JP DENIES INTERACIAL COUPLE MARRAIGE LISCENSE

What bothers me, aside from the obvious racism... is the children factor. Does he grill 18 year olds who want to tie the knot. Marriages between the young, frequently end in divorce. Does he question the men, are they wife beaters are the women serial adulterers? Childrens from violent home or with series of different dadies... well, we all know the sad statics, how about alcohol and drug abusers or users? How about workaholics? or how about the mentally ill? He has no qualms asking if people are different colours, how about religion?
If he's only banned 4 couples in 37 years, his standards aren't that high? Especially if they have all been denied because of the same reason. Did he consider all the potential children from all these other unions too? I doubt it.
I wouldn't want to get married by this prick either. But if you're paid by the taxpayers, you should represent them equally, regardless of your beliefs. If the job you do is against your convictions or are contrary to your point of view, find another job. Simple.
The child actions did not infringe on or hurt anybody. He refused to do something he did not believe in. The JP should do the same, by with drawing his inadequate services and finding another job where his backward thinking will not stymie anyone else. I'm sure there are plenty of jobs he could do, say... rebuilding the ninth ward... or skimming swamps.

I am so pleased that couple called Bardwell's hand.

Edgar - it's surprising to see you quote this article with approval. If tomorrow I want to start a "White Caucus", would that be OK with you? Can I join a "Black Caucus", and if not why not? By definition you can't have segregation for some and not for others - you need at least 2 groups to start.

This asymmetry has got to be contrary to the 14th Amendment at the very least. The JP's case is minutely unimportant compared to that gigantic monstrosity nobody even notices, let alone attempts to remedy.

Black caucuses and the like formed as a measure of self protection and furtherance of rights that are presently hindered. Of course I approve of them. And I will not nit pick over white racist groups, which I don't approve of.

My question is a simple one: how can you approve of segregation for one part of society only? It's an illogical construct to begin with - either something is illegal or it isn't. If such a thing as a "black caucus" is protected by the constitutional freedom of association, then necessarily so must be a "white caucus". Otherwise you find yourself in some Orwellian nightmare where some are more equal than others.

A group that forms out of a need for self protection is not segregated in the normal sense. If whites had been slaves and then treated more like animals than humans after the Civil War, all the way up in history, with the help of government, they could be members of the blacks' caucus also.

Can you please find anything in the Constitution that supports the peculiar argument you just made? Can anybody else here?

Helen, the Constitution protects the KKK as well as the NAACP. There are precedents where the courts have ruled that a parade permit, for example, cannot be denied to a group merely because its professed beliefs are repugnant to the majority. I have witnessed white supremacist rallies where there were more police than Nazis present, all to protect the skinheads from the angry "regular" people.

If you wanted to start a White Caucus, there would be nothing to prevent you from doing so. That being so, what's your point?

you don't need to be a racist to object when formerly oppressed groups keep up the pretense of oppression as a power play to win the individuals in their group booty from the collective. Blacks are no longer oppressed, the Black Caucus is now offensive in nature. Those who believe in fairness should object.

Tomball was inundated recently with KKK. It was all legal and protected. Anybody that wants to can form a group. I think whites are often against a black caucus because of deep-set fear of blacks in general.

it could be a deep dislike of those who refuse to be honest, or of those who make a habit of running around blaming everyone else for their problems.

You are delusional, and oh so inaccurately misnamed.

"Inaccurately misnamed" must of necessity mean that he's accurately named. If your knowledge of constitutional law rivals your grasp of syntactic parsing you're the only delusional poster here so far.

Edgar - this makes even less sense than your previous statement for which no constitutional basis has been advanced so far by you or anyone else. So the blacks have to band together in black caucuses because they're allegedly afraid pursuant to historical factors, and the whites, who - according to you - are allegedly similarly afraid, though for reasons you do not divulge, cannot or should not try to emulate the caucus construct? Have you thought this through? It's worse than Orwellian - it's regular Kafkaesque territory.

I said I was against hate groups forming. I did not say the law can't allow it.

I completely fail to see how a white caucus would constitute a "hate group" whereas a black caucus does not, especially since you attribute the exact same motive to the formation of both, to wit: some deep-seated fear.

The only persons I have noticed trying to form anything like a white caucus have shown themselves to be anti black, which is a pisspoor motivation to form a caucus. If non hate people attempt it, I would have nothing to say.

So you attribute yourself telepathic powers enabling you to discern ulterior motives in the absence of any external evidence. Well fine, that's a claim you're certainly free to make, though I don't know how it would meet any standard of proof under any set of laws.

I attribute myself the ability to see bullshit and to call it.

Based on no evidence whatsoever, just your fancy - fine Edgar, you have by now established that point to everyone's satisfaction, I think