Louisiana JP Refuses Interracial Marriage License

[BobG]

What I don't understand is why this method has been used for so long? I apologize I am ignorant, isn't there a separation from state and religion? How is that marriage has anything to do with the church? It would make far more sense to have government deal solely with legal issues since they create the rights and such. Once that process is done it's up to the couple as to how they like to celebrate their "unity". Same respects, it's up to the church or organization as to whether they will allow said celebration. There will never be a perfect system that makes everyone happy but that's the most logical way to go about it, I am surprised it's still the way it is.

Why a justice of the peace can sign a marriage license? A justice of the peace is a government position, not a religious one. If the couple were getting married in a church, then a preist/minister/rabbi etc would be signing the license.

Or do you mean you don't understand why all marriages don't use this method? Why the government allows religious officials to sign government documents?

Or do you mean you don't understand why the government cares about marriages at all?

Or did you feel it was essential to make a remark about separation of church and state, whether or not it was actually relevant in this case? (Which is okay, by the way - I mean, after all, how many forum members does it take to change a light bulb? )

 

[Zantra]

What are you talking about? Denying marriage licenses when there's good reason his duty. The controversy is because people believe the reason wasn't good.

Notice I said intentions.. his intention was to block a marraige based on reasons that were racially motivated and arguably inacurate. He doesn't LEGALLY have the right to deny an application based on racial criteria, which he did, and admitted to it. Therefore, his denial was wrong legally, and it was outside of his moral bounds to decide what was in the interests of that couple's unborn children.

If you start with the assumption that this "racism vieled in misplaced altruism" is not true altruism, then explain away the factual accuracy of the "racist" arguments by saying they're whistling dixie "deep down", you've made your assumption unfalsifiable. No experiment in the world can disprove your notion that despite showing no signs of racism, despite using factually valid arguments for the greater good, and despite having black friends, people like Baldwell are actually racist

He stated that the reason for denial was based on the ostracization faced by their children based on them being mixed. That is discriminatory, and that is factual. I think based on those statements the most logical conclusion is that he holds racial biases. So my statements don't disprove anything. His arguments are not factually valid- it's an assumption fueled by prejuidice. I have not heard of him having black friends, but being friends with another race does not automatically disqualify him from being racist.

And all of that aside, it's not within the bounds of the law.

 

[Zantra]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/interracial.marriage/index.html

So he doesn't even acknowledge his behavior as wrong. Sad.

 

[Evo]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/interracial.marriage/index.html

So he doesn't even acknowledge his behavior as wrong. Sad.

He's obviously truly ignorant. It's sad that there are still people that think this way.

He needs to be removed, that kind of ignorance has no place in an official capacity.

 

[lisab]

But if both partners have red hair, their kids would have a 100% chance of also getting red hair and being the outcasts of society.

The only way we can safe the fate of these children is to let them form their own social group (it will contribute to heterogeneity as well), I say: from now on we should only allow people with red hair to marry with a spouse with red hair. Other classes of hair color won't be allowed to marry until the offspring of redheads have reached a critical mass of acceptance.

ahahaha...nice. That would make a great science fiction plot ...RedWorld.

But if they are isolated from the rest of society, there would have to be some way to deal with people like Statutory Ape, who would be drooling at the gates of their secluded society.

 

[rootX]

Denying marriage licenses when there's good reason his duty.

What could be a good reason that is not covered by the law? I am having a hard time understanding whether his duty is to make sure to deny marriage
1) that is not legal
or
2) that is not good for both individuals

 

[Moonbear]

Why a justice of the peace can sign a marriage license? A justice of the peace is a government position, not a religious one. If the couple were getting married in a church, then a preist/minister/rabbi etc would be signing the license.

Um, you need to get a marriage license BEFORE you're allowed to get married at all, even in a church. The church would then sign the marriage certificate that says you did the deed, not the license that says you're allowed to do it legally.

 

[mgb_phys]

his intention was to block a marraige based on reasons that were racially motivated and arguably inacurate. ... Therefore, his denial was wrong legally, and it was outside of his moral bounds to decide what was in the interests of that couple's unborn children.

Laws banning mixed marriages have held up in court before - on the 'interesting' legal justification that since they treated the black and white people involved equally (badly) they weren't racial discrimination

 

[turbo]

Um, you need to get a marriage license BEFORE you're allowed to get married at all, even in a church. The church would then sign the marriage certificate that says you did the deed, not the license that says you're allowed to do it legally.

The anti-gay marriage bloc applying pressure here in Maine is lying about this basic reality. Church ceremonies cannot legally marry two people, absent years of cohabitation and commingled recourses that might be construed as a common-law marriage.

I have two cousins and a nephew that are gay. One is in denial (too Christian to commit) and the others are in committed relationships. Why can't they be allowed visitation rights with their partners in medical crises, be allowed to share resources like married couples can, etc? This country needs to establish federal marriage guidelines that allow any two individuals to bond with one another and share their lives. Different race? Different sex? Same sex? Why does it matter? If two people want to commit to each other and share their lives together, who else should be able to intervene? In this state the state has come down on the side of inclusion, and the Catholic church and some well-funded out-of-state allies are buying all kinds of ad-time to prevent that.

 

[Evo]

Laws banning mixed marriages have held up in court before - on the 'interesting' legal justification that since they treated the black and white people involved equally (badly) they weren't racial discrimination

Do you have the link to that? In the US, states have a say, but since 1967, it has been unconstitutional to prevent interracial marriage.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

 

[mgb_phys]

Do you have the link to that? In the US, states have a say, but since 1967, it has been unconstitutional to prevent interracial marriage.

Yes it was Loving v. Virginia I was thinking of - but the SCOTUS over-ruled them.

 

[lisab]

Yes it was Loving v. Virginia I was thinking of - but the SCOTUS over-ruled them.

Ironic case name.

 

[Evo]

Yes it was Loving v. Virginia I was thinking of - but the SCOTUS over-ruled them.

I'm afraid that you are misinformed.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the court, both races were treated equally, because whites and blacks were punished in equal measure for breaking the law against interracial marriage and interracial sex. This judgment was overturned in 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, where the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

 

[mgb_phys]

Where did the Supreme Court reverse their decision,

I meant the state supreme court upheld their own law (no surprise) on the basis that as long as you were nasty to both black and white it wasn't discrimination.
And then the supreme court told the state to go and sit on the naughty step.

 

[Evo]

I meant the state supreme court upheld their own law (no surprise) on the basis that as long as you were nasty to both black and white it wasn't discrimination.
And then the supreme court told the state to go and sit on the naughty step.

LOL

The states versus the US is a bizarre and confusing thing. I don't think states should be able to do their own thing, as it is often misguided, short sighted and serves the priviledged few.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How do you call someone who has a problem with people from interracial descent and thus wishes that they do not exist? Someone who thinks in black and white? Would racialist or racial separatist be a better description?

If I were to say that I feel bad for the things that children that are born into poverty go through in life and wished to do something to prevent children from being born into poverty would that make me bigoted against poor people?
I believe the judge said that he would prefer not to put children through the experience of dealing with discrimination. If you have a source for your assertion that he "has a problem with" mixed race people and "wishes that they do not exist" then please cite it. Otherwise you are just putting words in the man's mouth based on a perception born out of ignorance. Unless of course you know him and have failed to note that so far?

He stated that the reason for denial was based on the ostracization faced by their children based on them being mixed. That is discriminatory, and that is factual. I think based on those statements the most logical conclusion is that he holds racial biases. So my statements don't disprove anything. His arguments are not factually valid- it's an assumption fueled by prejuidice. I have not heard of him having black friends, but being friends with another race does not automatically disqualify him from being racist.

You are twisting many points. There is a definition of discriminate that fits your argument but the general definition of the word does not equate to the general definition of 'racial discrimination' which is possessed of the connotation that hatred and intolerance are involved. The same with your use of the term 'racial bias'. You seem to be taking the technical appropriateness of the application of these terms and leaping from there to conclusions based on the general application of terms. Conclusions about the inner thoughts and convictions of a man whom you do not know and have extremely limited knowledge of.



For anyone here that likes to make assumptions about people they do not know and couch biased accusations in the technical appropriateness of the terms used in 'logical deductions' of things impossible to know, you might be interested in a site called StormFront. Careful though, they like to cover up the logical failings of their arguments by slapping on a veneer of moral superiority.

 

[Galteeth]

I once found myself in a rather suprising argument with a very liberal friend of mine who was against interracial/cultural marriage. She was not at all racist. She was actually very fond of other cultures and concerned about the dilution and subversion of other people's cultures through homogeneity.

To believe that this man could not in fact have some sort of altruistic if misguided motivation because he's a white man in the south is rather bigoted in and of itself.

There can be racists on all sides of the political spectrum. The idea that links between race and culture are worth preserving is in itself a racist notion.

 

[Galteeth]

LOL

The states versus the US is a bizarre and confusing thing. I don't think states should be able to do their own thing, as it is often misguided, short sighted and serves the priviledged few.

This is a particularly big deal in american politics right now. I would have a lot to say on this subject but it somewhat tangenital to the thread topic.

 

[Monique]

If I were to say that I feel bad for the things that children that are born into poverty go through in life and wished to do something to prevent children from being born into poverty would that make me bigoted against poor people?

If you would say that poor people can't marry: yes. You are being totally ignorant here, if you feel so concerned about people you should help them to improve their position and not ostracize them.

If you want a citation: "I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way", if that is not an oxymoron than what is.

If he feels so concerned about people who are not of a pure race than he should start a campaign that would lead to the acceptance of people of all descents and not reinforce the differences. Enough said.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you would say that poor people can't marry: yes. You are being totally ignorant here, if you feel so concerned about people you should help them to improve their position and not ostracize them.

If you want a citation: "I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way", if that is not an oxymoron than what is.

If he feels so concerned about people who are not of a pure race than he should start a campaign that would lead to the acceptance of people of all descents and not reinforce the differences. Enough said.

So you would say the idea to prevent the marriages would be a poor choice of remedy. Does having misguided ideas of how to help people make one a bigot?

Edit: and in your citation I do not see where he says he wishes interracial people to not exist.

I am not anti-religion. I just don't believe in going to church and using mythology as a crutch for a lack of understanding of the world around us. That does not mean however that I have a problem with religious people or wish that they did not exist.

 

[xxChrisxx]

If he feels so concerned about people who are not of a pure race than he should start a campaign that would lead to the acceptance of people of all descents and not reinforce the differences. Enough said.

Damn right.

Last time I checked being married was not strictly necessary for having a baby, the bolidy functions work just as well between unmarried couples. So they could have a child anyway, making denying the marriage utterly pointless.

It's also a jump to believe that the child will with 100% certainly have a difficult life because of its mixed origin.It's time to both beg the question and make some assumptions here.

This takes place in Louisiana, the JOP is, with a reasonable degree of certainty, Christian. Further to that, being in the bible belt, he is also morelikely to have stricter interpretation of the Bible, meaning he is likely to be against abortion.

In the above case, who gives him the right to essentially play God by deciding who should and should not be born. Which acts also essentially like a preemptive abortion.

His justification was that 'the child is likely to suffer later'.

I wonder how far to take this statement, what constitutes suffering? How much suffering is ok? Should:

People who are ginger.
People who are poor.
People who are ugly.
People who are thick.
People who short sighted.
People who are predisposed to genetic conditions.

Now not be allowed to get married or have children. As each of the above will lead then to have a less than perfect life, and will at somestage lead to difficulties or persecution (mostly in childhood) I used to rip people for being a 'carrot top' all the time. I also got teased for my glasses.My thoughts:

Couple should have the baby and move to somewhere that isn't filled with idiots who don't like black people. (Let's face it odds are it's not the white person he has a problem with)

EDIT: In fact they should definitely get pregnant then ask to be married again. They can't tell them to abort the child, and they would have to marry them to reduce the child suffering. Not letting them get married will open the child to be ostracised for being a bastard as well.
TSA

Edit: and in your citation I do not see where he says he wishes interracial people to not exist.

"I just don't believe in mixing the races that way"

This.

You can be stubborn and say that strictly it doesn't mean that he wants all mixed race people to disappear in a poof of smoke. Which i'd have to agree it doesn't.

But what a curious thing to say. Mixing the races. Why not?

Surely for inclusion that's the best thing that could happen, we all intermix and produce a whole generation of nicely homogeneous babies. There certainly can't be any colour discrimination we we all the same hue.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

My thoughts:

Couple should have the baby and move to somewhere that isn't filled with idiots who don't like black people. (Let's face it odds are it's not the white person he has a problem with)

Note that there are quite a few black people in Louisiana and that the governor, Piyush Jindal, is a fairly dark skinned fellow. Note also that there are plenty of people of all colours who have issues with interracial marriages, including black people. This man did not pluck his idea that mixed race children have greater difficulty with discrimination (from both whites and blacks) out of thin air.

TSA


"I just don't believe in mixing the races that way"

This.

You can be stubborn and say that strictly it doesn't mean that he wants all mixed race people to disappear in a poof of smoke. Which i'd have to agree it doesn't.

But what a curious thing to say. Mixing the races. Why not?

Surely for inclusion that's the best thing that could happen, we all intermix and produce a whole generation of nicely homogeneous babies. There certainly can't be any colour discrimination we we all the same hue.

I do not agree with the man and I am not defending his position. I am being stubborn about people making the same sorts of broad generalizations about people that they are criticizing and feeling it is ok because they feel they have the moral high ground, much like the people whom they are criticizing.


Bigotry is not about the colour of people's skin or their sexuality or gender. Bigotry comes from a way of thinking and perceiving. To prevent discrimination against black people or homosexuals or women does not do much for the issue at large if the way of thinking is not changed.

 

[Galteeth]

People who are predisposed to genetic conditions.

I personally have a severe genetic disease, and I am not oppossed to the idea of VOLUNTARY eugenics (I'm not talking about races, or height, or any of the other things you mentioned, just the specific notion of trying to eradicate genetic diseases.) I feel like it would be extremely irresponsible for me to have children, especially given the facts of overpopulation. This is a bit offtopic but it might make for a good discussion in a different post. Perhaps there is a term for this that doesn't carry the negative connotations of "eugenics". Directed evolution perhaps? "Intelligent" Design?

 

[Monique]

I personally have a severe genetic disease, and I am not oppossed to the idea of VOLUNTARY eugenics (I'm not talking about races, or height, or any of the other things you mentioned, just the specific notion of trying to eradicate genetic diseases.) I feel like it would be extremely irresponsible for me to have children, especially given the facts of overpopulation. This is a bit offtopic but it might make for a good discussion in a different post. Perhaps there is a term for this that doesn't carry the negative connotations of "eugenics". Directed evolution perhaps? "Intelligent" Design?

If there is a risk for serious genetic disease that has a high penetrance (you can be sure that the child will be afflicted with the debilitating disease) you can opt for preimplantation or prenatal diagnosis. Only a few conditions qualify and this is reviewed by an ethical board.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I personally have a severe genetic disease, and I am not oppossed to the idea of VOLUNTARY eugenics (I'm not talking about races, or height, or any of the other things you mentioned, just the specific notion of trying to eradicate genetic diseases.) I feel like it would be extremely irresponsible for me to have children, especially given the facts of overpopulation. This is a bit offtopic but it might make for a good discussion in a different post. Perhaps there is a term for this that doesn't carry the negative connotations of "eugenics". Directed evolution perhaps? "Intelligent" Design?

Well maybe that was a bad example as a physical condition is different from being shunned by a few idiots.

I don't think it affects my point too much, yes it would be irresponsible and maybe unwise for you to have children, but there is nothing to stop you having children if you so wirshed 'running the risk so to speak'.

This couple have probably already considered that a mixed race child could be shunned by a few bigoted members of both the black and white comminites. It is highly unlikely to be completely oustedfrom society however. They have decided that it's 'a risk' they are willling to take. Only for someone to veto their decision.

Note that there are quite a few black people in Louisiana and that the governor, Piyush Jindal, is a fairly dark skinned fellow. Note also that there are plenty of people of all colours who have issues with interracial marriages, including black people. This man did not pluck his idea that mixed race children have greater difficulty with discrimination (from both whites and blacks) out of thin air.

It's true they have problems with discrimination, it seems that being born is unthinkable. This is societies problem, society should be changed. Not attempting the voluntary elimination of mixed children.

I do not agree with the man and I am not defending his position. I am being stubborn about people making the same sorts of broad generalizations about people that they are criticizing and feeling it is ok because they feel they have the moral high ground, much like the people whom they are criticizing.Bigotry is not about the colour of people's skin or their sexuality or gender. Bigotry comes from a way of thinking and perceiving. To prevent discrimination against black people or homosexuals or women does not do much for the issue at large if the way of thinking is not changed.

I agree with pretty much everything here.

However, in this case I feel the snap conclusion that this JoP is a <insert crude term here> is perfectly justified. It's a BS and feeble case NOT to allow someone to get married as they can have children anyway

 

[BobG]

Um, you need to get a marriage license BEFORE you're allowed to get married at all, even in a church. The church would then sign the marriage certificate that says you did the deed, not the license that says you're allowed to do it legally.

Yes, you do need the marriage license before you're allowed to get married. But, you're not married until the license is signed by the person performing the ceremony. http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/louisiana/index.shtml

And, believe it or not, just because you have your marriage license sent to you in the mail does not mean you are officially married. You need to have a justice of the peace or a religious clergyman sign the document. On your wedding day, you'll give your chaplain your marriage license, then after the ceremony, he'll sign it and send it to the proper government agency for validation.

The process does make one wonder under what circumstances a justice of the peace or a church official should refuse to marry a couple since the screening is done before the license is ever given to the couple.

For a church official, the decisions are made for religious reasons ("You haven't stepped foot in the church for 15 years, and now you want a church wedding because why?! Quit reading fairy tales and either actually join our church or get married by a justice of the peace!"; "Yes, I'll be glad to marry you in the church, but we have a class we require all newlyweds to take before we'll do the ceremony"; etc). To get married in a Catholic church, I think at least one of the couple has to be Catholic, but both do have to agree to raise the kids in the Catholic religion.

I have no idea what criteria a Justice of the Peace should use to decide whether to sign the marriage license, since the couple had to be old enough, single, etc before they ever obtained the license.

 

[Alfi]

but around here ANYone can be a "justice of the peace." Take a quick test, get a certificate, sign a pledge and now you can marry people.

Knowing what was in the pledge might answer the question if he over stepped his bounds.

 

[mheslep]

...The states versus the US is a bizarre and confusing thing. I don't think states should be able to do their own thing, as it is often misguided, short sighted and serves the priviledged few.

That tosses out 200 years of federalism in two sentences. I'd like to see state power and recognition of the 10th amendment substantially restored to a balance w/ the federal government. Why? Because:

[...]It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.[...]

On the other hand we know it is unwise to allow all power to remain with local factional interests, this JoP a good demonstration as to why. So a balance was wisely drawn:

[...]It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors [e.g. in the case of single national government], you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; [the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.[...]

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

 

[BobG]

The states versus the US is a bizarre and confusing thing. I don't think states should be able to do their own thing, as it is often misguided, short sighted and serves the priviledged few.

That tosses out 200 years of federalism in two sentences. I'd like to see state power and recognition of the 10th amendment substantially restored to a balance w/ the federal government. Why? Because:

On the other hand we know it is unwise to allow all power to remain with local factional interests, this JoP a good demonstration as to why. So a balance was wisely drawn:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Not only that, but any resident of small midwestern states should be very happy about states' rights. The majority of the US populations currently bribe residents in most of the states to implement policies the majority of the US population favors.

States like New York, California, and Illinois (plus a few others) pay more money in taxes to the federal government than the federal government returns to the state in benefits. Small states like Alaska, New Mexico, Mississippi, and, yes, even Kansas, receive more benefits from the federal government than residents pay to the federal government.

For example, when Bush was President, many states implemented abstinence only sex education simply because the federal government gave more money for education to states that did so. On the other hand, some states found the abstinence only sex education programs to be so objectionable that you couldn't pay them to teach it (literally).

Likewise, Palin and Sanford at least talked about rejecting stimulus funds because of the perceived strings attached to the money. The states could choose the money or choose to think independently of the federal government and the individual currently in charge.

 

[Evo]

Not only that, but any resident of small midwestern states should be very happy about states' rights. The majority of the US populations currently bribe residents in most of the states to implement policies the majority of the US population favors.

States like New York, California, and Illinois (plus a few others) pay more money in taxes to the federal government than the federal government returns to the state in benefits. Small states like Alaska, New Mexico, Mississippi, and, yes, even Kansas, receive more benefits from the federal government than residents pay to the federal government.

For example, when Bush was President, many states implemented abstinence only sex education simply because the federal government gave more money for education to states that did so. On the other hand, some states found the abstinence only sex education programs to be so objectionable that you couldn't pay them to teach it (literally).

Likewise, Palin and Sanford at least talked about rejecting stimulus funds because of the perceived strings attached to the money. The states could choose the money or choose to think independently of the federal government and the individual currently in charge.

This is the kind of thing I am against, too much of what goes on in Kansas is controlled by the bible thumping crowd. There was a serious economic impact to Kansas a few years ago when the schoolboard decided to re-write science and allow the teaching of ID. Several very large employers that had decided to build and create jobs here backed out, specifically citing the fact that they did not feel that they would be able to recruit top notch employees due to the impression that Kansas was so backwards academically.