• 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.

Moderator's Warning:
Accusing people of being trolls is not civil.
 
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.

At the same time he cannot deny a marriage license based on race. There are federal laws prohibiting this type of conduct.

What this particular JP did is in direct violation of those laws.
 
At the same time he cannot deny a marriage license based on race. There are federal laws prohibiting this type of conduct.

What this particular JP did is in direct violation of those laws.

To be fair, this JP didn't withhold his sig in the name of racial purity and preventing a mongrel breed.

He did so in the name of high divorce rates.
 
They're tolls.

You don't.

Anything you do will only feed them, which is how Rush Limbaugh is so successful.

Rush Limbaugh has greater problems. A few years back he was arrested at an Airport for carrying a bottle of Viagra that belonged to somebody other than himself.
 
Rush Limbaugh has greater problems. A few years back he was arrested at an Airport for carrying a bottle of Viagra that belonged to somebody other than himself.

Meh, I could care less.
 
Re-read the OP again. This is a Fox News tactic...kinda strange seeing it being applied elsewere.


So...

Okay vauge, fair enough, I'm going by the info in the AP story...


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

Um... that's because he did refuse to marry them.


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.

Are you married? Getting the signature from the officiant is the deal. That's the marriage. That's the ceremony. That's the process.

And, as an elected official he can not discrimate. He can't viloate the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and/or the La Constitution.

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....

Forgive me, but there is a big f-ing issue here.

I can't believe you are serious.
 
Okay vauge, fair enough, I'm going by the info in the AP story...




Um... that's because he did refuse to marry them.




Are you married? Getting the signature from the officiant is the deal. That's the marriage. That's the ceremony. That's the process.

And, as an elected official he can not discrimate. He can't viloate the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and/or the La Constitution.



Forgive me, but there is a big f-ing issue here.

I can't believe you are serious.

You are speculating....
Unless you have specific knowledge of his job duties.....
He believes he acted within his purview..... ;)
 
Um... that's because he did refuse to marry them.

You don't see a difference between preventing someone from getting married and refusing to marry them yourself?

No one should ever be forced to endorse a marriage. How does forcing racist people to sign off on things they don't agree with help anyone?

I don't want to discourage racist shmucks from displaying their racism. I like being able to tell them apart. If some guy wouldn't approve my marriage because I was with an Asian chick, the last thing I'd want to do is give him my business and have his filthy racist signature on my wedding license.

Forcing him to endorse marriages he doesn't agree with won't make him any less racist.
 
The reason that people get married is for moral reasons. It gives a couple the right to sleep together and have children in the eyes of the community.

The only person who matters is the priest or the rabbi or the minister or the imam.

The government should only concern itself with people who are responsible for raising children. Anybody paying for raising a child. Married, not married. Straight, not straight. Anybody.
 
You don't see a difference between preventing someone from getting married and refusing to marry them yourself?

No one should ever be forced to endorse a marriage. How does forcing racist people to sign off on things they don't agree with help anyone?

Well, it helps us identify and expose racist morons and get them out of public office.

No one is asking him to 'endorse' give his blessings... he's not a Catholic priest. He's a secular public official sworn to uphold the constituion of the US and La.

He did NOT do that.

so...Buh-bye, jackass!


Forcing him to endorse marriages he doesn't agree with won't make him any less racist.

Agreed. But forcing him to live up to the oath he took what this is about.
 
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.

The JP comitted an act of discrimination. While I understand they're in Texas, the JP violated federal anti-discrimination laws when he refused to marry them based on race.
 
To be fair, this JP didn't withhold his sig in the name of racial purity and preventing a mongrel breed.

He did so in the name of high divorce rates.

Still ... his decision was based on race. That is a violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.

The JP needs to be removed from office. Clearly he is a releic of another time.
 
The JP comitted an act of discrimination. While I understand they're in Texas, the JP violated federal anti-discrimination laws when he refused to marry them based on race.

This is exactly right. He violated federal law. He should be removed from office.

A few years ago, a restaurant/bar in a neighboring community refused to serve black people in their main dining room, requiring them to use a back entrance and back door. This was (maybe) 8 years ago. They were prosecuted by our state AG. That's the standard that private businesses are held to, and this JP should be held to the same standard. He is not above the law, nor is he a law unto himself.

This is no different from the Denny's discrimination lawsuit...

Denny's Restaurants to Pay $54 Million in Race Bias Suits - The New York Times

NOr is this something that should be thought of as a uniquely southern issue, this sort of thing can occur anywhere. REALLY.

Pittsburgh, for instance: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/31/pennsylvania.workers.racism/

Boston: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/20216148/detail.html

Walmart, nationwide: http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2009/02/walmart_settles_5.html

Discrimination is still real, still out there, and still a problem. And, our system needs to put some real teeth into enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly right. He violated federal law. He should be removed from office.

A few years ago, a restaurant/bar in a neighboring community refused to serve black people in their main dining room, requiring them to use a back entrance and back door. This was (maybe) 8 years ago. They were prosecuted by our state AG. That's the standard that private businesses are held to, and this JP should be held to the same standard. He is not above the law, nor is he a law unto himself.

This is no different from the Denny's discrimination lawsuit...

Denny's Restaurants to Pay $54 Million in Race Bias Suits - The New York Times

NOr is this something that should be thought of as a uniquely southern issue, this sort of thing can occur anywhere. REALLY.

Pittsburgh, for instance: Philadelphia workers file racial discrimination case - CNN.com

Boston: Racial Discrimination Cases Cost MBTA, Taxpayers Millions - Boston News Story - WCVB Boston

Walmart, nationwide: Wake-Up Wal-Mart Blog: Wal-Mart Settles Racial Discrimination Case

Discrimination is still real, still out there, and still a problem. And, our system needs to put some real teeth into enforcing anti-discrimination laws.

But...But....Obama became President! That means racism is over!!
 
Still ... his decision was based on race.

It was based on divorce rate, not race.

I agree that he didn't handle this the proper way. IMO enforcing a personal policy to require pre-marital counseling before he would offer his signature would have been the best way to handle any high-risk couple.

Also, he should've kept is fat mouth shut on why he thought they were a high-risk couple. You can make an intelligent argument based on nothing but pure data but no one will hear anything if you so much as hint at race.

I wouldn't reveal the reasoning to anyone who couldn't force me to, saying only "knowing why doesn't change my answer".
 
Last edited:
It was based on divorce rate, not race.

Parents of mulatto children have higher divorces rates??

Even if the answer is yes, the decision still isn't justifiable. Because if you follow the logic, then the JP should not marry people who had a divorce before. Re-marriage wouldn't be justifiable if we were to follow that logic.
 
But...But....Obama became President! That means racism is over!!

I think we've come a long ways, but to pretend that race is not still a huge issue in this country is simply absurd.

Do I believe in racial preferences to eliminate that disparity, though? No. I think they cause further harm by continuing to put emphasis on race as a condition of employment/education. I'd prefer civil litigation against those who discriminate.
 
I think we've come a long ways, but to pretend that race is not still a huge issue in this country is simply absurd.

Yep, I totally agree. I was only being silly, like those who said those words the day after Obama became president. Just plain silly.
 
One of my african-american friends told me, though: "We have no more excuses." I wouldn't have gone that far, personally.
 
Why is it that the justifications against gay marriage is the same one people use against interracial marriage? The welfare of the children, states rights, etc... it's hard to not see the modern gay rights group as a civil rights movement when the arguments they fight are the same ones people in the 60s went against.
 
Parents of mulatto children have higher divorces rates??

That's the JP's claim, yeah.

Even if the answer is yes, the decision still isn't justifiable. Because if you follow the logic, then the JP should not marry people who had a divorce before. Re-marriage wouldn't be justifiable if we were to follow that logic.

The main reason second marriages end in divorce is due to the step-parent dynamic.

I would passionately support legislation banning re-marriage when either or both people (same or opposite sex) have minor children; "equality" be damned.
 
Back
Top Bottom