JP DENIES INTERACIAL COUPLE MARRAIGE LISCENSE

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

The group think here is impressive, but you all have got this completely wrong.

This man is the boy refusing to stand up for the pledge.

This just continues to stick in my mind. The couple is the boy. The judge is the teacher, the authority figure who is using the power of his office to enforce his unfair personal opinion. If he had no official power, then his opinion, while repulsive, would be his to have.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

There is a law saying that inter-racial couples have the right to get married. There is no reason to force this gentleman to participate. This man is not preventing anyone from getting married-- and as such he is not harming anyone. He is only saying that he doesn't want to be a part of such marriages.

He doesn't have to be part of such marriages. He also doesn't have to be a JP. But if he wants to be a JP, then he must issue marriage licenses to qualified couples. In that he has no discretion.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

that's how i figured it would work

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

This man is the boy refusing to stand up for the pledge. Yes, we cheer when a grade school kid refuses to participate in a ritual he doesn't agree with.

number one, i never cheered the kid who refused to say the pledge

i don't get all the rah rah i love america crap you guys seem the need to profess, i'm canadian, i like being canadian, but it's just the place i live, it doesn't really define me

0 Replies

Quote:

This just continues to stick in my mind. The couple is the boy. The judge is the teacher, the authority figure who is using the power of his office to enforce his unfair personal opinion. If he had no official power, then his opinion, while repulsive, would be his to have.

If person A says to person B -- "Either do what we want you to do or you are fired"; which one is acting as the authority figure?

There is a big difference between the role of principal, and the role of JP. A JP is someone that this couple can choose to pay to do a job. The JP works for the couple (in an employee role) if the couple doesn't like how the JP does his job, there are lots of other options they have.

Allowing the JP to follow his own cultural beliefs does not harm this couple, or society, in any real way. In these cases, I see no reason not to stand up for a diversity of opinion. Remember that he is not preventing this couple from being married-- he is simply not wanting to be a part of it.

If there was a teacher with a moral obligation against saying the pledge-- I would have no problem with the school system taking measures to accommodate his beliefs in the interest of diversity, especially since this could be done in a way that would have no effect on the students. The teacher could be placed in a no-pledge classroom with students who agreed (and were there voluntarily).

When it comes to cultural differences-- the phrase "reasonable accommodation" is key.

You don't have to take away this man's job simply because you disagree with him-- especially when his beliefs don't cause any real harm to anyone.

4 Replies

@ebrown p,

It seems there is no figure repulsive enough or idiotic enough for you to defend these days.

My guess is that a refusal on his part to marry folks who were from YOUR religion or ethnic group, based on nothing more than his own personal bigotry, would leave you somewhat less convinced of his right to be a jackass.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

There is a big difference between the role of principal, and the role of JP. A JP is someone that this couple can choose to pay to do a job. The JP works for the couple (in an employee role) if the couple doesn't like how the JP does his job, there are lots of other options they have.

That is just ridiculous ebrown. The JP is not "hired by the couple". He is an employee of the government and as such is supposed to follow the law. The JP can't refuse to marry people for an unlawful reason. It violates the oath he took when he took the job.

Do you think workers at the DMV can refuse to allow you a driver's license if you meet all the requirements? After all there are other options for you.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

It seems there is no figure repulsive enough or idiotic enough for you to defend these days.

You can't believe in civil rights without defending people who others consider "repulsive". I don't like the idea that people will only stick up for the rights of people they agree with. The real issue is whether we can tolerate a diversity of opinion in our society.

Quote:

My guess is that a refusal on his part to marry folks who were from YOUR religion or ethnic group, based on nothing more than his own personal bigotry, would leave you somewhat less convinced of his right to be a jackass.

Funny you should say this. I am part of an interracial marriage. So yes, I would defend a refusal to perform my own marriage.

1 Reply

@parados,

the Lady Diane was a JP in the state of ********, she performed marriages, she was not an employee of the state. She was only paid by persons who hired her for services. Not unlike a notary public.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Funny you should say this. My wife and I have an interracial marriage. So yes, I would defend a refusal to perform my own marriage.

So is mine. And, I don't believe you. I think you are lying. A JP who refused to marry you, and told you to your face, would not likely be met with a defense of his rights on your part.

Cyclotpichorn

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

When it comes to cultural differences-- the phrase "reasonable accommodation" is key.

Not when an official is sworn to "support the constitution and laws of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state" and to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties" as justice of the peace. I'm not sure how someone can "impartially discharge and perform all his duties" by denying someone a marriage license based on that person's race.

ebrown p wrote:

You don't have to take away this man's job simply because you disagree with him-- especially when his beliefs don't cause any real harm to anyone.

His job shouldn't be taken away because we might disagree with him. His job should be taken away because he violated the law and his oath of office.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

In Louisiana, JPs are elected officials.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

ok, I suppose different states have different criteria.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

But what about the defense of your own rights? What about the right you and your partner have to a wonderfully joyful and celebratory day and atmosphere around your union?

I think this man would be doing interracial couples a disservice if he DID marry them, knowing what his own attitude is.

I wouldn't settle for it. I would be happy that he told me how he felt and directed me to someone who WOULD be happy to marry me to my partner of another race. I'd rather have it be someone who believed I was doing a wonderful thing than a harmful thing.

Quote:

So is mine. And, I don't believe you. I think you are lying. A JP who refused to marry you, and told you to your face, would not likely be met with a defense of his rights on your part.

My pastor told me that he had to pray about marrying me and my husband but he decided that he could. I asked him why he had to pray and he told me. And what he said made sense to me. I could have stomped out of there and said -'You racist **** - you should marry me just like you'll marry anyone else' or I could try to understand his issues- some of which made sense and were totally realistic.
When I was pregnant with my son, I had so many people telling me that what I was doing was unfair to the child that I decided not to bring another interracial kid into the world when there were loads of unwanted interracial kids already here - and adopted my daughter.
This guy is not pulling this crap out of his hat and making it up out of whole cloth.
And I don't even think it means he's necessarily racist that he worries about children born to interracial unions. Maybe it just means he worries about kids born to interracial unions. Sometimes you just have to believe what people say.
He's living in northern Louisiana for goodness sake. Let's be real about what he sees going on down there. I know I wouldn't move to Louisiana with my two interracial kids.

Whether or not he should keep his job - I don't know. I guess if he can't fulfill his duties equitably - maybe he should get another job.

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

But what about the defense of your own rights? What about the right you and your partner have to a wonderfully joyful and celebratory day and atmosphere around your union?

That's not a right, that's a preference. The couple has their own ability to make that choice. If the guy doesn't seem happy about it, they don't have to use him; but to be refused on racial grounds BY the provider, who as Joe has pointed out is sworn to uphold the law, is ridiculous.

I understand that this guy probably has good intentions, or at least thinks he does. But his actions still support the casual racism that infects much of the American south.

Worrying about kids born to inter-racial unions is fine, but his worries shouldn't have anything to do with the couple's right to be married in a timely fashion by an officer of the state who is empowered to do so.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

I live in LA. I see the confederate flags and dumbass stares pretty regularly (the stares happen mostly when I'm out and about with my other-race wife). I copied this article about the bass ackwards Loos-ee-ya-na JP and handed it out to people at work. Because of discussions rife with denial in the past, I wrote across the top, "This is the Loos-ee-ya-na you know is there, but cannot admit."

Sometimes I think this state exists in a time warp.

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

I live in LA. I see the confederate flags and dumbass stares pretty regularly (the stares happen mostly when I'm out and about with my other-race wife). I copied this article about the bass ackwards Loos-ee-ya-na JP and handed it out to people at work. Because of discussions rife with denial in the past, I wrote across the top, "This is the Loos-ee-ya-na you know is there, but cannot admit."

Sometimes I think this state exists in a time warp.

The amazing thing is how big the cultural divide is from Texas, even when you go just 10 or 20 miles over the border.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo wrote:

But his actions still support the casual racism that infects much of the American south.

Indeed, his actions support and perpetuate racism.

Not only that but also the notion that Louisiana and the rest of the United States is the center of the world.

Those people seem to forget that in many other countries a more mixed society exists.

From an evolutionary point of view, it widens the gene pool with better results.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

As a private citizen, he can do as he pleases, but as a government official, he is required to enforce the laws. This judge is an official of the local government and is obliged to enforce the law. He is failing to do so.

I think this is the biggest difference between him and the boy who wouldn't say the pledge. JP is an employee of the people and should be treating them all the same the way the law says he should. The boy is not yet that I know of employed by the government.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Allowing the JP to follow his own cultural beliefs does not harm this couple, or society, in any real way. In these cases, I see no reason not to stand up for a diversity of opinion. Remember that he is not preventing this couple from being married-- he is simply not wanting to be a part of it.

If there was a teacher with a moral obligation against saying the pledge-- I would have no problem with the school system taking measures to accommodate his beliefs in the interest of diversity, especially since this could be done in a way that would have no effect on the students. The teacher could be placed in a no-pledge classroom with students who agreed (and were there voluntarily).

When it comes to cultural differences-- the phrase "reasonable accommodation" is key.

So if this justice is the only guy in town that is ok because this couple can go to another town? And if every justice in the state is of the same opinion, that is ok because they can go to a different state? And if a local teacher doesn't think that he should teach black children, that is ok because he can be moved to a different room with only students who agree with him and were there voluntarily?

When does "reasonable accomodation" start inflicting on the rights of citizens to be treated equally under the law? This is not a question of private beliefs, it is a question of access to government services.

1 Reply

JP DENIES INTERACIAL COUPLE MARRAIGE LISCENSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know