• 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.

Jerry said:
:prof "Set-up", not straw-man.
Click to expand...

Oh, "baiting", not strawman. Noted.

Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great, George Tekai disagrees with him. :roll:

No ones relationship should be subjected to the tyranny of the majority.

Jerry said:
Oh spare me the drama :roll:
Click to expand...

Excellent counterpoint. :roll:

Your argument was the original drama argument. If gays call it marriage then people's heads will explode or some such nonsense.

Jerry said:
Due to leftist morals and policies. All the more reason to shun the left.
Click to expand...

This notion is ridiculous.

Henry Hyde, Ronald Reagan, David Vitter, and Newt Gingrich are not leftists.

Jerry said:
You don't understand because you weren't paying attention to the quote or the context of my argument.
Click to expand...

It's always a war analogy with some people.

But yes, winning too many battles is the reason nations lose wars. :doh
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Oh, "baiting", not strawman. Noted.



Great, George Tekai disagrees with him. :roll:

No ones relationship should be subjected to the tyranny of the majority.



Excellent counterpoint. :roll:

Your argument was the original drama argument. If gays call it marriage then people's heads will explode or some such nonsense.



This notion is ridiculous.

Henry Hyde, Ronald Reagan, David Vitter, and Newt Gingrich are not leftists.



It's always a war analogy with some people.

But yes, winning too many battles is the reason nations lose wars. :doh
Click to expand...

As you are a Mod, I ask that you please stop with the hostile posts.

Please contribute posts of substance or kindly leave the thread.
 
Jerry said:
As you are a Mod, I ask that you please stop with the hostile posts.

Please contribute posts of substance or kindly leave the thread.
Click to expand...

You are the one calling for people to be shunned.

What was so "hostile"?
 
Mary Landrieu has weighed in, calling for the JOPs dismissal.

Landrieu: Keith Bardwell Should Be Dismissed For Denying Marriage Licenses To Interracial Couples


Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) also called for Bardwell's dismissal. "I am deeply disturbed by Justice Bardwell's practices and comments concerning interracial marriages," she said. "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. I call upon the Louisiana Judiciary Committee to use its authority to have Justice Bardwell dismissed from his position. He clearly has no intention of administering the law or upholding justice for interracial couples."

more ...


Landrieu: Keith Bardwell Should Be Dismissed For Denying Marriage Licenses To Interracial Couples
Click to expand...
 
To me, in this issue means giving gays the right to marry and hold that title.

Gays are the last bastion of legal bigotry in this country.

The USA is all about inclusion. How can a person or couple be included if they are excluded?
 
Just Plain Jim said:
To me, in this issue means giving gays the right to marry and hold that title.

Gays are the last bastion of legal bigotry in this country.

The USA is all about inclusion. How can a person or couple be included if they are excluded?
Click to expand...


IA, Jim, it's really that simple to me. I don't understand the controversy.



edit: woops, I just noticed the thread is supposed to be about interracial marriage licenses rather than gay marriage. I still agree tho. :)
 
Last edited:
jackalope said:
IA, Jim, it's really that simple to me. I don't understand the controversy.



edit: woops, I just noticed the thread is supposed to be about interracial marriage licenses rather than gay marriage. I still agree tho. :)
Click to expand...

I could care less if someone is gay, Black, Asian, whatever, as long as they are consenting adults, they should be given the same rights, same title and same responsibilities as everyone else.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You are the one calling for people to be shunned.
Click to expand...

I'm not a mod for rule 6 to hold me to a "higher standard". I'm happily a pesent. Since you are held to a "higher standard", I can't return fire without being infracted for failing to regard you in that higher standard. You can talk as much **** as you want, and no one can do anything about it.

independent_thinker2002 said:
What was so "hostile"?
Click to expand...

This thread is about interracial marriage and the actions of a Justice. While I invite you to participate in our conversation here, please take any questions regarding hostile behavior to either PM or the Basement, as you deem fit.

***
The post of mine you were originally responding to was addressing the accusation that I only oppose marrying childless gay couples because I'm heterosexual. The tone of your posts strongly imply that you agree with this assumption. If that's an accurate interpretation of your posts, please tell me what portions of my argument lead you to believe this, even if those portions are from other gay-marriage threads.
 
Last edited:
Just Plain Jim said:
To me, in this issue means giving gays the right to marry and hold that title.

Gays are the last bastion of legal bigotry in this country.

The USA is all about inclusion. How can a person or couple be included if they are excluded?
Click to expand...

This may seem trivial, but don't forget Muslim polygamists.

The current gay-marriage legal arguments will eventually serve to establish Muslim culture in America, which in turn will contribute to establishing portions of Sharia law.

This does not mean we need to abandon gay-marriage, nor does it mean that allowing gay-marriage in any way what-so-ever will for absolute certain turn America into a theocracy.

IMO what we need to do is change the pro-GM argument from a blanket proclamation of vague 'rights' to one which further defines and enhances the institution of marriage and American culture.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
IMO what we need to do is change the pro-GM argument from a blanket proclamation of vague 'rights' to one which further defines and enhances the institution of marriage and American culture.
Click to expand...

Could you please define what American culture is?
 
Was this JP "elected"?

If so, what is the big deal? So it's un-PC, who cares?

Seriously, he cannot be forced to marry anyone. JP's marry people for the extra cash on the side...because they can. They are allowed to say "no" for any reason.
 
Jerry said:
This may seem trivial, but don't forget Muslim polygamists.

The current gay-marriage legal arguments will eventually serve to establish Muslim culture in America, which in turn will contribute to establishing portions of Sharia law.
Click to expand...

So ... Gays getting married will open the doors to sharia?

Oh wow. Now that is a new one. :rofl
Are you aware of the many countries in Europe who have implemented Gay marriage and is not under the laws of sharia.
 
vauge said:
Was this JP "elected"?

If so, what is the big deal? So it's un-PC, who cares?

Seriously, he cannot be forced to marry anyone. JP's marry people for the extra cash on the side...because they can. They are allowed to say "no" for any reason.
Click to expand...

They are? Seriously, I wonder how much authority a JoP in Louisiana has? Is this an elected position, or is he just appointed by the legislature - one of those political jobs you get because you "know" someone?

I know a minister/priest/reverend can refuse to perform marriage ceremonies, I wonder if a JoP can?

Is he like a ship captain - he doesn't usually perform ceremonies, but can under certain conditions/restrictions?

I guess what I'm wondering is - Is performing marriages the job of a Louisiana JoP, or is it like you said, it's just something he does on the side to make a few extra $$ because he can?
 
SpotsCat said:
They are? Seriously, I wonder how much authority a JoP in Louisiana has? Is this an elected position, or is he just appointed by the legislature - one of those political jobs you get because you "know" someone?

I know a minister/priest/reverend can refuse to perform marriage ceremonies, I wonder if a JoP can?

Is he like a ship captain - he doesn't usually perform ceremonies, but can under certain conditions/restrictions?

I guess what I'm wondering is - Is performing marriages the job of a Louisiana JoP, or is it like you said, it's just something he does on the side to make a few extra $$ because he can?
Click to expand...

The JP that married my wife and I charged a fee.
It was on a Saturday.
She was elected.
She charged extra if we wanted her to travel to a location.

She could have said no for any reason.
 
vauge said:
The JP that married my wife and I charged a fee.
It was on a Saturday.
She was elected.
She charged extra if we wanted her to travel to a location.

She could have said no for any reason.
Click to expand...

Well if you want something out of office hours I bet you should expect to pay.
 
winston53660 said:
Well if you want something out of office hours I bet you should expect to pay.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that they could not perform marriages during business hours.
 
Jerry said:
Please define "define".
Click to expand...
Main Entry: de·fine
Pronunciation: \di-ˈfīn\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·fined; de·fin·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin definire, from de- + finire to limit, end, from finis boundary, end
Date: 14th century

transitive verb 1 a : to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of <whatever defines us as human> b : to discover and set forth the meaning of (as a word) c : to create on a computer <define a window> <define a procedure>
2 a : to fix or mark the limits of : demarcate <rigidly defined property lines> b : to make distinct, clear, or detailed especially in outline <the issues aren't too well defined>
3 : characterize, distinguish <you define yourself by the choices you make — Denison University Bulletin>
Click to expand...

Now then care to answer my question about American culture?
 
Laila said:
So ... Gays getting married will open the doors to sharia?

Oh wow. Now that is a new one. :rofl

Are you aware of the many countries in Europe who have implemented Gay marriage and is not under the laws of sharia.
Click to expand...

I went out of my to properly qualify my statements, and yet you still misrepresent them.
 
vauge said:
I was under the impression that they could not perform marriages during business hours.
Click to expand...

Really that is odd IMHO. I think they should perform marriages during business hours.
 
vauge said:
Was this JP "elected"?

If so, what is the big deal? So it's un-PC, who cares?

Seriously, he cannot be forced to marry anyone. JP's marry people for the extra cash on the side...because they can. They are allowed to say "no" for any reason.
Click to expand...

The JP that married my wife and I did not charge (we had to pay the clerk filing fees but that's nothing special), and she did it over her lunch hour.

JPs are appointed, not elected.
 
Re-read the OP again. This is a Fox News tactic...kinda strange seeing it being applied elsewere.

HAMMOND, La. (AP) - A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.

{kersnip}

Humphrey told the newspaper she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed.
Click to expand...
So...

The first sentence makes you think this JP refused to allow them to marry.

In reality, they already had the license. The JP refused to endorse it - which he is ALLOWED to do for any reason. The JP could careless if they get married, he just isn't going to sign the paper.

There is no issue here. We cannot force this JP to think like anyone. Signing certs is during their off time. It is sickening how out of control people get about stupid things. Sorry it wasted your time...go to another JP and stop thinking you are someone speshal....
 
vauge said:
Was this JP "elected"?

If so, what is the big deal? So it's un-PC, who cares?

Seriously, he cannot be forced to marry anyone. JP's marry people for the extra cash on the side...because they can. They are allowed to say "no" for any reason.
Click to expand...



A quote from the article I posted re: Mary Landrieu calling for his dismissal sums it up:

"A justice of the peace is legally obligated to serve the public, all of the public," Quigley said. "Racial discrimination has been a violation of Louisiana and U.S. law for decades. No public official has the right to pick and choose which laws they are going to follow."


Read more at: Landrieu: Keith Bardwell Should Be Dismissed For Denying Marriage Licenses To Interracial Couples
Click to expand...


They are not allowed to say 'no' for any reason. They are constitutionally required to treat all equally under the law.
 
Jerry said:
JPs are appointed, not elected.
Click to expand...
I believe they are elected through their party to a 4 year term here in Texas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom