less oppressive because most whites do find some whites sexually attractive most blacks do find some other blacks sexually attractive. So both races can easily have lawful intercourse and marriage.

    Just as you can easily not commit the sin of sex with your wife during her period, or not wear polyester/cotton blend clothing.

    A majority of marriages in the United States do not have children – and never planned to have any. So your argument that civil marriage is JUST for procreation is clearly false on the face of it. Just another “castle in the air” logical fallacy to justify your bigotry.

    As a Christian and a Quaker I wholeheartedly denounce your theology, just as I opposed racial bigotry before. Keep your ideas of sin inside your church walls and in your own bedroom.

    Don’t you DARE have sex with your wife during her period !!  That is a sin you can control. And donate most of your clothes, all the mixed cloth ones.

    You have created this false sophistry to justify your bigotry. Because that is your driving force. Hatred and bigotry with piety as just a cover.

  • cahake says:

    DimensioT cahake If the situation you suggest were a regularly occurring event, DimensioT, it would indeed be an issue. And such a religious business owner would have no scriptural basis for discriminating on the basis of race, which is an inherited, immutable, uncontrollable, and morally benign TRAIT, unlike homosexuality, which is instead is NOT 100% heritable (NO studies exist to prove that it is), and is in some cases mutable (changeable, even “fluid,” as many queer theorists admit). But most important, homosexuality is constituted centrally by subjective desire and volitional activity, i.e., freely chosen and controllable BEHAVIOR, which is perfectly legitimate to assess morally. Much better analogues for homosexuality are polyamory or consensual adult incest.

    And since, according to case law, the situation you suggest is NOT a problem in the U.S. (in fact, no state Religious Freedom Restoration Act has EVER been used to defend discrimination against homosexuals), and would not be sustained in court, your example is irrelevant—a red herring.

  • cahake says:

    coyote Dain B AlanfromBigEasy What are you talking about? Such instances, to whatever extent they existed—and I’ve never heard of ANY—were the rarest of exceptions only, not typical, and certainly not the norm. NO cultural heritage is established by flukes and exceptions of that sort. Please give me a break . . .

  • cahake says:

    AlanfromBigEasy They are the same in the ways that truly matter? Are you kidding, AlanfromBigEasy? 

    In THE most important way, namely, with regard to that essential, distinguishing component of natural marriage—its inherent sexual complementarity along with reproductive potential (typically)—same-sex “marriage” differs drastically from natural marriage, but to you that’s not important? That singular feature of natural marriage is the ONLY reason government even has an interest in regulating (being involved with) marriage at all in the first place. For the good of society, government should encourage the optimal and most stable type of relationship for children that may be born of the marital union. And that type of relationship is the God-ordained, 5,000-year-old universal, societal norm—natural marriage. Remove that essential feature, and marriage can just about be anything we want it to be—with multiple partners, between incestuous partners, or whatever . . . and will ultimately come to mean nothing. Is that what you want?

  • cahake says:

    coyote Dain B AlanfromBigEasy How are they not alike? Are you kidding coyote? 

    In THE most important way, namely, with regard to that essential, distinguishing component of natural marriage—its inherent sexual complementarity along with reproductive potential (typically)—same-sex “marriage” differs drastically from natural marriage, but to you that’s not important? That singular feature of natural marriage is the ONLY reason government even has an interest in regulating (being involved with) marriage at all in the first place. For the good of society, government should encourage the optimal and most stable type of relationship for children that may be born of the marital union. And that type of relationship is the God-ordained, 5,000-year-old universal, societal norm—natural marriage. Remove that essential feature, and marriage can just about be anything we want it to be—with multiple partners, between incestuous partners, or whatever . . . and will ultimately come to mean nothing. Is that what you want?

  • cahake says:

    AlanfromBigEasy Dain B I do note that people of your persuasion are particularly good at name-calling, using a plethora of terms like “bigot” and even manufactured ones likes “homophobic.” (I also oppose incest, adultery, fornication, etc., but no one is calling me an “incestophobe,” an “adulterphobe,” or a “forniphobe” for so doing. Why is that?) Nor are practitioners of those sexual sins loudly celebrating their immorality with the likes of “Incest Pride” or “Adultery Pride” parades, rallies, or other such events. Why is it that homosexuals, almost exclusively, are compelled to flaunt their disordered sexuality by publicly flouting the conventions of traditional Judeo-Christian morality? Why do they expect—no, DEMAND—to be granted an exemption from societal censure and stigmatization when those who practice many of these other sins do not presume to do so? Why do homosexuals fancy themselves to be special in this way? What or who has granted them this imagined “right”?

    BTW, we as Christians (as well as followers of Judaism and Islam) ARE as offended by lesbianism and “women marrying women” as we are by “men marrying men,” in accordance with God’s disapproval of such behavior as noted in Romans 1:24-28. Satisfied?

    Briefly, two other points: 

    Interracial marriage is NOT analogous to same-sex marriage. And that’s because, for the umpteenth time, homosexuality is not analogous to race. Race is a 100% heritable (genetic) TRAIT that is absolutely immutable (unchangeable) in ALL cases. Furthermore, race is not constituted by subjective desire or volitional (freely chosen) acts. In contrast, homosexuality is NOT 100% heritable (NO studies exist to prove that it is) and is in some cases mutable (changeable, even “fluid,” as many queer theorists admit). But most important, homosexuality is constituted centrally by subjective desire and volitional activity, i.e., freely chosen behavior, which is perfectly legitimate to assess morally. Much better analogues for homosexuality are polyamory or consensual adult incest.

    What?? “…in all the important ways except natural childbirth they are [alike]”?? So, in THE most important way, namely, with regard to that essential, distinguishing component of natural marriage—its inherent sexual complementarity along with reproductive potential (typically)—same-sex “marriage” differs from natural marriage, but to you that’s not “important”??? That singular feature of natural marriage is the ONLY reason government even has an interest in regulating (being involved with) marriage at all in the first place. For the good of society, government should encourage the optimal and most stable type of relationship for children that may be born of the marital union. And that type of relationship is the God-ordained, 5,000-year-old universal, societal norm—natural marriage. Remove that essential feature, and marriage can just about be anything we want it to be—with multiple partners, between incestuous partners, or whatever . . . and will ultimately come to mean nothing.

  • coyote says:

    Dain B AlanfromBigEasy Oh, and the original settlers in this country took same-sex wives and husbands.  What about their cultural heritage?

  • AlanfromBigEasy says:

    Only bigots do not see that they are the same in the ways that truly matter.
    BTW, why the hang-up about two men, but not two women ?

  • coyote says:

    Dain B AlanfromBigEasy It’s not simple.  How are they not alike?  Two people who love one another, who want to commit before God and man to love and honor one another for the rest of their lives.

    Who are YOU, Dain, and who is Government to tell a church who they can and cannot marry?

  • Dain B says:

    AlanfromBigEasy If they are not alike, why does the law force us to treat them as if they WERE alike? If two men attempting a one-flesh union is not the same as a true one-flesh union, why are you pushing for laws that force people to pretend it IS the same thing? I think it is because you are either a liar. or else you have a blindness of the mind and just sincerely don’t know what’s true. Either way, the truth is that you are the one forcing your irrational, illogical, untrue beliefs upon others.

  • AlanfromBigEasy says:

    Dain B 

    Bob Jones University did not allow inter-racial dating until 2000, after George W Bush spoke there (So obviously a good venue for conservatives).

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/marchweb-only/53.0.html

    Just because the Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia FORCED the State of Virginia (and 15 other states with similar laws) to issue civil marriage licenses to inter-racial couples, does NOT make a marriage between a black and a white like a marriage between two whites (or two blacks).  A 1970s, 1980s or 1990s graduate of Bob Jones University could well have a sincerely held religious belief that an inter-racial marriage is wrong in the eyes of God and refuse to “bake a cake” for their wedding.

    Should the government punish him or her ?

    I do note that homophobic bigots concentrate on “two men marrying” and not “two women marrying”.  Is that because your homophobia is stronger for gay men than women ?

    The issue is not “are they alike” (although in all the important ways except natural childbirth they are) but should the State of X issue a civil marriage license. And should bigots (racial bigots or homophobic bigots) be allowed to discriminate in their “public square” businesses ?

  • Dain B says:

    AlanfromBigEasy Well, maybe it’s a reality in your world, although you say you “remember it as a child”. I have never heard such a sermon. I have never even heard OF such a sermon in my life. Google is not reality. Anybody can put any lie online, that doesn’t mean it happened in real life. So, if it really is still happening, that’s wrong. But in my experience, and the experience of people I know, I have never actually heard of this. If and when it ever becomes a problem again, we’ll deal with it. It’s not one now. The problem today is that people are being forced to pretend 2 men are the same as husband and wife. And they’re not.

  • AlanfromBigEasy says:

    Dain B DimensioT cahake  This is Bob Jones Sr, founder of Bob Jones University, Easter Sermon, 1960

    http://www.drslewis.org/camille/2013/03/15/is-segregation-scriptural-by-bob-jones-sr-1960/ 

    I heard a sermon against race mixing from a large (#2 in Tuscaloosa) Southern Baptist Convention church (Calvary Baptist of Tuscaloosa) as a child.

    Even today, Google “sermon race mixing” and find the “sincerely held Christian beliefs” of today.

  • Dain B says:

    hamybear PhilWeingart coyote “Marriage equality” is a slogan, not a law. 2 men do not equal husband and wife. So the slogan “marriage equality” is actually closer to fraud than reality.

  • Dain B says:

    @ewe You are demonstrating yourself to be a liar. It doesn’t help your case.

  • Dain B says:

    hamybear cahake adambravo Chrisx2ra Adoption exists to provide parents for a child who has lost them somehow. Adoption does not negate the rights of a biological parent unless a child is forcibly adopted away from his parents, which would actually be more like kidnapping. So I do not think your comparison of adoption with homosexual “procreation” is logically coherent.

  • Dain B says:

    adambravo Chrisx2ra Nobody said procreation is the sole goal of marriage. But it is the structure that we as a society have developed to best handle the procreative reality inherent in the man-woman bond. A procreative reality which does not exist in same-sex couplings. Different types of relationship would logically imply different structures are necessary to best serve their needs. Dan Savage says male couples don’t really need to be monogamous, and he may have a point. Since it is not possible for homosexual male couplings to produce children, either inside or outside the relationship, it is not a concern that a man and his boyfriend will be hit up for child support like Bill Clinton always worries he will be. So even if faithfulness is desired in gay relationships, the reasoning and the situations are different, and thus a different kind of structure would be in order.

  • Dain B says:

    adambravo PhilWeingart The blood test can also indicate incompatible blood types which could be a problem during pregnancy. Or so some doctor’s website I found in one minute says. So your research needs a little work. Oh, and pregnancy is only a possibility with man-woman couples, which is the relevant piece of data here. Yes I know you claim your octogenarian father married well after his potency expired. But you can’t use a weird exceptional circumstance to try to ignore the obvious reasoning behind the standards for marriage.

  • Dain B says:

    hamybear cahake coyote PhilWeingart That’s a good point hamybear. One difference though is the cake is not an official celebration of gluttony, whereas a gay ceremony cake is an official celebration of sodomy. That fat lady is already on a diet and she’s only going to eat one little piece and give the rest to her gay neighbors. So judge not if you don’t have all the info. People like you who don’t really believe the bible shouldn’t try to tell other people how to live by it. Isn’t that what you’re against? Telling people how to live? We’re not telling you how to live. Do what you want. Just don’t force us to participate. Because that is just wrong and, actually, very hypocritical on your part who claim you just want to be left alone, yet you torment others.

  • Dain B says:

    adambravo cahake Well if you want to chase wild hypotheticals, are you going to marry your dog next?

  • Dain B says:

    coyote PhilWeingart They do no such thing and you know it – your church can marry whoever they want. What a liar!

  • Dain B says:

    coyote Are you high? The current reality is that gays are trying to force Christians to pretend 2 men are the same as husband and wife, even though they aren’t. The issue is people are being pressured to endorse sin, as if it was the good of true marriage. Marriage may not be religious for you, but it is for some people. This is called freedom of religion: you cannot force me to go against my religion – especially when the baker next door will bake your gay cake at a discount so you’re not even inconvenienced. You just want to force YOUR will on others, with utter disregard that it violates their religion and their conscience. Some people will probably be intimidated and knuckle under. But some won’t, and they are the people the first amendment is there to protect. Or was supposed to be.

  • Dain B says:

    AlanfromBigEasy WashingtonWallStComplex He’s simply saying 2 men are not the same as husband and wife. And he’s right.

  • Dain B says:

    hamybear WashingtonWallStComplex AlanfromBigEasy Gays have the same rights everybody else has. The problem you people will continue to have no matter what kooky legal decisions you manage to win is that 2 men are not the same thing as husband and wife, and it is kind of obvious to anybody with two eyes. Or even one eye. Marital benefits evolved for husband and wife. You’re already getting the benefits designed for a different kind of relationship than yours. What more do you want? You want to be the thought police and force other people to pretend 2 men are the same thing as husband and wife. The problem is, they aren’t.

  • Dain B says:

    @ewe Everybody agrees husband and wife make a marriage. That is a no-brainer even gays understand. Only about half the population thinks 2 men are the same thing as husband and wife. You think you can be the thought police and force people to pretend 2 men are the same thing as husband and wife you’re not going to succeed unless you lobotomize people because the truth is obvious.

Comments are closed.