Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana

g under p · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

tell me this folks. this is not exclusive to white people. I know of many different races/creeds/religions that "encourage" their fellow people to marry only their own "kind". Italians, blacks, Jews, whites, Asians, you name it. Are you calling all these people racists and bigots because they'd personally rather their offspring marry into their own heritage? They don't give a shit if they are friends with these people, they just wish to keep the family bloodline the same. Again, I don't agree with this, but it's not my right to tell them it's not theirs.

To each their own, I say. But I don't call it racism.

I don't speak for whoprincess. One difference with your example above and the case we speak of, this man is a city official and a judge at that. What one does in their own home and heritage is another issue totally different when he works and is paid my the city. He has no authority to impose his beliefs and deny those rights to the citizens of that city.

Peace

catefrances · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

tell me this folks. this is not exclusive to white people. I know of many different races/creeds/religions that "encourage" their fellow people to marry only their own "kind". Italians, blacks, Jews, whites, Asians, you name it. Are you calling all these people racists and bigots because they'd personally rather their offspring marry into their own heritage? They don't give a shit if they are friends with these people, they just wish to keep the family bloodline the same. Again, I don't agree with this, but it's not my right to tell them it's not theirs.

To each their own, I say. But I don't call it racism.

heres my own personal problem. my father was adopted as an infant. i have no clue about anything in regards to his side of the family. there are issues that im dealing with and i have only 50% reference. when my maternal side has been ruled out where do i go??? i could go with the white thing but thatd just make me look like a fool when theres a possibility that my fathers family are mixed race. as far as im concerned my own kind is all humanity.

WaveCameCrashin · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

personally. I prefer all the facts before I judge someone's actions.

Now there's an :idea: to bad more people don't think like that...

Johnny Sitar wrote:

tell me this folks. this is not exclusive to white people. I know of many different races/creeds/religions that "encourage" their fellow people to marry only their own "kind". Italians, blacks, Jews, whites, Asians, you name it. Are you calling all these people racists and bigots because they'd personally rather their offspring marry into their own heritage? They don't give a shit if they are friends with these people, they just wish to keep the family bloodline the same. Again, I don't agree with this, but it's not my right to tell them it's not theirs.

To each their own, I say. But I don't call it racism.

I was thinking the same thing..

catefrances · October 2009

prfctlefts wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

personally. I prefer all the facts before I judge someone's actions.

Now there's an :idea: to bad more people don't think like that...

Johnny Sitar wrote:

tell me this folks. this is not exclusive to white people. I know of many different races/creeds/religions that "encourage" their fellow people to marry only their own "kind". Italians, blacks, Jews, whites, Asians, you name it. Are you calling all these people racists and bigots because they'd personally rather their offspring marry into their own heritage? They don't give a shit if they are friends with these people, they just wish to keep the family bloodline the same. Again, I don't agree with this, but it's not my right to tell them it's not theirs.

To each their own, I say. But I don't call it racism.

I was thinking the same thing..

this man doesnt have the right to deny this mixed couple marriage based solely on that. thats the problem we all have with it. in his official capacity hes bound to marry a couple simply because they want to marry and tis within the law surely.

WaveCameCrashin · October 2009

catefrances wrote:

this man doesnt have the right to deny this mixed couple marriage based solely on that

Of course not..

TriumphantAngel · October 2009

prfctlefts wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

personally. I prefer all the facts before I judge someone's actions.

Now there's an :idea: to bad more people don't think like that...

how many more facts do you need.

the fact is, that as a Justice of the Peace, he has absolutely no authority to decide that a biracial couple can't be married.

there are no OTHER facts.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

TriumphantAngel wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

personally. I prefer all the facts before I judge someone's actions.

Now there's an :idea: to bad more people don't think like that...

how many more facts do you need.

the fact is, that as a Justice of the Peace, he has absolutely no authority to decide that a biracial couple can't be married.

there are no OTHER facts.

no need to get cheeky. I live in Canada. I have no idea what kind of authority a JP has or doesn't have in his particular jurisdiction. As I said in an earlier post, if he did something that was outside of his authority then he should be fired. No question. But that wasn't really the issue here, was it? Everyone was calling him a racist, which I don't believe he is. He was wrong, but not a racist.

catefrances · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

Now there's an :idea: to bad more people don't think like that...

how many more facts do you need.

the fact is, that as a Justice of the Peace, he has absolutely no authority to decide that a biracial couple can't be married.

there are no OTHER facts.

no need to get cheeky. I live in Canada. I have no idea what kind of authority a JP has or doesn't have in his particular jurisdiction. As I said in an earlier post, if he did something that was outside of his authority then he should be fired. No question. But that wasn't really the issue here, was it? Everyone was calling him a racist, which I don't believe he is. He was wrong, but not a racist.

do you not see that if both were white or both black hed not have had a problem??? the fact is he wouldnt marry them cause they werent the same race. THAT my friend is racism.

NoK · October 2009

rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm)
n.

3. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character

Edit: And what the fuck is a bloodline? If we go by this train of thought humans should still be fucking apes.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

actually.........Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

nowhere in this guy's objection to marrying an interracial couple do I see the above. He says NOTHING about the character of either one of the people wanting to get married, does he? Nor does he say anything about superiority of either race. Get a grip people.

Look at the definition and tell me what he did was racism. What he did was WRONG, but it wasn't racism. Sorry folks, but you are misdefining what racism is.

If I like Asian women over white women, does that mean I'm racist? If I prefer white women over Asian women, am I racist? To you people, in both instances, I am. And that's ridiculous. It's personal preference, not a superiority complex. Jeez. :roll:

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

catefrances wrote:

do you not see that if both were white or both black hed not have had a problem??? the fact is he wouldnt marry them cause they werent the same race. THAT my friend is racism.

yes, I do see that. And no, it's not. Why? Because of his intent. He does not believe (from what he says) that he objects to them getting married because it will breed an inferior child, or that blacks are inferior to whites so they shouldn't combine, he says that the child might have some indentity issues and not be accepted by either race. To me that says compassion. It's misguided compassion to be sure, but it's still compassion.

catefrances · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

catefrances wrote:

do you not see that if both were white or both black hed not have had a problem??? the fact is he wouldnt marry them cause they werent the same race. THAT my friend is racism.

yes, I do see that. And no, it's not. Why? Because of his intent. He does not believe (from what he says) that he objects to them getting married because it will breed an inferior child, or that blacks are inferior to whites so they shouldn't combine, he says that the child might have some indentity issues and not be accepted by either race. To me that says compassion. It's misguided compassion to be sure, but it's still compassion.

excuses excuses.

Who Princess · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

whoprincess wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

And it all depends on his lincense. Is he required to marry anyone that applies to do so? Or does he have any sort of discretion? We should ask that before we call for this guy to be fired. If he's required to perform all legal marriages in his practicing state, then damn right he should get canned.

I'll not go into your views.

In 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed state prohibitions against interracial marriage. Therefore, interracial marriages have been permissible in all 50 states for over 40 years. That's one of the reasons why this man's actions are so shocking. It's not as if the law just changed and he's not exactly up to speed. He says he's been a justice of the peace for 34 years. Well, if this is how he's been doing things, then he hasn't been upholding the law as he was elected to.

I read in another article that before being issued a marriage license in Louisiana a couple are supposed to prove that they are eligible to be married. OK, no surprise. They are asked if they've been married before, if so, how long ago was the marriage dissolved, and to provide proof of that. I assume they may also have to provide proof that they are of age. Other than that, there are no "eligibility" requirements.

It's certainly not against the law to be an asshole. This man can believe whatever he wants about who should and shouldn't marry. If he doesn't think that Irish should marry Italians, he's entitled to his opinions. But if he's elected to a public office he can't decide to impose his beliefs on others. It's like the police deciding to pick and choose which laws to enforce. If he can't treat all citizens the same he's in the wrong profession.

You'll not go into my views? what does that mean exactly? that you are well within your right to jump the gun and judge this man based on a knee-jerk reaction? I won't do that, personally. I prefer all the facts before I judge someone's actions.

Like I said, I think the guy's an idiot, but I didn't know if what he did was legally wrong. That's all I was saying.

:roll:

I simply meant that I was neither interested in "crucifying" (as you put it) nor complimenting you for your beliefs as you'd expressed them or getting into a debate about racism with you. I was more interested in answering your question about whether or not the justice of the peace in the news story could LEGALLY refuse to issue a marriage license to the couple because of his personal opinions. Which was what I tried to do in my post, but you seem to have missed that because you were busy accusing me of judging him "on a knee-jerk reaction."

Yes, I think his behavior and comments are boorish, low down, backwards, tasteless and completely uncalled for in this day and age, all the more so because he's an elected official. But I think you you are the one who "jumped the gun" in reacting to my post.

brandon10 · October 2009

To me......as soon as I read this guys comment "that he allows blacks to use his bathroom", it was quite obvious that he's a fucking racist.

NoK · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

actually.........Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

nowhere in this guy's objection to marrying an interracial couple do I see the above. He says NOTHING about the character of either one of the people wanting to get married, does he? Nor does he say anything about superiority of either race. Get a grip people.

Look at the definition and tell me what he did was racism. What he did was WRONG, but it wasn't racism. Sorry folks, but you are misdefining what racism is.

If I like Asian women over white women, does that mean I'm racist? If I prefer white women over Asian women, am I racist? To you people, in both instances, I am. And that's ridiculous. It's personal preference, not a superiority complex. Jeez. :roll:

actually.... you are wrong. Racism is not ONLY the belief that one race is superior to another but also the belief that race accounts for differences in human character. His assumption was that children from a mixed family will suffer more than the average children. This means he already has a preconceived belief regarding the characters of people from different races. Thats no better than people who cross the street because an african-american or middle-eastern guy was approaching from the other direction.

g under p · October 2009

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

This JP forms part of the US government, and the official published position of the US government, based upon real life statistics, is that the chances of this White woman being beaten or killed by her Black husband are 6 to 7 times higher than if she married a White man.

The chance of her children being abused or killed by a Black father is also 6 to 7 times higher than if they had a White father.

More than half of all the men in prison in the US are Black, yet Black men only make up 5 percent of the population. A quarter of all Black men go to prison, so there is a 1 in 4 chance this White woman, and her children, will have a convicted criminal as a husband and father.

The average IQ of Blacks is 15 to 25 points below that of Whites, so a White woman having children with a Black man will have children with IQs 15 to 20 points less than what they could have been.

Unemployment amongst Black men is far higher than White men, so there is also a much higher chance of her children living in poverty than if she married a White man.

No one has been able to show what advantages there are for the White woman or her children to having a Black father, when compared to the many advantages they would have if they had a White father.

This i found from one of the posters while reading up on this case. Maybe this is what Keith Bardwell was driving at when he spoke of *being concerned about marrying mixed couples and the children they may have* something to that effect.

Well in my experience quite the opposite has happened I know of a black mother has committed adultery, twice married, failed to pay her back child support and has abused her child.

On the other hand i know of a white man who dropped out of high school, fathered 4 children, failed to find work in 15 years, became a drug dealer, spent 2+ years in jail, currently unemployed, abused his now ex-wife and failed and continues to fail paying child support of $100 a month for 2 children yes that's right and it's true.

My point here as I've said before is K Bardwell's preconceived position of assumptions are racist and a form of straight up racism. Being a public official a judge hired to serve ALL citizens of the public regardless of what his beliefs or assumptions of people are. He does not have that authority or the right to impose that on the public because in this case his assumptions are totally wrong.

Peace

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

NoK wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

actually.........Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

nowhere in this guy's objection to marrying an interracial couple do I see the above. He says NOTHING about the character of either one of the people wanting to get married, does he? Nor does he say anything about superiority of either race. Get a grip people.

Look at the definition and tell me what he did was racism. What he did was WRONG, but it wasn't racism. Sorry folks, but you are misdefining what racism is.

If I like Asian women over white women, does that mean I'm racist? If I prefer white women over Asian women, am I racist? To you people, in both instances, I am. And that's ridiculous. It's personal preference, not a superiority complex. Jeez. :roll:

actually.... you are wrong. Racism is not ONLY the belief that one race is superior to another but also the belief that race accounts for differences in human character. His assumption was that children from a mixed family will suffer more than the average children. This means he already has a preconceived belief regarding the characters of people from different races. Thats no better than people who cross the street because an african-american or middle-eastern guy was approaching from the other direction.

no, I'm not wrong. Neither are you. they are both definitions of racism. However, you take a giant leap here. Yes, he is assuming that children from a mixed family will suffer more than the average child. So then you jump over the grand canyon by making the claim that this means he has a preconceived belief regarding the characters of other races? Where did that come from? He is merely stating that they suffer because of identity crisis, on both sides. He's not saying that "those poor white kids are going to think they are black", he is saying all kids of mixed race suffer indentity crises. And that's arguable, but not racism.

People are way too quick to jump the gun and throw around all these nasty terms for people who have any supposedly politically incorrect opinion.

Let me ask you this: if this situation had been exactly the same, except for one point, that the JP was black instead of white, would you all be calling him racist? I bet not. You can't have it both ways.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

whoprincess wrote:

I simply meant that I was neither interested in "crucifying" (as you put it) nor complimenting you for your beliefs as you'd expressed them or getting into a debate about racism with you. I was more interested in answering your question about whether or not the justice of the peace in the news story could LEGALLY refuse to issue a marriage license to the couple because of his personal opinions. Which was what I tried to do in my post, but you seem to have missed that because you were busy accusing me of judging him "on a knee-jerk reaction."

Yes, I think his behavior and comments are boorish, low down, backwards, tasteless and completely uncalled for in this day and age, all the more so because he's an elected official. But I think you you are the one who "jumped the gun" in reacting to my post.

My apologies then. Yes, I did read your entire post. I thought you were being dismissive with your opening comment, which you say you were not, and for that I am sorry that I misjudged what you meant.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

and I'll say again. Many of you have given me the facts that I had asked. He was indeed acting outside of his authority, and therefor illegally. So he should absolutely be fired. Case closed.

But sued? I find that a bit overkill. What is the obsession with sueing people these days? It's gotten ridiculous. "hey, you pissed me off, you owe me money!". I never understood the correlation between someone being "wronged" and giving them money for compensation, when finances never came into the equation in the first place.

catefrances · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

no, I'm not wrong. Neither are you. they are both definitions of racism. However, you take a giant leap here. Yes, he is assuming that children from a mixed family will suffer more than the average child. So then you jump over the grand canyon by making the claim that this means he has a preconceived belief regarding the characters of other races? Where did that come from? He is merely stating that they suffer because of identity crisis, on both sides. He's not saying that "those poor white kids are going to think they are black", he is saying all kids of mixed race suffer indentity crises. And that's arguable, but not racism.

People are way too quick to jump the gun and throw around all these nasty terms for people who have any supposedly politically incorrect opinion.

Let me ask you this: if this situation had been exactly the same, except for one point, that the JP was black instead of white, would you all be calling him racist? I bet not. You can't have it both ways.

yes i would.

Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana

Comments

Categories