Opposing Views: VIDEO:Justice Who Denied Interracial Marriage Refuses to Resign

Justice Who Denied Interracial Marriage Refuses to Resign

By Opposing Views Editorial Staff , To Protect and Serve Opposing Views - October 18, 2009

Comments(123) | (0)

The white justice of the peace in Louisiana, who refused to marry an interracial couple, told reporters he has no plans to resign. Louisiana's governor and a U.S. senator are joining the call for his ouster. The Associated Press reports:

See more on this story.

Regarding Article

VIDEO:Justice Who Denied Interracial Marriage Refuses to Resign

I'm not racist

I just don't believe that people of different races should get married... for the children .

The important fact is that he does not get to make that determination... he is a judge and he must work within the confines of the law .

- MrBook October 18, 2009 6:20PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Important facts vs. opinions.
  
  Your statement, "The important fact is that he does not get to make that determination... he is a judge and he must work within the confines of the law ." is not only an important fact, it is the only fact in your post.
  
  The rest is just a smear disguised as an opinion dressed up like a fact.
  
  I agree completely with the fact stated.
  
  - SolarSanitizer October 18, 2009 6:31PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - the rest
    
    the reset was not a smear, it was a statement of my opinion, that the judge is a racist .
    
    - MrBook October 18, 2009 6:57PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Which is, by defiition, a smear.
      
      He frequently has black guests in his home. Does this sound like someone who is a racist ?
      
      You are wholly too quick to label people as racists. Doing so detracts from the seriousness of real racism . It is an insult to the victims of racism. But you are not alone... It seems to be a very popular activity these days. I suggest you recognize that screaming "Racist!!" at every perceived act of bigotry, no matter how small, is doing a disservice to our society .
      
      But, you can choose to cry wolf all you want. It is a free country.
      
      - SolarSanitizer October 18, 2009 7:21PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - spectrum
        
        having minority friends does not 'prove' that an individual is not racist .
        
        Racism is a spectrum from the subtle to the blatant. His attempt to prevent the marriage solely on the basis of the couples races is a racist act.
        
        - MrBook October 18, 2009 11:33PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        A racist would not have minority friends.
        
        It goes much farther towards proving a lack of racism than not marrying an interracial couple proves racism.
        
        Name a racist who has friends in the race that he/she hates.
        
        That's what I thought.
        
        - SolarSanitizer October 18, 2009 11:40PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        views
        
        One does not have to hate minorities in order to be a racist .
        
        I recall a story about a white guy that was going out with an Asian girl. They really enjoyed being together but he refused to take her home to meet his parents. When pressed to say why he told the girl that he wasn't planning on being with her forever because he did not think that 'races' should mix like that.
        
        The guy didn't hate Asians (or other races) but his attitude towards interracial couples was clearly racist.
        
        I've heard a few other examples of this during my years down here in VA. "He is doing so well for a black boy." being a classic example.
        
        Racial stereotypes are also good examples... the good at math Asian, the 'ghetto' African American... these are all perpetuated as subtle forms of racism throughout our society . They are not done so with malice, and are often internalized to the point where they are not even noticed).
        
        - MrBook October 19, 2009 12:06AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
      - He regularly has black guests in his home
        
        ...And, don't forget, he lets them use his toilet! :thumbs-up:
        
        Guess he's not a racist after all!!! :phew:
        
        Really, Solar, you're going to defend someone as "not racist" who refuses to allow interracial couples to marry, because they use the old saw, "But some of my best friends are black!!!"? I think you might be stretching your reluctance to use the term "racist" a little too far in this case.
        
        - Babaroni October 19, 2009 8:26AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        I am seeking middleground.
        
        Our society screams "RACIST!" at every single perceived slight against a black person.
        
        This is acceptable to you?
        
        I know what racism is. It left its ugly scar of this nation. I am just trying to explain that by picking the scab off at every opportunity, the wound will never heal. People died from racism. I think the judge is in violation of his code of conduct, but I think people need to stop being the boy who cried wolf... It insults the real victims of real racism.
        
        You (not you specifically) are minimizing racism to just another buzzword. It is a crying shame.
        
        http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/real_racism.html
        
        - SolarSanitizer October 19, 2009 4:31PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        I understand
        
        I believe I understand what you are saying about minimizing, but I have to say that the denial of civil rights based upon the race of the petitioner is about as racist as it gets, in my book . I don't see it as a tiny offense. Does it deprive this couple of life? No. Liberty? No. The pursuit of happiness? Arguably, at least for a time, yes (and I'm not just talking about state-sanctioned sex ). No one should be denied a civil right guaranteed them by the USSC and the Constitution, simply on the basis of their race. This is demeaning, hateful, and tears at the self-worth of black people throughout this nation. This JOP is trying to defend the idea that it is or should be acceptable to discriminate against someone simply because of their race. It isn't.
        
        - Babaroni October 19, 2009 9:24PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
- The actuality of it
  
  "The important fact is that he does not get to make that determination..." is correct, but... he does have the option of whether he marries them or not. He is not bound by law , statute or code to do so.
  
  And that doesn't make him a racist .
  A little more thought and a little less zeal.
  
  - Timexx October 18, 2009 9:19PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - being racist
    
    Being racist does not mean that one has a "ghost" costume hanging in ones' closet. It is a spectrum from the blatant to the subtle.
    
    His denial was not a legitimate use of his power, his reason for the denial is racist.
    
    - MrBook October 18, 2009 9:53PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Yes he is bound by law to marry them
    
    As a public servant and a justice, he has sworn to uphold and defend the law . He cannot simply disregard USSupreme Court rulings because they don't suit his fancy.
    
    We are discussing CIVIL marriage , here, performed by a CIVIL servant, not RELIGIOUS marriage, granted by a RELIGIOUS authority. If he were a priest or a minister being asked to confer a sacramental/religious marriage upon the couple, then you'd be absolutely correct -- he could refuse them all day, every day. But that's not the case here.
    
    - Babaroni October 19, 2009 8:29AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - sounds factual
      
      Except you are wrong, he isn't bound by any " law " to perform marriage .
      
      Qoute the code if you think you can!
      
      - dingo1 October 19, 2009 9:14AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Okay, I'll rephrase...
        
        He cannot DENY them marriage based upon their race or skin color. It is his job to dispense marriage licenses to qualified couples, and to formalize those civil marriages. He cannot refuse to do so on the basis of skin color. He could most certainly refuse to marry them if they were so closely related as to be ineligible due to consanguinity statutes in the state, or if one or both were unemancipated minors according to the laws of the state, or, of course, if they were a same-gender couple, since discrimination against same-gender couples is perfectly legal in his state. But no, he cannot refuse them marriage because of race, ethnicity, skin color, religious persuasion or any other protected characteristic.
        
        - Babaroni October 19, 2009 10:46AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Here's more:
        
        Loving v. Virginia - Decision:
        
        "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law . The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination . Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
        
        This Justice of the Peace is a sworn officer of his state, and as such, represents the state and must make decisions based upon the legalities which bind the state, including the above USSC decision.
        
        - Babaroni October 19, 2009 10:49AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        you are so misguided
        
        1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
        
        You have lost sight of the issue... a person can marry interracially if they chose but the Louisiana JP doesn't have to perform the marriage .
        
        No lose of civil right has occurred by the JP's action. Why not move on and stop bloviating?
        
        - dingo1 October 19, 2009 11:08AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        When one takes a job...
        
        When one takes a job, one must agree to perform the duties associated with that job properly, or be willing to give up the job.
        
        The JOP is not being asked to do something outside the scope of the job he has sworn to fulfill. Therefore, it is his responsibility to do his job or to vacate it (or be dismissed from it).
        
        We give up certain rights when we take on contractual positions. Someone, for instance, who goes to work for the DMV cannot simply refuse to give someone a driver's license because they are of the opinion that the people of the applicant's race are worse drivers than the general population. Unless they can show just cause (unrelated to the race of the applicant), such as, the applicant fails the written exam, or the eye exam, then they do not have the right to refuse the applicant a driver's license.
        
        The same is true of this JOP. If you don't believe me, consult with an attorney. You are misinformed.
        
        - Babaroni October 19, 2009 11:29AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (3)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
As a side note,

apparently he is confused that the couple doesn't require his consent to have sex .

- caelum October 18, 2009 7:45PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- a side side note
  
  It is his option as to who he marries, not your, mine or ours!
  
  - Timexx October 18, 2009 9:02PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - You apparently
    
    failed to understand his complaint was he was worried about interracial kids . It's irrational considering they don't need his permission to have them ...
    
    And it appears that you are applying he is immune from criticism, if you believe an elected official is immune from criticism from their decisions - I hope you enjoy China!
    
    An additional side note, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that instead of being a racist he might just be a moron who hasn't realized that it's been decades since sane people cared about interracial children and there are no negative consequences.
    
    - caelum October 18, 2009 11:14PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Well...
      
      If he truly believes that there are negative consequences to being interracial, he should show them.
      
      - SolarSanitizer October 19, 2009 1:01AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - an intelligent person
        
        would say correctly; consequences of being interracial, he...
        
        not; consequences to being interracial, he
        
        another example of your stupidity
        
        - dingo1 October 21, 2009 2:23AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Trolls love spam.
        
        So I hear...
        
        - SolarSanitizer October 21, 2009 2:49AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Inane response
        
        Dingo1, you have given us plenty of evidence of your assininity with this response.
        
        - Dylan Voltaire October 21, 2009 1:54PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - You seem
    
    Timexx, you seem to misunderstand the nature of civil marriage . It is a civil right which is supposed to, by law , be available to all citizens, regardless of race or skin color. Read Loving v. Virginia, and you will find that civil authorities do not have the right to deny civil marriage to citizens on the basis of their respective race.
    
    - Babaroni October 19, 2009 8:31AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - perhaps you are correct
      
      As a former member of the bar in three states and the Dominican republic and a law practice of over twenty years... I guess I just don't understand and need mentoring from some loonie on the internet !
      
      - dingo1 October 19, 2009 11:13AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - I see
        
        I see you claim to be an attorney. I'd think you'd know better, then.
        
        - Babaroni October 19, 2009 11:32AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - my apology
      
      I stand in error, I thought you were addressing me, in the fervor I failed to see you were addressing Timexx.
      
      However; my error doesn't change the facts.
      
      - dingo1 October 19, 2009 11:15AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - An arbitrary decision
    
    He is bound to treat people equally. He cannot simply arbitrarily decide who he will marry and who he will not. You are wrong to think so. Try looking up the 14th Amendment. Unless one of the partners were already married, the judge has no grounds on which not to issue them a marriage license, if he issues them to other couples. This would obviously be inequitable treatment. What if he decided redheads don’t make good marriage partners because he was divorced by one. Would you allow that he had the right to deny redheaded women marriage license.
    
    - Dylan Voltaire October 21, 2009 1:47PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
they are married

The JP didn't deny the marriage , he refused to perform the marriage himself, thusly; he didn't deny any civil right etc.. they are married.

The only question; has he violated any law ; the answer, more than likely not!

He may have breached a canon of ethics !

- dingo1 October 19, 2009 11:25AM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.