• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.

Right, right, and all Germans want to exterminate Jews, JUST ASK HITLER!!!

Oh what your pathetic ability to reason must say about atheists given Stalin.

Please stop trolling.

Dude, get mad at the JOP. He's the one implying that Southern society is so inherently racist and beyond hope, he'd rather not facilitate the birth of any mixed raced children.

*shrugs*
 
I have never used any of those terms, nor mulatto. They recall the days of the Quadroon Ball in the antebellum South to me, and as such, carry a heavy negative connatation. I've never heard anybody use any of those terms either, including the term mulatto.

Maybe it's a regional thing, but I hate all those terms.


Probably because you've enver even heard of them, before I mentioned them.

BTW, high yellow and red bone are terms used by blacks to describe mixed race persons. You never hear whites use those terms.
 
Probably because you've enver even heard of them, before I mentioned them.

BTW, high yellow and red bone are terms used by blacks to describe mixed race persons. You never hear whites use those terms.


Really? You meantioned quadroon? :no:
 
You're just jumping on the hyper-emotional "racist" train without bothering to learn anything about the specific situation at hand.

It's not racist to say that mixed marriages fail due to incompatible cultural differences if he has good evidence to support that claim. If he can prove his basis, then denying those marriages absent pre-marital counseling is not only good policy, it should be the law.

That's a big friggin' IF , Pal....

The guy's a racist and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or a racist too (which imples ignorant).

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

Jeez, Jerry, read the flippin' story before you open your mouth and stick your foot in it.
 
What if this dude was black and he didn't want to marry a mixed race couple? Would all you Libbos still get torqued up about it?

I know plenty of black people that are vehimitly opposed to inter-racial marriages.

A. Notice how people who aren't liberals can't believe this so you can stop making your generalizations.
B. So are you in support of this or are you against it?
 
Probably because you've enver even heard of them, before I mentioned them.

BTW, high yellow and red bone are terms used by blacks to describe mixed race persons.

Yes and no.

Typically where I grew up in the midwest, light skinned black boys were considered high yellow and light skinned girls were considered red boned. My sister and younger brother (may he rest in peace) are both very light skinned, but both my parents were black (RIP mom and dad). My siblings got their pigmentation from our father who was also very light skinned.

Now, it's very likely my youngest daughter will be called high yellow or red boned because she is mixed; my wife is white. I haven't heard anyone call my daughter either name yet, but then again she's only 8 yrs old and she looks more white than black.

As to the JOP refusing to marry the mixed couple, I guess my wife and I can count ourselves lucky we didn't get married in LA (or AL where we live where interracial marriages were illegal at the time we married). Regardless, I guess it's his choice if he'll perform such marriage ceremonies or not. My own paster (who's white) won't marry any couple unless they complete his marriage counseling sessions. So, I guess I can't critisize this JOP too much if I can accept the pre-marriage conditions my own paster sets down.

To each his own, I guess. The crazy thing is I can understand where the JOP's coming from through my own limited experience with my daughter. It's not that anyone's calling her names or anything like that, but rather you can tell she sometimes has a difficult time fitting in with black and white kids mostly because they don't know how to relate to her. Of course, we're talking about kids here. At such a young age, they're all learning about so many different things. But once they all hit the playground, the color lines tend to go away.

Oh, to be a kid again. :)
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged
 
The JOPs feeling should not matter on this issue. He is supposed to execute the legal proceedings according to the law. If his feelings are interfering with that then he should have just recused himself from the situation. Which he sorta did. What is so special about this guy that he has to be the one to marry them anyway? I admire his guts at expressing his feelings but even he should know the kind of attack dogs waiting in the shadows for anything remotely hinting of a racism spotlight.



images
 
The JOPs feeling should not matter on this issue. He is supposed to execute the legal proceedings according to the law. If his feelings are interfering with that then he should have just recused himself from the situation. Which he sorta did. What is so special about this guy that he has to be the one to marry them anyway? I admire his guts at expressing his feelings but even he should know the kind of attack dogs waiting in the shadows for anything remotely hinting of a racism spotlight.

It's his job.
 
Louisiana's Gov. Jindal calls for ouster of judge who refused marriage license to interracial couple.

Louisiana's governor and a U.S. senator Friday called for the ouster of a local official who refused to marry an interracial couple, saying his actions clearly broke the law.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said in a statement Bardwell’s practices and comments were deeply disturbing.

“Not only does his decision directly contradict Supreme Court rulings, it is an example of the ugly bigotry that divided our country for too long,” she said

Louisiana's Gov. Jindal calls for ouster of judge who refused marriage license to interracial couple
 
People thought what happened in California with prop 8 applied only to gays.
Prop hate was just the tip of the iceberg.
 
People thought what happened in California with prop 8 applied only to gays.
Prop hate was just the tip of the iceberg.


Oh please. The gay community is about as much a bell weather, as North Dakota is to the country.


j-mac
 
You just don't get it.

If people can take away the Constitutional right of gays to marry in California by a simply majority 50%+1 vote....what is there next target?


First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
 
Last edited:
Please just admit to lying so that we know you have some character.

They are both forms of government policy:roll:

Coming from someone who supports this justice's "logic" on the matter; for you to question my character is nothing short of a compliment. :2wave:
 
You just don't get it.

If people can take away the Constitutional right of gays to marry in California by a simply majority 50%+1 vote....what is there next target?

Gays have Domestic Partnership in CA...that's right, Prop8 did not take away the right of a gay couple to see each-other in the hospital, automatic inheritance/medical-proxy/spousal-privilege/child custody, etc.

The only thing the law in CA has not given gays is a name "marriage", but they have all their rights.

This demonstrates that the gay-marriage movement is not one of equality under the law, but of social equality, which is not something the courts can grant.
 
This demonstrates that the gay-marriage movement is not one of equality under the law, but of social equality, which is not something the courts can grant.

But they could still grant them marriage instead of the "seperate but equal" crap they have now.
 
But they could still grant them marriage instead of the "seperate but equal" crap they have now.

They could, yes, but they shouldn't.

I must be a homophobe, right?

Elton John Solved Gay Marriage Controversy:
I don’t want to be married,” he told USA TODAY’s Donna Freydkin at a New York fundraiser last night. “I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,” said John. “The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

Of his partner David Furnish, he says, “We’re not married. Let’s get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.”

Have your civil rights, that's fine, no problem.

Leave "marriage" alone because it's an unnecessary controversy.

The word has deep meaning and a rich history throughout human existence which the average person is not simply going to let go of.

If gays win to many more battles they might loose the war.
 
Bigamy means having one wife too many. I believe monogamy means the same.

Why should only us straight dudes have to bear the pains of marriage?
 
Bigamy means having one wife too many. I believe monogamy means the same.

Why should only us straight dudes have to bear the pains of marriage?

Well if that's the angle you're taking then I'm jumping on board the "abolish all marriage completely" bus :2wave:
 
They could, yes, but they shouldn't.

I must be a homophobe, right?

What's with the strawman? :confused:

Elton John Solved Gay Marriage Controversy:

That's a British citizen's opinion on American law. I understand that he is trying to be pragmatic. I disagree that seperate but equal is necessary for expediency sake.

Have your civil rights, that's fine, no problem.

Leave "marriage" alone because it's an unnecessary controversy.

Let's not enslave blacks anymore, but let's not share restrooms and drinking fountains with them. It's unnecessary for "marriage" to be controversial at all. Only I define my marriage. Others are free to define theirs how they see fit.

The word has deep meaning and a rich history throughout human existence which the average person is not simply going to let go of.

Half of marriages end in divorce. I wouldn't go so far to say that the meaning is all that deep in society's eyes. Being divorced isn't a stigma. The govt's involvement in marriage is just over 200 years old here, in America.

If gays win to many more battles they might loose the war.

This makes no sense.
 
They could, yes, but they shouldn't.

I must be a homophobe, right?

Elton John Solved Gay Marriage Controversy:


Have your civil rights, that's fine, no problem.

Leave "marriage" alone because it's an unnecessary controversy.

The word has deep meaning and a rich history throughout human existence which the average person is not simply going to let go of.

If gays win to many more battles they might loose the war.


I assume then must also find no problem with states taking away the right to inter-racial marriage then....right Jerry. Just give them a "domestic partnership" and leave the term "marriage" for the protection of the sanctity of the pure race?
 
Last edited:
What's with the strawman?

:prof "Set-up", not straw-man.

That's a British citizen's opinion on American law. I understand that he is trying to be pragmatic. I disagree that seperate but equal is necessary for expediency sake.

It's a gay man's opinion on gay relationships. Anyway he's correct about what happened, how people felt and why Pro8 failed, so really your point here is impotent.

Let's not enslave blacks anymore, but let's not share restrooms and drinking fountains with them. It's unnecessary for "marriage" to be controversial at all. Only I define my marriage. Others are free to define theirs how they see fit.

Oh spare me the drama :roll:

Half of marriages end in divorce.

Due to leftist morals and policies. All the more reason to shun the left.

This makes no sense.

You don't understand because you weren't paying attention to the quote or the context of my argument.
 
I assume then must also find no problem with states taking away the right to inter-racial marriage then....right Jerry. Just give them a "domestic partnership" and leave the term "marriage" for the protection of the sanctity of the pure race?

IMO childless couple have no business being married. It does not matter if they are gay, straight, mixed, etc. All childless couples are equally worthless, hence no discrimination.

We might create some legal package or special rights to assist monogamous couples who are not raising children, but that package would not be a right. Such a package would be like a driver's license: 'shall-issue' unless there is reason to revoke it. The state has no interest in promoting couples who are not raising children, and in fact violates that couples right to privacy when it does.
 
Last edited:
IMO childless couple have no business being married. It does not matter if they are gay, straight, mixed, etc. All childless couples are equally worthless, hence no discrimination.

We might create some legal package or special rights to assist monogamous couples who are not raising children, but that package would not be a right. Such a package would be like a driver's license: 'shall-issue' unless there is reason to revoke it. The state has no interest in promoting couples who are not raising children, and in fact violates that couples right to privacy when it does.

So you are fine then with requiring couples to either have a child prior to "marriage" or signing a contract that they agree that they will have children...as a precondition to "marriage"? Everyone else can't use the word and has to use the word "Domestic partnership"?

Oh...and if the child dies and/or when the child is an adult, the marriage is then voided and reverts to a domestic partnership, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom