• 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.

Goobieman said:
Ok... so?
You can't retro-actively deal with the situation -- isnt it better to deal with it BEFORE it becomes an issue?
Click to expand...
i can't believe we are having this conversation.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I guess we all need to learn to march in lock-step, and teach our children to do the same, so that we don't stand out. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly. God forbid we have some diversity in this world.
 
Look, he has piles of black people using his bathroom. Just because he bleaches the toilet seat afterward and sprays Spook-B-Gone, doesn't mean he's a racist.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
So you are advocating tolerance for bigots? Nice. So I'm guessing the same should go for all other minority groups who are discriminated against. They just shouldn't breed because their child could experience racial intolerance? Yeah, and it's quite obvious that the welfare of the child is your top concern in espousing this absurd viewpoint. :doh
Click to expand...

I think a great many people shouldn't reproduce. But there's not much I can do about that. heh

But for this issue, I think it's one of the dangers of the marriage license. In fact, what the judge did here was exactly why the marriage license was first created. The marriage license should be done away with and marriage returned to a solely religious institution.
 
Ikari said:
I think a great many people shouldn't reproduce. But there's not much I can do about that. heh

But for this issue, I think it's one of the dangers of the marriage license. In fact, what the judge did here was exactly why the marriage license was first created. The marriage license should be done away with and marriage returned to a solely religious institution.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's possible for marriage to be solely religious, though, considering that one gains certain important legal rights when entering into marriage.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
I don't think it's possible for marriage to be solely religious, though, considering that one gains certain important legal rights when entering into marriage.
Click to expand...

You can make those contracts separate.
 
I propose we stop all procreation for the good of the children since no matter what race, religion, sex children will confront bigotry in some form.
 
Arcana XV said:
And then you'd get dumbass Southern lawyers refusing to draw these contracts if they involve interracial couples. You know, FOR THE CHILDREN. :lol:
Click to expand...

I think there can be some very standard forms which one fills out which will grant what marriage grants now. Most of that stuff should be up to the individual anyway, not hinging on marriage. A lot of "perks" of marriage of the tax persuasion, I'd get rid of anyway.
 
winston53660 said:
I propose we stop all procreation for the good of the children since no matter what race, religion, sex children will confront bigotry in some form.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry -- given discussions from the past, I was under the impression that "the welfare of the child" was a particulary compelling state interest, and as such, was a legitimate restraint on the exercise of any number of rights.

I guess there's a fair amount of subjectivity behind said argument.
 
Goobieman said:
I'm sorry -- given discussions from the past, I was under the impression that "the welfare of the child" was a particulary compelling state interest, and as such, was a legitimate restraint on the exercise of any number of rights.

I guess there's a fair amount of subjectivity behind said argument.
Click to expand...

14th Amendment....Loving vs Virginia.
 
winston53660 said:
14th Amendment....Loving vs Virginia.
Click to expand...
A I said:
I was under the impression that "the welfare of the child" was a particulary compelling state interest, and I guess there's a fair amount of subjectivity behind said argument.
 
Ikari said:
I think a great many people shouldn't reproduce. But there's not much I can do about that. heh

But for this issue, I think it's one of the dangers of the marriage license. In fact, what the judge did here was exactly why the marriage license was first created. The marriage license should be done away with and marriage returned to a solely religious institution.
Click to expand...
So do you think that marriage licenses violate the 1st Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
Most religions stipulate that a couple needs to be married prior to living together or having sex. Does the requirement to get a license prohibit you from getting married? Does it cause undue burden?
 
winston53660 said:
No there is not. Marriage is a right case closed.
Click to expand...
So?

I said:

I was under the impression that "the welfare of the child" was a particulary compelling state interest, and as such, was a legitimate restraint on the exercise of any number of rights.

Under what argument is marriage -- a right -- excluded from control by this compelling state interest?

You people are going to have to make up your mind -- all this subjectivity is hard to follow.
 
American said:
So do you think that marriage licenses violate the 1st Amendment?


Most religions stipulate that a couple needs to be married prior to living together or having sex. Does the requirement to get a license prohibit you from getting married? Does it cause undue burden?
Click to expand...

I don't think you could make an infringement case, maybe but I've not thought about it in that context. Marriage at one time was solely religious, the government usurped it after the Civil War (surprise surprise). My main point is that it was designed and used for discrimination in the past and I don't believe that government has place dictating terms of the marriage. The only case you can make with government and marriage is for polygamy as Utah wasn't allowed into the Republic till they nixed it.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
So is your inability to see the utter absurdity of your argument, but I guess that's just the way it goes sometimes. :lol:
Click to expand...
I'm sorry:
I was under the impression that "the welfare of the child" was a particulary compelling state interest, and as such, was a legitimate restraint on the exercise of any number of rights.

Under what argument is marriage -- a right -- excluded from control by this compelling state interest?
 
Goobieman said:
I'm sorry:
I was under the impression that "the welfare of the child" was a particulary compelling state interest, and as such, was a legitimate restraint on the exercise of any number of rights.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhem Loving vs. Virgina.
 
Alex Libman said:
We need to get government out of marriage, period. A marriage is a voluntary contract between self-owning individuals - regardless of their ethnicity, health, age, gender, quantity, and so forth.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Marriage should not be defined or recognized by the government. The only government documentation that could hint at two individuals being a couple is if they CHOOSE to file for a civil union tpye document for power of attorney and/or tax purposes.

Other then that the government should have no part.
 
Goobieman said:
Under what argument is marriage -- a right -- excluded from control by this compelling state interest?
Click to expand...

In so much that the marriage license is a government issued and recognized contract. The individual has right to contract.
 
Goobieman said:
I'm sorry:
I was under the impression that "the welfare of the child" was a particulary compelling state interest, and as such, was a legitimate restraint on the exercise of any number of rights.

Under what argument is marriage -- a right -- excluded from control by this compelling state interest?
Click to expand...

Okay, if you want to be the dog who won't stop worrying the bone, I'll tell you the painfully obvious truth:

It is excluded for the very simple reason that two people can get together, have sex, conceive a child, and raise that child together with or without a marriage license. Granting a marriage license in no way serves to negatively impact the welfare of the child in question any more than what color clothing the parents choose to wear on any given day.

As such, it is far, far beyond the purview of the state to regulate under the guise of child welfare.

Ta-da! I now return you to your regularly scheduled absurdity.
 
Ikari said:
I think there can be some very standard forms which one fills out which will grant what marriage grants now. Most of that stuff should be up to the individual anyway, not hinging on marriage. A lot of "perks" of marriage of the tax persuasion, I'd get rid of anyway.
Click to expand...

Standard forms that would have to be aproved by SOMEONE at some point inorder to make the contract official. That someone could apply the same retarded thought process that this JOP applied and refuse to put the official stamp on the forms. It only takes one idiot with some manner of power to mess with people's lives.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It is excluded for the very simple reason that two people can get together, have sex, conceive a child, and raise that child together with or without a marriage license. Granting a marriage license in no way serves to negatively impact the welfare of the child in question any more than what color clothing the parents choose to wear on any given day.

As such, it is far, far beyond the purview of the state to regulate under the guise of child welfare.
Click to expand...
As I said: Subjectivity.
Thanks for illustrating it so well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom