• 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.

They are not allowed to say 'no' for any reason. They are constitutionally required to treat all equally under the law.

They are *allowed* to marry persons...but they are not *required* to do so.

There is a difference.
 
They are *allowed* to marry or persons...but they are not *required* to do so.

There is a difference.


While they may not be required to marry every person who asks - I'm sure time constraints alone would make that physically impossible in an extreme situation where bombarded by a whole city seeking services at once - they are required to observe the law in administering their authority. They can refuse to issue the license or perform the ceremony or whatever else, but they cannot refuse on the basis of an unconstitutional abridgement of the law.
 
While they may not be required to marry every person who asks - I'm sure time constraints alone would make that physically impossible in an extreme situation where bombarded by a whole city seeking services at once - they are required to observe the law in administering their authority. They can refuse to issue the license or perform the ceremony or whatever else, but they cannot refuse on the basis of an unconstitutional abridgement of the law.

You are still not "getting it". He refused to sign a piece of paper that he is not *required* by law to sign. The couple were already legally apt to get married - they had the paper. Everything was kosher. The JP said no - got their panties in a wad.

These people had to drive across town - it upset their feelings. Poor kids.
 
Governor calls for firing of justice in interracial marriage case

(snip ... ) Jindal said the state judiciary committee should review the incident in which Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace for Tangipahoa Parish's 8th Ward, refused to issue a marriage license to Beth Humphrey, 30, and her boyfriend, Terence McKay, 32, both of Hammond.

"This is a clear violation of constitutional rights and federal and state law. ... Disciplinary action should be taken immediately -- including the revoking of his license," the Republican governor said.

more ...

Governor calls for firing of justice in interracial marriage case - CNN.com


I wouldn't even venture to guess what Louisiana's law says (they have laws based on the French code rather than British code), but the Governor says this action does indeed violate state law, and of course us constitutional law as several people already noted in the thread.
 
You are still not "getting it". He refused to sign a piece of paper that he is not *required* by law to sign. The couple were already legally apt to get married - they had the paper. Everything was kosher. The JP said no - got their panties in a wad.

These people had to drive across town - it upset their feelings. Poor kids.


I don't believe I'm not the one not getting it. Applicable constitutional case law has been cited (Loving), the US Senator and Governor both say he violated state and US law, and you're just asserting that it's not the case.

Where exactly does any law say he has the right to administer the authority granted to him by the state in any manner he sees fit, without regard to equal protection under the law for all?
 
I wouldn't even venture to guess what Louisiana's law says (they have laws based on the French code rather than British code), but the Governor says this action does indeed violate state law, and of course us constitutional law as several people already noted in the thread.

This has zero to do with constitutional law. We are talking about state law.
They had the state license already.

They just needed a JP or minister to "notarize" it which to most includes a ceremony.

This complain from the Governor is 100% political.
 
This has zero to do with constitutional law. We are talking about state law.
They had the state license already.

They just needed a JP or minister to "notarize" it which to most includes a ceremony.

This complain from the Governor is 100% political.


US Constitutional law trumps state law, and in any case, it is irrelevant. The Gov stated it is also against state law. Besides, you have cited no state code that backs up your claim. You're just making a claim.
 
This has zero to do with constitutional law. We are talking about state law.
They had the state license already.

They just needed a JP or minister to "notarize" it which to most includes a ceremony.

This complain from the Governor is 100% political.


I believe the complaints of those who don't care about the violation of law is 100% political, as I haven't seen any state law references to back up their claims.
 
sigh...

"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."

It *is* illegal to not allow them to marry. *1967 - Loving v Virginia
It is illegal to not grant them a license. 14th amendment per same court hearing above.

It is not illegal to refuse to sign it.

Should a minister be required to sign a marriage license just because someone asked?
 
sigh...



It *is* illegal to not allow them to marry. *1967 - Loving v Virginia
It is illegal to not grant them a license. 14th amendment per same court hearing above.

It is not illegal to refuse to sign it.

Should a minister be required to sign a marriage license just because someone asked?

A Minister and a JP are not the same thing.
 
sigh...



It *is* illegal to not allow them to marry. *1967 - Loving v Virginia
It is illegal to not grant them a license. 14th amendment per same court hearing above.

It is not illegal to refuse to sign it.

Should a minister be required to sign a marriage license just because someone asked?

Isn't there a special law protecting clergy form being forced to do so?
 
A Minister and a JP are not the same thing.

According to the argument above, it would be illegal for a minister to refuse based on the fourteenth amendment.
 
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.

Feel free to report any posts of mine for moderator review.

You know you are free to debate me. If you have a problem doing so within the rules, you can't lay that at my feet.

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.

So you can't cite any part of my post that was hostile? Got it.

***
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.

I never stated you oppose this based on your sexuality. I was merely responding to that post. Your interpretation of my posts is incorrect.
 
sigh...



It *is* illegal to not allow them to marry. *1967 - Loving v Virginia
It is illegal to not grant them a license. 14th amendment per same court hearing above.

It is not illegal to refuse to sign it.

Should a minister be required to sign a marriage license just because someone asked?


The signing of the license is the wedding. The couple gets the blank from the clerk at the state office, the go to a JOP, who performs the ceremony, signs the license, and the new couple return it to the clerk. It is quite illegal to refuse to treat citizens equally under the law.

Exactly what authority are you citing to justify this refusal to carry out the authority vested in him equally under the law?


A minister, first of all, may not have authority granted him under the law. Not all religious ceremonies are state-sanctioned marriages. However, a minister who was granted the authority to perform state-sanctioned marriages would be doubly performing both a religious ceremony and a civil ceremony. The state has no control over what religious hoops a church may require before they will perform a religious ceremony, however with regard to civil authority, clergy and religious are not exempt from the law.

For example, the state had absolutely nothing to say with regard to the fact that my church required posting of banns, and pre-cana instruction.


Please, other than just asserting that the justice can do whatever he pleases, what law grants him immunity from observing the equal protection clause?
 
Last edited:
This is what I do while my WoW toon is in flight.

He'll be landing shortly, no worries.

Mentioning World of Warcraft isn't convincing me that your time is valuable.

I couldn't care less about people's feewins, so you can stop right there.

Contentment is integral to order. You care about order, you care about feelings by association.

The Justice in question was concerned about children born to this couple, not children adopted by this couple.

I don't see how that relates to the point.

For example: Life comes first, because without it, there are no other freedoms. We're not discussing the mixed marriage of a couple who were aborted in the 3rd trimester for an obvious reason. Their own mother revoked their right to live, therefore so much less is it for some Justice to deny a marriage based on race.

The nature of life and human identity in social and political terms is a philosophical question. The state defaults to the preferences of the non-ambiguous party in such matters. This doesn't relate at all.

Second is the 2nd, because it protects the 1st.

3rd is privacy, 4rd comes expression, 5th is association...and so on...

Your admission that freedoms are important is a bit inconsistent with your earlier proposition that they should be shoved up my ass. You would have to develop that a bit more before it applies to anything being discussed in this thread. No one has provided a compelling argument for why the Justice's rationale is justified.

I would agree if you had quoted this Justices actual reasons and shot them down one by one.

My impression was that he denied them because of his concern for the children born and I did shoot that reason down. It stacks too many freedoms (and judicial rulings) against something speculative and contingent.

According to the argument above, it would be illegal for a minister to refuse based on the fourteenth amendment.

Ministers are given exemption because of their occupation. They are servants of their faith. State officials don't have the same rights because of their occupations. They are public servants.
 
Last edited:
Please, other than just asserting that the justice can do whatever he pleases, what law grants him immunity from observing the equal protection clause?
Please tell me the law that he HAS to sign the paper?

Were your logic true, all ministers, some notaries (depend on state), and all JPs are forced to perform a marriage because they have that ability.

If this is required, the state should pay him to do it.
The state does not pay however, the persons getting married does.

It is a service.
As such, just like a doctor or blockbuster can refuse service to anyone.
 
Last edited:
Please tell me the law that he HAS to sign the paper?

Were your logic true, all ministers, some notaries (depend on state), and all JPs are forced to perform a marriage because they have that ability.

If this is required, the state should pay him to do it.
The state does not pay however, the persons getting married does.

It is a service.
As such, just like a doctor or blockbuster can refuse service to anyone.

State doesn't have to pay anyone a nickel once it is constitutional or federal law. No more need to play soft ball.
 
According to the website of the Louisiana Secretary of State --

Qualifications of Candidates

The candidate shall be of good moral character, a qualified elector, be a resident of the ward and district from which elected and able to read and write the English language correctly. By the date of qualification in 2008, the candidate shall possess a high school diploma or its equivalent as determined by BESE.

If you've got a GED and have never been convicted of a crime... you too can be a Louisiana Justice of the Peace! :shock:
 
Ministers are given exemption because of their occupation. They are servants of their faith. State officials don't have the same rights because of their occupations. They are public servants.
You do realize that JPs have *extremely* limited jurisdiction - right?

They are the lowest jurisdiction there is.

Marriages and warrants are about all they can really do. Some states allow JPs over small claims courts. Many states do not even require a high school education to be a JP.
 
Please tell me the law that he HAS to sign the paper?

Were your logic true, all ministers, some notaries (depend on state), and all JPs are forced to perform a marriage because they have that ability.

If this is required, the state should pay him to do it.
The state does not pay however, the persons getting married does.

It is a service.
As such, just like a doctor or blockbuster can refuse service to anyone.


The signing of the paper is the carrying out of his authority; and the law saying he HAS to sign it for interracial couples is the US Constitution .... and state law, as the Senator and Governor stated. I already said I don't know the LA state laws (they're really different than anywhere else), however I do know the Constitutional violation, and that has been stated multiple times.


Please tell me the law which grants him the exemption from the equal protection clause. You just keep asserting that he can do this because he wants to. That's not a legal argument.
 
Last edited:
According to the website of the Louisiana Secretary of State --



If you've got a GED and have never been convicted of a crime... you too can be a Louisiana Justice of the Peace! :shock:



Breaking the law isn't exactly good moral character. Also, I believe someone said he had to get elected too. That's not true everywhere, but apparently where he lives, it is true.
 
I do not see this as breaking the law. I do agree that his logic is very much flawed.

I see this as his *right* to refuse to sign.

He is performing a service. The state is already out of the equation after granting the license.
 
Last edited:
I do not see this as breaking the law. I do agree that his logic is very much flawed.

I see this as his *right* to refuse to sign.

He is performing a service. The state is already out of the equation after granting the license.

No. Even the farthest reaches of the private sector are subject to the 14th amendment. This guy definitely is.

There are a bunch of 14th-amendment based laws and rulings regarding employment, service, and business in general when race is involved.
 
No. Even the farthest reaches of the private sector are subject to the 14th amendment. This guy definitely is.

There are a bunch of 14th-amendment based laws and rulings regarding employment, service, and business in general when race is involved.

There may be precedence that I am unaware of.

Are you saying that a business man (which is what the JP really is), cannot refuse to sign a piece of paper on his own volition because race is involved?

If so, what a sad world we live in. :(
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom