No, seriously.
In other news, this has just been nominated as the most ridiculous use of "For the kids", 2009.
In other news, this has just been nominated as the most ridiculous use of "For the kids", 2009.
Couple Refused Marriage Licence For Being Different Races
- Thread starter Fun Size
- Start date
- Status
Green_Lantern
Staff member
*facepalm*
L
lafftaff
We all knew this was coming:
A
Armadillo
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
Is he required to marry any couple who comes before him?
/DEVIL'S ADVOCATE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
Is he required to marry any couple who comes before him?
/DEVIL'S ADVOCATE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
T
ThatNickGuy
*twitch, twitch*
Urge to kill...rising.
Urge to kill...rising.
A
Armadillo
You know, I'm not sure he is. I'd have to check the LA state statutes on that, and I just ain't got the time right now.
So, if it turns out that he is not legally obligated to marry an interracial couple (and as a libertarian, I think that's within his rights, stupid as it may be), then there's nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint.
So just plaster his name everywhere and let the world know what a racist piece of scum he is.
M
Morgoth
Yeah, I laughed when read that he used the ol' "I have black friends" so it's okay for me to tell racist jokes" excuse.
---------- Post added at 02:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 PM ----------
You know, I'm not sure he is. I'd have to check the LA state statutes on that, and I just ain't got the time right now.
So, if it turns out that he is not legally obligated to marry an interracial couple (and as a libertarian, I think that's within his rights, stupid as it may be), then there's nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint.
So just plaster his name everywhere and let the world know what a racist piece of scum he is.[/QUOTE]
I believe you are correct sir, however, like you mentioned it isn't going to blow over well for him, especially being a publicly elected official.
Isn't this more or less the same situation as a restaurant owner refusing services due to discrimination? In other words, they might have the right to refuse service, but it's not going to a whole hell of a lot in giving them a good reputation.
You know, I'm not sure he is. I'd have to check the LA state statutes on that, and I just ain't got the time right now.
So, if it turns out that he is not legally obligated to marry an interracial couple (and as a libertarian, I think that's within his rights, stupid as it may be), then there's nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint.
So just plaster his name everywhere and let the world know what a racist piece of scum he is.[/QUOTE]
actually one could make the arguement that marriage is an implied right, and thus falls under the jurisdiction of the fifteenth amendment.
You know, I'm not sure he is. I'd have to check the LA state statutes on that, and I just ain't got the time right now.
So, if it turns out that he is not legally obligated to marry an interracial couple (and as a libertarian, I think that's within his rights, stupid as it may be), then there's nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint.
So just plaster his name everywhere and let the world know what a racist piece of scum he is.[/QUOTE]
He's a judge which means that it is his job to dole out the law fairly and with out bias. He has no standing to refuse to serve an interracial couple.
I honestly thought that maybe a justice of the peace was like a notary public who while having been trained or whatever by the government still wasn't a government employee. Nope Guy is a fucking judge. Lowest judge on the totem pole but a judge none the less.
A
Armadillo
You know, I'm not sure he is. I'd have to check the LA state statutes on that, and I just ain't got the time right now.
So, if it turns out that he is not legally obligated to marry an interracial couple (and as a libertarian, I think that's within his rights, stupid as it may be), then there's nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint.
So just plaster his name everywhere and let the world know what a racist piece of scum he is.[/QUOTE]
actually one could make the arguement that marriage is an implied right, and thus falls under the jurisdiction of the fifteenth amendment.[/QUOTE]
I think you mean the Fourteenth Amendment:
I don't know that there's a 14th Amendment case to be made here, since interracial marriage isn't against the law in Louisiana. That's why I asked if there is a law requiring that justices of the peace marry anyone who can have a legally recognized marriage. If so, then he's in violation of the law. If not, this couple can't do anything about it, they should go find someone who WILL marry them, and this JOP's reputation will be subsequently shot to shit.
---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------
You know, I'm not sure he is. I'd have to check the LA state statutes on that, and I just ain't got the time right now.
So, if it turns out that he is not legally obligated to marry an interracial couple (and as a libertarian, I think that's within his rights, stupid as it may be), then there's nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint.
So just plaster his name everywhere and let the world know what a racist piece of scum he is.[/QUOTE]
He's a judge which means that it is his job to dole out the law fairly and with out bias. He has no standing to refuse to serve an interracial couple.
I honestly thought that maybe a justice of the peace was like a notary public who while having been trained or whatever by the government still wasn't a government employee. Nope Guy is a fucking judge. Lowest judge on the totem pole but a judge none the less.[/QUOTE]
Again though, is it against the law for a JOP in Louisiana to refuse to marry two people for any reason? If not, then it sucks for this couple, but there's nothing they can do about it. I'm not looking for personal reactions to this story (I agree that it sucks, and the judge is fat and his butt stinks), I'm looking for a law.
You know, I'm not sure he is. I'd have to check the LA state statutes on that, and I just ain't got the time right now.
So, if it turns out that he is not legally obligated to marry an interracial couple (and as a libertarian, I think that's within his rights, stupid as it may be), then there's nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint.
So just plaster his name everywhere and let the world know what a racist piece of scum he is.[/quote]
actually one could make the arguement that marriage is an implied right, and thus falls under the jurisdiction of the fifteenth amendment.[/quote]
I think you mean the Fourteenth Amendment:
I don't know that there's a 14th Amendment case to be made here, since interracial marriage isn't against the law in Louisiana. That's why I asked if there is a law requiring that justices of the peace marry anyone who can have a legally recognized marriage. If so, then he's in violation of the law. If not, this couple can't do anything about it, they should go find someone who WILL marry them, and this JOP's reputation will be subsequently shot to shit.
---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------
You know, I'm not sure he is. I'd have to check the LA state statutes on that, and I just ain't got the time right now.
So, if it turns out that he is not legally obligated to marry an interracial couple (and as a libertarian, I think that's within his rights, stupid as it may be), then there's nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint.
So just plaster his name everywhere and let the world know what a racist piece of scum he is.[/quote]
He's a judge which means that it is his job to dole out the law fairly and with out bias. He has no standing to refuse to serve an interracial couple.
I honestly thought that maybe a justice of the peace was like a notary public who while having been trained or whatever by the government still wasn't a government employee. Nope Guy is a fucking judge. Lowest judge on the totem pole but a judge none the less.[/quote]
Again though, is it against the law for a JOP in Louisiana to refuse to marry two people for any reason? If not, then it sucks for this couple, but there's nothing they can do about it. I'm not looking for personal reactions to this story (I agree that it sucks, and the judge is fat and his butt stinks), I'm looking for a law.[/QUOTE]
He didn't refuse to marry them. He refused to issue them a marriage license. It's subtle, but it's important. It seems to me that this is like the Secretary of State not issuing a woman a driver's license because they just don't drive as well.
A
Armadillo
Wow, I missed that little distinction. Well then yeah, I don't see what legal standing he has.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
I just can't get pass the fucking "use my bathroom", It is probably the sickest part of this that he actually thinks that this a valid argument.
M
Morgoth
"I even let them eat an' drink at my house! 'Course it is left-over food and I only let them drink out of the hose, but by golly that's better than my neighbor Jeb!"
S
SeraRelm
Now take this news story and make it about two men or two women.
I'm pretty sure that most people in the States (and Canada) believe that for every gay coupled that gets married we're one day closer to the apocalypse.
I'm pretty sure that most people in the States (and Canada) believe that for every gay coupled that gets married we're one day closer to the apocalypse.[/QUOTE]
No, just a sadly vocal minority that has maintained power for way too long now.
I
Iaculus
I'm pretty sure that most people in the States (and Canada) believe that for every gay coupled that gets married we're one day closer to the apocalypse.[/QUOTE]
For the premilennial dispensationalists, shouldn't that be a good thing?
The Left Behind series has a readership in the high millions, after all, as horrifying as that fact may be.
Is this in a related article or something? I've read through the OP article and either I'm going blind or its been edited since your post, because I do not see this quote.
As for the OP itself, I don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said so I'll just add one more facepalm to the list.
*facepalm*
Green_Lantern
Staff member
Is this in a related article or something? I've read through the OP article and either I'm going blind or its been edited since your post, because I do not see this quote.
As for the OP itself, I don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said so I'll just add one more facepalm to the list.
*facepalm*[/QUOTE]
I don't know how... but I think I readed another article about the same thing... but is not the same one from the OP.
W
WolfOfOdin
I can't wait to see someone try to defend this as "a issue of keeping marriage sacred". It's disgusting, but you know damn well it'll happen soon.
Also, in response to Sera; I don't care who marries/dates/sleeps with who or what they do behind closed doors, nor should anyone else.
Also, in response to Sera; I don't care who marries/dates/sleeps with who or what they do behind closed doors, nor should anyone else.
Is it the 1950's? Wha? I guess we also shouldn't touch mixed race babies 'cause their momma will abandon them if she smells our scent on them. For Pete's sake.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
Oh, thank god! I was thinking that I might halucinating again.
I
Iaculus
Oh, thank god! I was thinking that I might halucinating again.[/QUOTE]
Welly, you were doing that as well, but the edit was more pertinent, so...
Wasn't that the argument against mixed race marriages in the 50's?
To be fair that does happen a lot with wire stories, I've noticed. I doubt it's specific to this story.
This (from the newer article) made me laugh:
S
Steven Soderburgin
G. damn
I'm pretty sure that most people in the States (and Canada) believe that for every gay coupled that gets married we're one day closer to the apocalypse.[/QUOTE]
First, I don't know if that's fair. There are a few backwards individuals, but I think Canada is doing pretty good when it comes to gay rights.
Second, I am so happy that you are using that avatar.
---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 PM ----------
I was just about to reference that myself.
Although the editing-an-article-and-keeping-the-same-link thing concerns me every time I notice it happen. They might as well replace the 'delete' key with a memory hole.
North_Ranger
Staff member
*takes a Magic Marker and writes "Justice of peace Bardwell" on a brick*
- Status