• 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.

Jerry said:
That's what I'M asking YOU.

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

Ah OK. I have no idea Jerry, none.

Growing up I was more concearned with playing D&D than race to be honest. Much like other kids.

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

I figure he is either a biggot or just came back from a bad Klan meeting?

Again I have no idea.
 
Blackdog said:
Growing up I was more concearned with playing D&D than race to be honest. Much like other kids.
Click to expand...
I'll bet you were a High Elf, and racist against Half-orcs!
:mrgreen:
 
Goobieman said:
I'll bet you were a High Elf, and racist against Half-orcs!
:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

You are so full of it! I was Half-Orc Fighter/Cleric all the way boy!

I hate those namby pamby High Elfs!
 
Gibberish said:
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?
Click to expand...

How would they be unfit?

Gibberish said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's rather ignorant of you to assume that skin color is the only thing which defines a race. While these may not hinder a mix'd couple's ability to raise a child, there is a host of genetic differences between races. More relevant, however, are the cultural differences, which can be striking.

Gibberish said:
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?
Click to expand...

Please bring real examples to the table or don't even bother.
 
Blackdog said:
You are so full of it! I was Half-Orc Fighter/Cleric all the way boy!
I hate those namby pamby High Elfs!
Click to expand...
For a very long time, I played a CN minotaur.
 
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...

I do not know of any case that specifically mentions the welfare of the child as a reason for preventing interracial marriage (which I believe is what you are asking for), but that is because it has never been an issue, for good reason.

I expect that we will find out soon if it is, and the courts will undoubtably use Loving v. Virginia as the main precedent.
 
Alex said:
I do not know of any case that specifically mentions the welfare of the child as a reason for preventing interracial marriage (which I believe is what you are asking for), but that is because it has never been an issue, for good reason.
Click to expand...
It may simply never have been raised.
But, that doesnt mean its not a legitimate argument, given that the welfare of the child has been held as a compelling state interest in numerous other instances.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Ah OK. I have no idea Jerry, none.

Growing up I was more concearned with playing D&D than race to be honest. Much like other kids.



I figure he is either a biggot or just came back from a bad Klan meeting?

Again I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Admitting that you lack critical information, how can you take any position at all on his actions?

Maybe this Justice is simply ignorent of the facts regarding actual mixed couples. Jumping right to the 'racism' card discredits real instances of racism.

Hanlon's razor FTW :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Arcana XV said:
Not changing it so much as jumping to the logical conclusion ahead of time.
Click to expand...

The topic is race, not gender, as this will also apply once gay-marriage is legal.

Please stay on topic.
 
Jerry said:
How would they be unfit?
Click to expand...
According to the article the justice denied the marraige out of concern for any potential children the couple may have. Why else would he be concerned for the children?

Jerry said:
It's rather ignorant of you to assume that skin color is the only thing which defines a race. While these may not hinder a mix'd couple's ability to raise a child, there is a host of genetic differences between races. More relevant, however, are the cultural differences, which can be striking.
Click to expand...
I would love to see any scientific data that shows any genetic or medical disorders as a result of mixing of two different raced parents that aren't also present in children of liked raced parents.

Cultural differences can be striking but this isn't limited to race. Has he also denied Irish and Russians from marrying? Has he denied the marriage of a Yankees fan and a Redsox fan for fear of the children? Ignorance is assuming skin color equates to major cultural differences.

Jerry said:
Please bring real examples to the table or don't even bother.
Click to expand...
It was an example of absurdity.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Take your retarded word games somewhere else, I have no time for them.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing your time is valuable if you are spending it on Internet debate forums.

Freedom is beneficial first of all because it makes people happy. That's it most direct benefit; there is an exhileration in simply being free and being able to do address reality according to your inclinations. A rather esoteric but important benefit. If people long go without it, they will become discontent and probably rebel and cause chaos.

Then there is the fact it gives people the ability to adapt, economically, to confront obstacles and adapt to new situations according to their own specifications, usually resulting in a better outcome for themselves than if it had been micromanaged by a collective. In short, a multitude of practical benefits.

Problem is, you can't priotize freedom exclusively because it leads to conditions where it is likely to be lost in chaos and general unhappiness. Certain parameters have to be set, like prohibitions against rape and murder. Generally, the intrinsic value and general usefulness of freedom for both individuals and society makes it so you have to let people do as they wish unless a sufficiently compelling crisis emerges.

Any hazing experienced by racially mixed children is speculative in that it might not actually happen to the extent imagined, it might not have the negative influence envisioned, or not to a crippling degree, or indeed, that it could even build character and result in the child becoming a better person overall. Prohibiting interracial marriages is not a sensible policy.
 
Last edited:
I know this is just a shot in the dark, but what if this couple did not intend to have children? The premise behind denying them a marriage license is so completely full of ****, it is turning my eye's brown reading it....
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I know this is just a shot in the dark, but what if this couple did not intend to have children?
Click to expand...
What makes you think the JoP would have then denied the license?
 
Jerry said:
Admitting that you lack critical information, how can you take any position at all on his actions?

Maybe this Justice is simply ignorent of the facts regarding actual mixed couples. Jumping right to the 'racism' card discredits real instances of racism.

Hanlon's razor FTW :2wave:
Click to expand...

Ignorance is no excuse in this day and age.

Ill go with Occam's razor FTW thank you. :2wave:
 
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.
 
Gibberish said:
According to the article the justice denied the marraige out of concern for any potential children the couple may have. Why else would he be concerned for the children?
Click to expand...

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 (which would explain why they were in front of a justice instead of a priest)
Gibberish said:
I would love to see any scientific data that shows any genetic or medical disorders as a result of mixing of two different raced parents that aren't also present in children of liked raced parents.
Click to expand...

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

Gibberish said:
Cultural differences can be striking but this isn't limited to race.
Click to expand...

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.

Gibberish said:
Has he also denied Irish and Russians from marrying?
Click to expand...

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

Gibberish said:
Has he denied the marriage of a Yankees fan and a Redsox fan for fear of the children?
Click to expand...

If he did, we can all agree that would be a valid denial ;)

Gibberish said:
It was an example of absurdity.
Click to expand...
Well, no, it was immaturity on your part.
 
Goobieman said:
What makes you think the JoP would have then denied the license?
Click to expand...

Its not the point.

That is like denying someone with myopia a drivers license because they "might not" wear their glasses/contacts one day.
 
Panache said:
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.
Click to expand...

Upholding equal protection under the law is a benefit.

Could the JOP lose his authority as a result of this? Or would he just be forced no to refuse licenses to mixed race couples in the future?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Its not the point.
Click to expand...
It -is- the point.

He denied the license because of a certain circumstance. You're asking about what might have happened if that circumstance did not exist.

Given the stated reason for the denial, do you suppose he would have denied the license if there were no chance of kids?
Why?
 
Upholding equal protection under the law is a benefit.
Click to expand...

How does getting married protect them? The government should never have gotten involved in the marriage business to begin with.
 
Morality Games said:
I have a hard time believing your time is valuable if you are spending it on Internet debate forums.
Click to expand...

This is what I do while my WoW toon is in flight.

He'll be landing shortly, no worries.

Morality Games said:
Freedom is beneficial first of all because it makes people happy.
Click to expand...

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

Morality Games said:
Then there is the fact it gives people the ability to adapt, economically, to confront obstacles and adapt to new situations according to their own specifications, usually resulting in a better outcome for themselves than if it had been micromanaged by a collective. In short, a multitude of practical benefits.
Click to expand...

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

Morality Games said:
Problem is, you can't priotize freedom....
Click to expand...

Uh, oh yes I can.

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.

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

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

Morality Games said:
Any hazing experienced by racially mixed children is speculative in that it might not actually happen to the extent imagined, it might not have the negative influence envisioned, or not to a crippling degree, or indeed, that it could even build character and result in the child becoming a better person overall. Prohibiting interracial marriages is not a sensible policy.
Click to expand...

I would agree if you had quoted this Justices actual reasons and shot them down one by one.
 
Last edited:
Panache said:
How does getting married protect them? The government should never have gotten involved in the marriage business to begin with.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Goobieman said:
It -is- the point.

He denied the license because of a certain circumstance. You're asking about what might have happened if that circumstance did not exist.

Given the stated reason for the denial, do you suppose he would have denied the license if there were no chance of kids?
Why?
Click to expand...

It is none of our business, nor the JoP's business. The couple having kids is a "what if" in the same fashion as them not wanting/being able to have kids. As Panache pointed out, they can still be married. 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.

IMHO, he would have denied it even if they provided medical proof that they could not conceive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom