JP DENIES INTERACIAL COUPLE MARRAIGE LISCENSE

[............]

High Seas wrote:

To the point: if that JP isn't in breach of any Louisiana statute (and as of now nobody can show anything to the contrary) then I also don't see how he can be accused of being in breach of civil rights laws: all he seems to have been doing is repeating the argument made in Muller by Brandeis.

One does not have to be in breach of a state statute in order to act in an unconstitutional manner.

....Vitter spokesman Joel DiGrado emails me this: “First, Sen. Vitter thinks that all judges should follow the law as written and not make it up as they go along. Second, it would be amazing for anyone to do a story based on this fringe, left-wing political hack’s blog " he’s been handcuffed and detained in the past over his guerrilla tactics.”

ANZ aborigines

Your comment is self-evident, but that's not my argument. I don't care if whatever Virginia statute was overturned in Loving was unconstitutional, I know the statute to have been unenforceable and can prove this mathematically using dynamic programming algorithms for random sequences as found e.g. in the decoded human genome. For example: the aboriginals of Papua-New Guinea are black, but their DNA shows them to have even fewer "African" genes than Europeans. In 1967 (date of the Loving decision) DNA's right handed double helix had long been known but we lacked the massively parallel computational resources to map the human genome. Presumably the Virginia and the 42 other states' similar statutes only meant to distinguish black persons potentially descendants of former slaves (to protect some property rights, if I remember correctly) and never meant to include people like the ANZ aborigines, who may be pitch-black but who had no slaves among their ancestors. And you will, I hope, agree that keeping unenforceable laws on the books simply makes the law look silly, so whatever the constitutionality of that Virginia statute it should have been stricken from the books as unenforceable on computational grounds.

However, that's not my argument:

if you read again my statement as quoted in your post you'll see I make no connection between any potential breach of Louisiana statutes and the hypothetical anticonstitutionality of the JP's opinion you postulate.

I find the "equal protection" clause as applying to race de facto meaningless since the full decoding of the human genome, and I therefore consider threats of charging the JP with breach of "civil rights" laws absurd.

He has an opinion on the color-coordination of the contracting parties in a marriage ceremony? Let him. I also have an opinion on letting homosexuals serve openly in fighting units; my opinion is shared by every senior military officer in the US and allied armed forces. You don't share it, fine. I see no reason to freak out and get hysterical as some posters here - the latter set definitely not including you.

And yes, I do think the Brandeis Muller brief is the most relevant here, not because of any connection with protecting womanhood, but because of its affirmation of "police powers" without which any state or organization is bound to collapse into total anarchy. I did say at the outset it was a subtle argument and hope that latest analysis has made it clear.

...er they are not Aborigines they are MAORI, we dont have aborigines in New Zealand lol

Previous studies suggest humans migrated out of Africa to Asia roughly 60,000 years ago. From there, humans moved across a region called Sundaland " an area once connected to mainland Asia that now makes up the Malay peninsula, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Bali.

....
Yeah, the Maori were Polynesian settlers that arrived sometime pre-1300 and the Moriori were also Polynesian settlers possibly (or not) before the Maori that inhabited an area close to mainland New Zealand (Aotearoa) ...

..... why would I even think to look at the last surviving Tasmanian?

The Moriori unfortunately have left no DNA to examine, having been exterminated by the Maori in Chatham Islands in 1835.

Because she, named Truganini, was the last one of a DNA line continuing unbroken for 60,000 years. No other group of humans on earth has accomplished that - every other DNA line shows admixtures - and the Tasmanians only did it accidentally because the waters rose after the last glaciation cutting them off from mainland Australia.