• 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.

Unless I am mistaken, the couple can still get married. They just need to get married by another justice. I don't see any problem with that.

How does anyone benefit from forcing the justice to marry anyone he doesn't want to?

Being in a mixed race relationship myself, if I were going to get married, and found out that a Justice was racist, I wouldn't want to get married by him.

Well, there is a valid argument on rather or not the Justice broke a law, even if his refusal were based on valid fact and sound logic.

Illegal is illegal.
 
Equal protection under the law refers to the issuing of the license, an important constitutional protection and one of the foundations for the opinion issued in Loving.

I don't even support same-race marriage on the basis of equality.

I simply do not care if you have a 'right'. If you shouldn't do it, you shouldn't do it. If you do it anyway and it becomes a problem, I would support removing your 'right' as you apparently can't use it appropriately anyway.
 
The fact that the judge used the "think about the children" excuse as a means of denying them a license is, without a doubt, based on racist sentiment.
Shw this to be true.
Do you deny that mulatto chidlren face particular harships when growing up in certain societies?

IMHO, he would have denied it even if they provided medical proof that they could not conceive.
Based on what?
 
Who doesn't??
I didn't. I bet you didn't, either. But then, I'm not a mulatto.

I used the term "particular" to seperate the hardships in question from those that everyone face.
 
So is the Justice citing some genetic disorder inherit in mixed children? Is the Did the Justice find in these specific couples some radical dynamic, like the black was a die-hard voodooist while the white was a roman catholic

Did the Justice offer any? Perhaps on a blog or a face-book?


My comments are contained to race because the OP and the OP's article are contained to race. It therefore follows that the thread is contained to race.



I haven't seen his record to confirm or deny this. Can you link to it please?

Going from the article it appears he denied it because "Those types of marriages don't last long". So he is one, assuming inter-racial couples get divorced more then non-interracial couples while also believeing the differences in divorce rates are so substantial that the first group should outright be denied the ability to be married. And two assuming children of divorced parents lead a harder life then non-divorced parents or non-married parents. The latter being the specific situation the justice is trying to force these children into.
 
Last edited:
Shw this to be true.
Do you deny that mulatto chidlren face particular harships when growing up in certain societies?

Yeah, so let's not allow mixed races to breed because it may upset the bigots. While we are at it, let's cater to their every whim and not allow people of mixed races to even get in relationships in the first place. :roll:
 
I didn't. I bet you didn't, either. But then, I'm not a mulatto.

I used the term "particular" to seperate the hardships in question from those that everyone face.

I'm Chinese American, and yes I've had particular hardships in my upbringing, which was particular to my ethnicity. I'm sure many others minorities have particular hardships as well. What's the big deal?

EDIT: and I forgot, I call Bull**** on you claiming you never had any particular hardship. You had a perfect life, have you?
 
Last edited:
Shw this to be true.
Do you deny that mulatto chidlren face particular harships when growing up in certain societies?

The state of the potential child is a pointless argument in response to the ability to be married as 1) marraige is not a requirement of producing offspring and 2) producing offspring is not a requirement to be married.
 
The topic is race, not gender, as this will also apply once gay-marriage is legal.

Please stay on topic.


Well, you were trying to steer the topic into a direction that has nothing to do with the stated objections by the JOP in the OP.

He refuses to marry people of different races because the children resulting from such unions will be outcasts in both racial groups. It had nothing to do with the dynamics within the couple and everything to do with what the child will experience outside his home in the big, wide and, according to this JOP, extremely racist Southern world.
 
I'm a little bit surprised goobieman isn't arguing against a marriage licsense all together in the first place considering his stance on the second.
 
I'm Chinese American, and yes I've had particular hardships in my upbringing, which was particular to my ethnicity.
Thank you for substantiating the argument at hand.

EDIT: and I forgot, I call Bull**** on you claiming you never had any particular hardship. You had a perfect life, have you?
I'm not a mulatto, and so I've not had any hardship particular to that particular status.
 
Yeah, so let's not allow mixed races to breed because it may upset the bigots. While we are at it, let's cater to their every whim and not allow people of mixed races to even get in relationships in the first place. :roll:
You may pick up the fallen baton of "welfare of the children as a compelling state interest' argument if you like.
 
Thank you for substantiating the argument at hand.

So based on your continued support of this absurd stance, it stands to reason that what you are basically saying here is that he would have been better off if he wouldn't have been born in the first place? Guess what? Life sucks. It's full of hardships. We all deal with different ones for different reasons. This whole "welfare of the child" bull**** argument in this particular case is ridiculous.
 
Thank you for substantiating the argument at hand.

So what's the big deal? You havn't substantiated anything.

I'm not a mulatto, and so I've not had any hardship particular to that particular status.

That wasn't my point. ANYBODY who is in ANY particular cultural/ethnic group (including the majority Caucasians) will suffer their own particular hardships within their respective culture/elasticities.

What's the big fracking deal??
 
So based on your continued support of this absurd stance, it stands to reason that what you are basically saying here is that he would have been better off if he wouldn't have been born in the first place? Guess what? Life sucks. It's full of hardships. We all deal with different ones for different reasons. This whole "welfare of the child" bull**** argument in this particular case is ridiculous.

You may pick up the fallen baton of "welfare of the children as a compelling state interest' argument if you like.
 
So what's the big deal? You havn't substantiated anything.
No. YOU did. YOU agreed that mulatto children DO face particular harships because of their status.

That wasn't my point. ANYBODY who is in ANY particular cultural/ethnic group (including the majority Caucasians) will suffer their own particular hardships within their respective culture/elasticities.
Which is irrelevant to MY point.
 
You may pick up the fallen baton of "welfare of the children as a compelling state interest' argument if you like.

Would you care to actually respond to my post or are you going to continue making comments that have nothing to do with my posts?
 
Shw this to be true.
Do you deny that mulatto chidlren face particular harships when growing up in certain societies?

Nope. On the contrary, do you deny that poor children face particular hardships, as opposed to wealthy children?

But like i said, it does not matter one bit. Marriage is not a pre-req for baring children....
 
No. YOU did. YOU agreed that mulatto children DO face particular harships because of their status.

Many people face particular hardships because of their status. What is your point?
 
And I fail to see how can that be a reason to disqualify people from a marriage licensee.
The welfare of the child as a compelling state interest.

No, it makes your point moot.
This can only be said if you do not understand my point.
I am talking about the PARTICULAR hadships of the mulatto, not the COMMON harships faces by everyone. Discussing the COMMON harships means nothing.
 
The welfare of the child as a compelling state interest.


This can only be said if you do not understand my point.
I am talking about the PARTICULAR hadships of the mulatto, not the COMMON harships faces by everyone. Discussing the COMMON harships means nothing.

It's clear that you are being deliberately obtuse here in a foolish attempt to prove some underlying point that isn't directly related to this particular case. I've found you do this a lot. Why don't you just get it over with and get to what your real point in all of this is?
 
Would you care to actually respond to my post or are you going to continue making comments that have nothing to do with my posts?
On the contrary -- YOUR posts do not nothing to negate my argument, they only show other possible apllications. Given that we're not talking about those applications, all you're doing is throwing red herrings.

My argument is clear and plain, and so if you'd like to pick up the baton, please do so.

The welfare of the child is a compelling state interest that superceeds any number of other rights -- under what argument is marriage a right excluded from its control?
 
Back
Top Bottom