JP DENIES INTERACIAL COUPLE MARRAIGE LISCENSE

@High Seas,

I don't disagree with that either.

You should be able to fill out a form, mail it in (or do online), and get a marriage certificate back in the mail.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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.

Cycl - about you and Mrs Cycl the matter is clear from photographs. I do wonder what "interracial" combination exists in Mr and Mrs Brown-Munoz's marriage - wouldn't go as far as to call him flat-out a liar until he gives details.

I believe he's in an inter-racial marriage (likely latino and so-called 'white') but not his insistence that he would defend someone's attempt to illegally discriminate against him based on his skin color.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@maporsche,

OK Porsche, but then why have any officials take oaths to defend and protect etc? Maybe they're supposed to exercise some judgement?!

1 Reply

@High Seas,

I don't think we should have those officials then, at least not ones that have 'veto' power over a couples decisions.

0 Replies

It's easy to find mixed families. My family has Mexicans and Porto Ricans mixed among the Irish, German and Pollock. A niece has a black husband. Not to mention, the Native American Indian in our blood. I don't see that it makes us any the wiser.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

....
I believe he's in an inter-racial marriage (likely latino and so-called 'white') but not his insistence that he would defend someone's attempt to illegally discriminate against him based on his skin color...

That's exactly the problem - defining the terms. See, eg, the appointed crook playing at being a senator in New Jersey (aka Menendez) who actually wrote a book claiming Latinos were here at "the beginning of the nation" and blah blah >
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/us_sen_bob_menendez_highlights.html

Quote:

As costumed revelers lingered on the street below following the city’s Hispanic Day Parade, Menendez addressed the crowd in both Spanish and English..."We have been in defense of both the creation of the country and its history since then," he said.

> when what is, in fact, true, is that Europeans were here at the time, including Spaniards and Portuguese. Few if any peoples exceed the contempt felt by Spaniards - especially the pure Castilians like Cortez - towards the colored inhabitants of lands they were taking over in the name of the Crown of Spain. Even the Tasmanians - darker than most "hispanics" - were better treated by the Australian settlers, and that's saying a lot. Read about the blacks of Tasmania, cooked alive by white Australians in order to make dog food:

Quote:

According to social historian Clive Turnbull, the activities of these criminals would soon include the "shooting, bashing out brains, burning alive, and slaughter of Aborigines for dogs' meat."

Quote:

"Tactics for hunting down Tasmanians included riding out on horseback to shoot them, setting out steel traps to catch them, and putting out poison flour where they might find and eat it. Sheperds cut off the penis and testicles of aboriginal men, to watch the men run a few yards before dying. At a hill christened Mount Victory, settlers slaughtered 30 Tasmanians and threw their bodies over a cliff. One party of police killed 70 Tasmanians and dashed out the children's brains."

1 Reply

@High Seas,

I don't disagree with the fact that people of pretty much every race have had a backwards and barbaric attitude towards, well, pretty much every other race since the beginning of time.

I had thought we could move past that, and the 'separate but equal' argument, but some here seem determined to continue forwarding such distinctions - all in the name of defending someone's 'rights.'

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't disagree with the fact that people of pretty much every race have had a backwards and barbaric attitude towards, well, pretty much every other race since the beginning of time.

I had thought we could move past that, and the 'separate but equal' argument, but some here seem determined to continue forwarding such distinctions - all in the name of defending someone's 'rights.'

Cycloptichorn

We will surely get beyond that, but probably not until late in the century.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Joe - but if the rules are so restrictive, why have JPs at all? Automate the process and issue licenses to any 2 or however many qualified parties of any sex, gender, description, genus, color etc.

What rules? What are you talking about?

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

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....

What line of business are you in, again? Any rules concerning distribution of political tracts being handed out to "people at work"?

I'm not sure what about this you see as "political", but yeah, in Government workplaces there are probably tons of prohibitions to handing out "political tracts".

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
So it's a good thing when people act in a racist way, because it opens up our eyes to the fact that racism still exists?

Yes! Absolutely! This is exactly right! And, it is a core of the principle of freedom of expression.

I'm sorry ebp, but you're simply dead wrong on this. Your attempt to defend our rights is noble but misguided here. Freedom of expression here would be signing off on the marriage license before or after expressing your concerns about having a mixed race family. If the JP wanted to say what he thought, that's expression, but refusing to do his job as an elected official is NOT about freedom of expression. That's weak bullshit dude.

ebrown p wrote:

It is far better when people act overtly racist where it is out in the open and can be challenged. This is why it is bad when governments clamp down on the freedom of unpopular groups-- not only is there an issue of fairness and liberty, but racism is far more damaging when it is forced to fester under the surface.

This couple is not some social experiment. There marriage should not be made into the battleground against racism. It should have been a in and out process. You think this puts things in the open? Where were they before in your imagination?

This line is not as hard to draw as you are making it.

ebrown p wrote:

Instead of suppressing people we disagree with, it is far better to have the discussion in the open where truly bad ideas will be defeated in public.

If you believe a single word of what you just said, then you'd be calling for the resignation of this man. He suppressed people he disagreed with. He believes that he doesn't have to have the discussion in public, because he is hiding behind some lame excuse that his conscious wont let him. Worse, you are the type that enables him.

This is very cut and dry. You're making it hard for reasons I can't fathom.
K
O

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Instead of suppressing people we disagree with, it is far better to have the discussion in the open where truly bad ideas will be defeated in public.

Okay, Pollyanna, I'm gonna start my own Ku Klux Klan group tomorrow. That way I can gather these nut cases around me and we can discuss the merits of resegregating society.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

If you believe a single word of what you just said, then you'd be calling for the resignation of this man. He suppressed people he disagreed with. He believes that he doesn't have to have the discussion in public, because he is hiding behind some lame excuse that his conscious wont let him. Worse, you are the type that enables him.

Maybe you disagree with me because you don't understand the facts of the case (although you seem to always disagree with me ...)

This JP knew that this couple would be able to get married anyway... in fact he sent them to the other JP in the Parish who was more than willing to do it.

The fact is they were not suppressed.

3 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Okay, Pollyanna, I'm gonna start my own Ku Klux Klan group tomorrow. That way I can gather these nut cases around me and we can discuss the merits of resegregating society.

Your use of the word "Pollyanna" in this particular context is quite amusing.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

I think this rests on the nature of the occupation of JP, with which I'm not familiar even though I was married by one. If it is a public office, which I'm assuming it is, whatever number of scoundrels or upstanding folk occupy the position, then he should obey applicable law on this issue. He is not just a reactive boy. It is not just a private business... or I doubt that.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:

If you believe a single word of what you just said, then you'd be calling for the resignation of this man. He suppressed people he disagreed with. He believes that he doesn't have to have the discussion in public, because he is hiding behind some lame excuse that his conscious wont let him. Worse, you are the type that enables him.

Maybe you disagree with me because you don't understand the facts of the case (although you seem to always disagree with me ...)

This JP knew that this couple would be able to get married anyway... in fact he sent them to the other JP in the Parish who was more than willing to do it.

The fact is they were not suppressed.

Right; just like black folks can drink out of their own fountain. They aren't being discriminated against at all when someone asks them to do that.

Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:

If you believe a single word of what you just said, then you'd be calling for the resignation of this man. He suppressed people he disagreed with. He believes that he doesn't have to have the discussion in public, because he is hiding behind some lame excuse that his conscious wont let him. Worse, you are the type that enables him.

Maybe you disagree with me because you don't understand the facts of the case (although you seem to always disagree with me ...)

I don't think our posting history reflects a majority of disagrees. I think we've typically been pretty square on opinions, perhaps mostly disagreeing on degree and course of action.

ebrown p wrote:

This JP knew that this couple would be able to get married anyway... in fact he sent them to the other JP in the Parish who was more than willing to do it.

Sending them to someone else is Ir-*******-relevant. He made himself an obstacle, and obstruction.

It's not only suppression/oppression/discrimination if he get's his way. The people in the 60s for segregation lost their fight, doesn't meant their actions weren't any less oppressive or discriminating.

If I want some goddamn waffles, and I go to Waffle House and they refuse me cause I'm Asian, the fact that I can successfully acquire waffles at IHOP does not change what the ass bags at Waffle House did. It does NOT make what they did okay. They would have still oppressed/discriminated against me. The idea that I can only cry foul if Waffle House is the only place in town is ******* bogus.

ebrown p wrote:

The fact is they were not suppressed.

Then what the **** do you call it? It certainly should not be called the same thing as what any single race couple experienced, should it?

You are making this waaaaay to hard.

This is NOT about the JP's freedom of expression.
K
O

0 Replies

Louisiana's governor and a U.S. senator today have called for the ouster of the justice of the peace who refused to marry an interracial couple, saying his actions clearly broke the law, the Associated Press reports.

The state's Legislative Black Caucus and constitutional rights groups have also called for an investigation of Bardwell or his resignation.

Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal said in a statement a nine-member commission that reviews lawyers and judges in the state should investigate, the AP reports.

"Disciplinary action should be taken immediately " including the revoking of his license," Jindal said.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Perhaps from a preconceived bias, I'd like to see a review of JP procedures and practices.

I don't know enough about the history of JPs.

0 Replies

(AP) NEW ORLEANS " Two civil and constitutional rights organizations called on a Louisiana justice of the peace to resign Friday after he refused to marry an interracial couple, saying any children the couple might have would suffer.

The leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union in Louisiana and the Center for Constitutional Rights and Justice in New York said Keith Bardwell, a white justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish in the southeastern part of the state, should quit immediately. Earlier this month, Bardwell refused to issue a marriage license to Beth Humphrey, who is white, and Terence McKay, who is black.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) also called for Bardwell's dismissal. "I am deeply disturbed by Justice Bardwell's practices and comments concerning interracial marriages," she said. "Not only does his decision directly contradict Supreme Court rulings, it is an example of the ugly bigotry that divided our country for too long. I call upon the Louisiana Judiciary Committee to use its authority to have Justice Bardwell dismissed from his position. He clearly has no intention of administering the law or upholding justice for interracial couples."

"Perhaps he's worried the kids will grow up and be president," said Bill Quigley, director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Justice, referring to President Barack Obama, the son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas.

Obama's deputy press secretary Bill Burton echoed those sentiments.

"I've found that actually the children of biracial couples can do pretty good," Burton told reporters aboard Air Force One as it flew to Texas.

Marjorie Esman of the ACLU said the group was calling on Bardwell to resign "before he infringes on the constitutional rights of another person."

Bardwell did not return calls left on his answering machine Friday. He has said he always asks if a couple is interracial and, if they are, refers them to another justice of the peace.

1 Reply

JP DENIES INTERACIAL COUPLE MARRAIGE LISCENSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know