• 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.

TacticalEvilDan said:
I really hope you pause and read that comment out loud, while looking in the mirror.
The sheer LOL might create a quantum singularity.
Click to expand...
Any time you want to take over for him, be my quest...
 
Goobieman said:
I accept your concession, understand that is is because you know you cannot counter my argument, and chuckle at the irrellevance of your comment, given the argument at hand.
Click to expand...


What argument? All race-based restrictions on marriage are illegal; bi-raciality (is that a word?) of children is a racial restriction. Not to mention incredibly freaking bigoted *shudder* (and incredibly freaking stupid .... does the moronic JOP think they give out sperm and eggs with marriage licenses, or turn on a switch or something?)
 
Last edited:
This goes back to the Racism that made the Democrat party famous when the KKK was born out of their way of thinking. Do your research and you'll see this is a historical fact, and that those who fought the civil rights movement were Dims. (no spell error) No they claim the high ground. I say this story is ans aberration and does not deserve the national attention it's getting. The Justice need to be removed end of story.
 
jackalope said:
What argument? All race-based restrictions on marriage are illegal; bi-raciality (is that a word?) of children is a racial restriction. Not to mention incredibly freaking bigoted *shudder*
Click to expand...
YAWn...

Here's what I said:

[Given the conversations I've seen...]
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 may address the question at your leisure.
 
Laila said:
I don't use that term at all, perhaps I just view it in a negative way. I prefer 'mixed race'
Click to expand...

It is a scientific term and I don't really care what you prefer because it is silly feel good crap.

"mu·lat·to (m-lt, -lät, my-)
n. pl. mu·lat·tos or mu·lat·toes
1. A person having one white and one Black parent. See Usage Note at octoroon.
2. A person of mixed white and Black ancestry.

mulatto [mjuːˈlætəʊ]
n pl -tos, -toes
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Genetics) (Social Science / Peoples) a person having one Black and one White parent." - mulatto - definition of mulatto by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Hmmm nothing derogatory in the dictionary.

Bunch of politically correct liberal crap as usual.
 
Last edited:
Who knows maybe a mixed race child could grow up to be President of the USA.:mrgreen:
 
Goobieman said:
YAWn...

Here's what I said:

[Given the conversations I've seen...]
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 may address the question at your leisure.
Click to expand...



I'm sorry, but you have been provided multiple times with the proof that the actions here are illegal, and also statements completely rejecting your claim that preventing the birth of biracial children is a compelling (or even feasible) state interest.


On what do you base your arguments? That you don't like biracial kids? On what do you base your argument that such bigotry is exempt from the ruling in Loving v Virginia?
 
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...

Child welfare is always a state interest, but so is minimizing racism in a racially diverse society where peace and security are contigent on cordial relations between ethnic groups. Two ways of doing that are disintegration, which has been historically proven to be an inviable strategy, and co-habitation, which is the standard and has been more functional, for the most part.

Beyond all this, the freedom of parenthood is at stake. While certain practices can be prohibited in order to preserve liberty in the long run, parenting is not generally one of them. The act of child-rearing has too many close associations with too many other important rights, like freedom of religion, privacy, equality, etc, for it to be easily and justfiably regulated by the government. While child welfare is emphasized to the utmost degree possible, there are serious limits on what the government is able to dictate and what it must accept and make the most of when it comes to individual parenting methods.

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

There is really nothing subjective about it. The state is only interested in material harm. The practices which injure children or lead children into states of mind where they are likelier to hurt others are knowable and predictable.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Sorry that I wasnt clear in my query...

In what case?
Click to expand...

Loving vs. Virginia. Had the Court found a compelling state interest to protect children from interracial marriage, they never would have ruled in favor of interracial marriage. They actually overturned a decision that was meant to stop interracial children from being born:

"... the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were 'to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,' and to prevent 'the corruption of blood,' 'a mongrel breed of citizens,' and 'the obliteration of racial pride,' obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy."

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

The lower court found a compelling state interest to prevent racially mixed child from being born, the Supreme Court overturned it.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
 
Lightdemon said:
But do you think it is justifiable for the reason the judge cited?
Click to expand...

To be fair, he refused to do ther service himself.

The couple can still get married by another Justice.
 
Alex said:
Loving vs. Virginia. Had the Court found a compelling state interest to protect children from interracial marriage, they never would have ruled in favor of interracial marriage.
Click to expand...
The issue of the welfare of the child as a compelling state interest was never raised, and as such, you cannot argue this.

They actually overturned a decision that was meant to stop interracial children from being born:

"... the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were 'to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,' and to prevent 'the corruption of blood,' 'a mongrel breed of citizens,' and 'the obliteration of racial pride,' obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy."
Click to expand...
This does not touch on the issue raised here.

I'm not arguing "preserve the racial integrity of its citizens". I'm arguing "the welfare of the child as a compelling state interest".

As such, while I thank you for your time, the information you provided here does not address the issue.
 
Oh no, the "I have a right" crowd has once again shut down a chance at an intelligent discussion.

There are valid and often incompatible dynamic between blacks and whites. Would anyone care to discuss that or are we going to descend into court rulings as if any of us honestly give a **** about them?
 
Goobieman said:
The issue of the welfare of the child as a compelling state interest was never raised, and as such, you cannot argue this.


This does not touch on the issue raised here.

I'm not arguing "preserve the racial integrity of its citizens". I'm arguing "the welfare of the child as a compelling state interest".

As such, while I thank you for your time, the information you provided here does not address the issue.
Click to expand...

Quite right.

Nowhere in what I've read on this story has the justice claimed to deny interracial marriages on the basis of racial purity.
 
Goobieman said:
The issue of the welfare of the child as a compelling state interest was never raised, and as such, you cannot argue this.


This does not touch on the issue raised here.

I'm not arguing "preserve the racial integrity of its citizens". I'm arguing "the welfare of the child as a compelling state interest".

As such, while I thank you for your time, the information you provided here does not address the issue.
Click to expand...

You can't make a reasonable argument that any material harm which comes to this particular child (or set of children) as a result of their mixed racial heritage outweighs the gravity of the freedoms at stake. They are too many and too important and the rationale is too speculative. You can't minimize a great many freedoms based on a single, relatively small contingency. Especially not when the Supreme Court has ruled against the practice.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Oh no, the "I have a right" crowd has once again shut down a chance at an intelligent discussion.

There are valid and often incompatible dynamic between blacks and whites. Would anyone care to discuss that or are we going to descend into court rulings as if any of us honestly give a **** about them?
Click to expand...

This thread is not about the "incompatible dynamics" of blacks and whites. But just for ****s and giggles, what are these dynamics that are incompatible?

I grew up in a racially mixed family and I can honestly say I have no clue what you are referring to.
 
Morality Games said:
You can't make a reasonable argument that any material harm which comes to this particular child (or set of children) as a result of their mixed racial heritage outweighs the gravity of the freedoms at stake. They are too many and too important and the rationale is too speculative.
Click to expand...

Who gives a **** about "freedoms"?

I care about what's beneficial.

You can take your "freedom" and shove it up your ass.
 
Morality Games said:
You can't make a reasonable argument that any material harm which comes to this particular child (or set of children) as a result of their mixed racial heritage outweighs the gravity of the freedoms at stake.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not.
What if I could?
 
Jerry said:
Who gives a **** about "freedoms"?

I care about what's beneficial.

You can take your "freedom" and shove it up your ass.
Click to expand...

Freedoms are beneficial. They are also constitutionally guaranteed.

Maybe, maybe not.
What if I could?
Click to expand...

You can't in this social and historical context, that is, in the actual reality of the United States of America, which in regards to this issue is as unmovable as a mountain. In theory, anything anywhere is possible. It may be that prohibiting marriage between races in some society or another is the best practice at the time, although hopefully only as an intermediary stage and not a permenant condition. As it is, the associations of parenting with so many of our vital freedoms, freedoms both enjoyable for their own sake and also for the general economic advantages they offer, make is impossible to rationalize prohibitions on interracial marriage at this point in time. The guy is, quite simply, being irrational to think he can continue with this practice without any repurcussions.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Oh no, the "I have a right" crowd has once again shut down a chance at an intelligent discussion.

There are valid and often incompatible dynamic between blacks and whites. Would anyone care to discuss that or are we going to descend into court rulings as if any of us honestly give a **** about them?
Click to expand...

Groovy. But can we talk about the much more valid and often incompatible dynamics between men and women first? I think heterosexual marriage should be outlawed based in these alone.

I'm not even kidding.
 
Blackdog said:
This thread is not about the "incompatible dynamics" of blacks and whites. But just for ****s and giggles, what are these dynamics that are incompatible?
Click to expand...

That's what I'M asking YOU.

What is the Justice's reasoning? What reason does the Justice give? I have no idea.

Blackdog said:
I grew up in a racially mixed family and I can honestly say I have no clue what you are referring to.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to the Justices reasonings. What were they?
 
Jerry said:
Quite right.

Nowhere in what I've read on this story has the justice claimed to deny interracial marriages on the basis of racial purity.
Click to expand...

I thought his sole reasoning for denying the marraige was because he felt that this couple, based on their race, would be unfit to raise children or produce unfit children?

What is NOT racist about saying "Your black and your white and because of your races you are unfit to have children." What does the pigmentation of someone's skin have to do with their ability to raise children? ALSO, how does neglecting a marraige license disallow this couple from still procreating? IN effect all the justice did was hurt the potential children by denying their parents the ability to be married and receive benefits that come with that.

Would it have been ok for the judge to deny a blonde man and brunette woman from being married because, based on their hair color, he feels they are unfit to be parents?
 
Last edited:
Arcana XV said:
Groovy. But can we talk about the much more valid and often incompatible dynamics between men and women first? I think heterosexual marriage should be outlawed based in these alone.

I'm not even kidding.
Click to expand...

No, we can not.

You are trying to change the subject.

Please stay on topic or kindly leave the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom