Louisiana JP Refuses Interracial Marriage License

[mheslep]

All of this would have been avoided if the government would just get out of marriage and allow people to freely contract with each other in any way they want.

That would allow same sex marriages, and the christians would **** bricks at that.

Some would, other's wouldn't, but this misses the point. Marriage to my reading is traditionally an artefact of the of the world's religions, or perhaps more widely the world's various societies. If government gets 'out of marriage' as Galteeth and I suggest, then the problem largely goes away from government/legal standpoint.

There would be some religious leaders that might object (though I think not so many). To them I say reread Matthew:

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

Of course Jesus passes on the deal. Given the same opportunity today, some on the right would say, oh yes, societal norms are out of control and we can fix that if we ran all those kingdoms. Likewise some of the left would say, oh yes, think of all the wealth redistribution we could institute if we ran all those kingdoms. Where do we sign?

 

[mheslep]

It's true but marriage still has to be legal... and documented...

Disagree. A 'partnership' has to be legal and documented, mainly for tax reasons as I see it. Marriage connotes much more than tax liabilities, but that's no interest of the government.

 

[Sorry!]

Disagree. A 'partnership' has to be legal and documented, mainly for tax reasons as I see it. Marriage connotes much more than tax liabilities, but that's no interest of the government.

This is true.

 

[JasonRox]

Disagree. A 'partnership' has to be legal and documented, mainly for tax reasons as I see it. Marriage connotes much more than tax liabilities, but that's no interest of the government.

I disagree. Depends what you mean by partnership. If I live with a girl, and consider that a partnership by sharing income to buy groceries and that's it. I don't see how we are obligated to legally document that partnership.

 

[jobyts]

What logic is there to understand?

What's the argument we have that supports homosexual marriage and that does not hold true for polygamy?

 

[mheslep]

I disagree. Depends what you mean by partnership. If I live with a girl, and consider that a partnership by sharing income to buy groceries and that's it. I don't see how we are obligated to legally document that partnership.

Sorry I badly misspoke there; I should have said if a couple desires to have the government recognize the partnership/relationship/collaboration (for some governmental reason such as taxes) then it has to be legal, documented ...

 

[turbo]

That would allow same sex marriages, and the christians would have kittens at that.

+1 to the post below too.

Many Christians are having kittens in Maine right now. They claim to want separation of church and state, but want to force their beliefs on the secular populace and forbid same-sex marriages. The legislature voted that into law last summer and the governor signed it. Then the Catholic archdiocese teamed up with fundamentalist groups to collect signatures for a "people's veto". That measure is on our ballot in a couple of weeks.

 

[mheslep]

Many Christians are having kittens in Maine right now. They claim to want separation of church and state, but want to force their beliefs on the secular populace and forbid same-sex marriages. The legislature voted that into law last summer and the governor signed it. Then the Catholic archdiocese teamed up with fundamentalist groups to collect signatures for a "people's veto". That measure is on our ballot in a couple of weeks.

The archdiocese aside, how do you know 'they' are Christians? Maybe 'they' are some lumberjacks out in the woods that have never seen the inside of a church.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I like how this thread has been so swiftly and subtley derailed.

 

[mheslep]

What's the argument we have that supports homosexual marriage and that does not hold true for polygamy?

From the government's view, I suggest replacing 'marriage' as legal concept altogether. We let marriage remain in the domain of the church or other similar societal institutions, and they could (and should) continue to rigorously speak out about the boundaries of marriage. The government could reasonably call an attempt to label 25 'female partners' a single tax unit as bogus if it chose, but should otherwise but out. I think it is mistake to have the government as the final arbiter of what is or is not a 'family'.

 

[lisab]

I like how this thread has been so swiftly and subtley derailed.

Ah...it has something to do with kittens born from mixed marriages, I think.

 

[Galteeth]

Only if you have this theory that inheritance, property, tax and hospital visiting rights should be correlated with where you put your penis.

.

My point was that people should be able to freely enter into contracts. Let's say for example, that I decide I want to hold joint property with a friend of mine. We're not in a relationship or anything, we just think it would be a good idea to have some joint property. Why not? Furthermore, what if I want to bestow hospital visiting rights on a friend? What if I don't want my "wife" to have common property with me? Why shouldn't people be able to make these decisions for themselves?

I could see that the issue of child custody could come up, but I think the laws with regards to that should be the same whether a couple is married or not.

 

[Galteeth]

From the government's view, I suggest replacing 'marriage' as legal concept altogether. We let marriage remain in the domain of the church or other similar societal institutions, and they could (and should) continue to rigorously speak out about the boundaries of marriage. The government could reasonably call an attempt to label 25 'female partners' a single tax unit as bogus if it chose, but should otherwise but out. I think it is mistake to have the government as the final arbiter of what is or is not a 'family'.

I agree, and I think people should be able to have plural marriages if they want to. Many people may not consider that marriage, but so what? Everybody should be free to define their relationships as anything they want.

 

[jobyts]

From the government's view, I suggest replacing 'marriage' as legal concept altogether. We let marriage remain in the domain of the church or other similar societal institutions, and they could (and should) continue to rigorously speak out about the boundaries of marriage. The government could reasonably call an attempt to label 25 'female partners' a single tax unit as bogus if it chose, but should otherwise but out. I think it is mistake to have the government as the final arbiter of what is or is not a 'family'.

But what if a religion chooses to ban marriage of interracial or some specific races in their church?

 

[Galteeth]

But what if a religion chooses to ban marriage of interracial or some specific races in their church?

Well, I would say, don't go to that church. But you can see the problem with the logic, "I disagree with the tenets of this religion so i should have the right to modify it"

EDIT: I meant for those who believe in that religion. You are of course, free to start a modified version of that religion.

 

[Alfi]

My partner and I are 'married' as per our agreement. We said so to each other and no one else matters.
WE said 'F' to the government and the legal system.
BUT... just by being together for the last 25+ years, we are 'married' as per the government of Canada ( common law ) and have all the advantages of the tax system that the 'religion' or government ( civil) married people do.
We are fine with this, and as you may have noticed, Ii made no mention to race, gender or religion in this declaration. None of those factors matter.

This 'Justice of the Peace' in the original post should take this in consideration.
WE don't require his or anyone's acceptance of our joining.
We consider our choice as ours.

 

[turbo]

The archdiocese aside, how do you know 'they' are Christians? Maybe 'they' are some lumberjacks out in the woods that have never seen the inside of a church.

We live in a small town, and we know the people who collected signatures for the petition against same-sex marriage, and we know the groups that organized against it, and the people who write letters to the editor.

We also know which groups distributed the invitation-only tickets to the "Yes on 1" rally at the Augusta Civic Center. BTW, the general public was not welcome, nor the press. What we do not know is where all their funding comes from - that also is held private.

 

[mgb_phys]

My partner and I are 'married' as per our agreement. We said so to each other and no one else matters.
... just by being together for the last 25+ years, we are 'married' as per the government of Canada ( common law ) and have all the advantages of the tax system that the 'religion' or government ( civil) married people do.
We are fine with this, and as you may have noticed, Ii made no mention to race, gender or religion in this declaration. None of those factors matter.

But remember you are a subject of a foreign monarchy with an official state religion - you aren't in a free, open, democratic country with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion like the people in this thread.

 

[jobyts]

WE said 'F' to the government and the legal system...and have all the advantages of the tax system.

This does not sound good to me.

 

[xxChrisxx]

But remember you are a subject of a foreign monarchy with an official state religion - you aren't in a free, open, democratic country with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion like the people in this thread.

Ok time to jump in ad wave the flag a little bit here.

It's all subjective. I'm English, by the same criteria you are basically saying I'm living in an opressive, closed, undemocratic country and I have to be Christian or i'll be strung up by my testicles and have my head put spike on Traitors Gate.

With regards to this all of the above is wrong.

Considering that fact that I can go wherever I want, vote for who I want, marry who I want no questions asked, worship who I want or be as atheistic and bash religion as much as I want. I am as free as anyone on this thread, the only difference between the US and ourselves is that we don't need to harp on about it, stiff upper lip and all that.

The Monarch is merely a figurehead and weild no real power. We vote in the party we want to govern us, who are all as useless as one another (but that's politics). As much as I feel I have to defend agaisnt what you just said, I'm in a state of dispair at the way England is run at the moment.

Aside from trivial things, the basic freedoms between the US and England/Canada are very very little.

And can I just say that it's incredibly blinkered of you to believe that the US is the only free place on the planet.EDIT:
Strictly within the regards to this thread and the OP topic, one might argue the UK/Canada is more free. As this kind of situation just doesn't come up, no one would ever DARE stop a mixed race marriage. Some may argue otherwise, this is case is an exeption as opposed to the rule, and that's fair enough becuase I agree.

 

[Monique]

But remember you are a subject of a foreign monarchy with an official state religion - you aren't in a free, open, democratic country with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion like the people in this thread.

The people in this thread can be from any country..

 

[Zantra]

"swinging the topic back on track"

There is no valid argument over whether the statement was racist or not. 2+2=4 and his statement was racist. Those facts are incontrovertible.

To argue that the statement has good intentions is a irrelevant. Last time I checked if you kill someone who is already dying you still go to jail- Ask Kevorkian.

The argument of "protecting the children" of this couple is itself flawed. Let's just ignore for a second that the year is 2009 and the country is America. Let's ignore the fact that this JOP has no authority, legal or otherwise, to dictate whether the couple CAN marry. His argument is that "the children will sufffer". That's not a valid justification for denying a marriage.

Well what about poor people marrying?
Young people?
Tempermental people?
Black people?
American Indians?
Jews?
Gays?
Lesbians?
Stupid people?
Racist JOPs?

I could go on but.. the children of all of these people will likely "suffer" in some way- Especially that last one ;) Should we ban all of these marriages? In fact I challenge you to find more than a handful of children who haven't SUFFERED in some way at some point in their lives, due to their parent's mistakes. Why don't we just give all of these couples a vasectomy too while we're at it?

Wave bye bye as you slide on down the slippery slope. Watch out for that landing!

AND THEN THERE WAS NO ONE LEFT TO TAKE.

I'm not religious but I'm a fan of that line

Justifying racist behavior by saying you're protecting them from racism doesn't make much sense does it? It's shooting someone and saying you were triyng to save them from being shot by killers. It's a very weak argument, and a sign that today's racist is contained only by the fear of the well deserved backlash he or she would invoke by speaking his or her true mind.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

My point was that people should be able to freely enter into contracts. Let's say for example, that I decide I want to hold joint property with a friend of mine. We're not in a relationship or anything, we just think it would be a good idea to have some joint property. Why not? Furthermore, what if I want to bestow hospital visiting rights on a friend? What if I don't want my "wife" to have common property with me? Why shouldn't people be able to make these decisions for themselves?

I could see that the issue of child custody could come up, but I think the laws with regards to that should be the same whether a couple is married or not.

You already do have such rights. It just requires a lawyer and its expensive. Marriage is a quick and easy way to change your legal relationship with a person which grants you certain rights due to that relationship. Otherwise anyone can technically have all the same benefits, it just costs a lot more.

EDIT: Strictly within the regards to this thread and the OP topic, one might argue the UK/Canada is more free. As this kind of situation just doesn't come up, no one would ever DARE stop a mixed race marriage. Some may argue otherwise, this is case is an exeption as opposed to the rule, and that's fair enough becuase I agree.

Its something I have never heard of happening in my life time here in the US until now. I'm sure it may have happened. I am also sure that there are racists in the UK and Canada so I would not be so sure that something of the sort has not and would not happen there.
edit: as a matter of fact someone from the UK has made quite similar arguments to the one made by this JoP on this very board.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

"swinging the topic back on track"

There is no valid argument over whether the statement was racist or not. 2+2=4 and his statement was racist. Those facts are incontrovertible.

To argue that the statement has good intentions is a irrelevant. Last time I checked if you kill someone who is already dying you still go to jail- Ask Kevorkian.

The argument of "protecting the children" of this couple is itself flawed. Let's just ignore for a second that the year is 2009 and the country is America. Let's ignore the fact that this JOP has no authority, legal or otherwise, to dictate whether the couple CAN marry. His argument is that "the children will sufffer".

Well what about poor people marrying?
Young people?
Tempermental people?
Black people?
American Indians?
Jews?
Gays?
Lesbians?
Stupid people?
Racist JOPs?

I could go on but.. the children of all of these people will likely "suffer" in some way- Especially that last one ;) Should we ban all of these marriages? In fact I challenge you to find more than a handful of children who haven't SUFFERED in some way at some point in their lives, due to their parent's mistakes. Why don't we just give all of these couples a vasectomy too while we're at it?

Wave bye bye as you slide on down the slippery slope. Watch out for that landing!

AND THEN THERE WAS NO ONE LEFT TO TAKE.

I'm not religious but I'm a fan of that line

Justifying racist behavior by saying you're protecting them from racism doesn't make much sense does it? It's shooting someone and saying you were triyng to save them from being shot by killers. It's a very weak argument, and a sign that today's racist is contained only by the fear of the well deserved backlash he or she would invoke by speaking his or her true mind.

So being concerned about people and having misguided ideas about how to help them equates to being hateful and intolerant. I see.
And you know this mans true mind do you? Just as he knows what will truly happen to the children of the couple he refused to marry?

 

[Office_Shredder]

It just occurred to me this could be the basis for a graph theory question.

Basically, stable marriage problem, but with the added condition that certain people, despite liking each other more and willing to break up with their partners to hook up, are not allowed to be matched.

 

[Zantra]

So being concerned about people and having misguided ideas about how to help them equates to being hateful and intolerant. I see.
And you know this mans true mind do you? Just as he knows what will truly happen to the children of the couple he refused to marry?

No I do not know his state of mind, but I can make reasonable assumptions. If 50 people tell me the sky is blue and I don't look outside first, It may be green, but I can make a reasonable assumption based on the avaiable evidence that it is indeed blue.

He made a "misguided" racist statement that hasn't been refuted, so I can reasonable assume that the statement is true. I can therefore also assume that this encompasses his state of mind, which makes the statement that he is a racist valid. Also I noted that not only did he not refute his first comment, he reinforced his stand. Saying you're not something when in fact you are, doesn't make it any less true.

And actually you made my point. If he doesn't know for sure what will happen to the children, he had no rights to make any kind of assumptions that would lead to his decision.

All I'm saying is that if you start from any point where race is a factor, you end up at racism. well intentioned or not, that's what it is.

 

[ideasrule]

All I'm saying is that if you start from any point where race is a factor, you end up at racism. well intentioned or not, that's what it is.

You might want to check the definition of racism, as well as the many posts addressing the same point.

 

[Hurkyl]

All I'm saying is that if you start from any point where race is a factor, you end up at racism. well intentioned or not, that's what it is.

If that's how you are using the word "racism", then the word doesn't have a negative connotation.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

All I'm saying is that if you start from any point where race is a factor, you end up at racism. well intentioned or not, that's what it is.

Bull****. You can not take well intention (if misguided) concern and turn it into hatred and intolerance. You are jumping to conclusions.

You can make reasonable assumptions off of what 50 people said to you?

You believe that the assumption made by the judge, that mixed race children are more often discriminated against, is nonfactual and a poor assumption. How many people told him that this poor nonfactual assumption was the truth do you think? If he heard it from at least fifty people black, white, and mixed would that suddenly make it a reasonable assumption?

Apparently, you think your assumptions about a man whom you do not know and only have a few comments in a sensational news item to go off of are quite reasonable so I have no idea how you can quibble with an assumption that is at least equally ignorant.

 

[Sorry!]

I still do NOT understand how people will continue to claim that the action of the judge was not a RACIST act. It is AGAINST people of MIXED RACE. Why are you all focusing on the legalities of 'oh it treats white/black people the same' WHO CARES that was NOT the JoPs REASON for refusing to grant them the license...

Like I said in a previous post. Racism is NOT in the actions it's in the REASONING for the actions. This one is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT a racist reasoning.

 

[Sorry!]

You believe that the assumption made by the judge, that mixed race children are more often discriminated against, is nonfactual and a poor assumption. How many people told him that this poor nonfactual assumption was the truth do you think? If he heard it from at least fifty people black, white, and mixed would that suddenly make it a reasonable assumption?

So now the JoPs action is justifiable because he is being LESS detrimental to people of mixed race by trying to prevent them from being born. My god I feel like using a reference to WW2.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I still do NOT understand how people will continue to claim that the action of the judge was not a RACIST act. It is AGAINST people of MIXED RACE. Why are you all focusing on the legalities of 'oh it treats white/black people the same' WHO CARES that was NOT the JoPs REASON for refusing to grant them the license...

Like I said in a previous post. Racism is NOT in the actions it's in the REASONING for the actions. This one is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT a racist reasoning.

Racism connotes hatred and intolerance. If a person does something out of concern for a person's (or potential person's) well being how does that make the person racist? Would you lump a person who is genuinely concerned for people's welfare into the same category as KKK members and NeoNazis?

I hate racists. I think that they are ****ing rotten scumbags and have had occasion to really want to punch some in the face. But if I were to direct my hatred at people based on assumptions and ignorance I would be no better than they are. I don't know this judge. I am not going to decide to hate him based on a few stupid comments.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So now the JoPs action is justifiable because he is being LESS detrimental to people of mixed race by trying to prevent them from being born. My god I feel like using a reference to WW2.

How about you pay some attention. Read my posts. I have over and over again said that the man was misguided and that he should not have done what he did. How have I justified anything? I am attacking other people's justifications for making assumptions about someone they do not know.

 

[Monique]

If a person does something out of concern for a person's (or potential person's) well being how does that make the person racist?

..

I am attacking other people's justifications for making assumptions about someone they do not know.

You are assuming that he did this out of concern and sympathy.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You are assuming that he did this out of concern and sympathy.

I am not really assuming anything. I am pointing out what he said. That is what he said is it not? That he does not think it is wise to have mixed children due to the discrimination that they suffer? He may be making excuses, I do not know and neither do you, but I think you can generally condense the point here to "I am concerned for their welfare" rather than "I hate mulattoes".

Yeah maybe he is a racist. I don't know. As I already pointed out I had a friend who was against intercultural marriages. She was definitely not racist. She was an artist who loved to travel and learn about other peoples cultures and even went to college outside of the country. But I should assume that this man is racist? Why? Because he's an older white southern male in a position of authority and not a young idealistic female artist? I am keeping an open mind. I refuse to hate a man whom I know so little about.

Funny thing is that we'd had a few drinks and were getting a bit cozy with each other when she decided to mention this. I wound up arguing with her about it for nearly an hour before she told me to stuff it and left me to sleep on the couch alone. :-/