This content is inappropriate
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
(Video) Justice Who Denied Interracial Marriage Refuses to Resign
By Opposing Views Editorial Staff
You are seeing 77 Comments.
See all 123 Comments on this Video.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
I'm not racist
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.
There are two parts
The definition of racism has two parts, which you already know, but bear with me, please. I do have a point.
1 a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. (like you rightly pointed out, "...the good at math Asian, the 'ghetto' African American...")
2 hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I disagree that what that judge did fell into either of these categories. He didn't act as if he thought "race was the primary determinant of [any] human trait","that racial differences produced an inherent superiority of a particular race. Nor did he show "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races".
I think what that judge did was illegal , not that he did it because he is a racist .
We make this mistake too often and it does not promote healing. It promotes a continuation of the problem by obfuscating it.
I really do believe clarity will promote healing.
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 12:22AM
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 Point
I think the point is that his actions were racists in their essence. Anyway, he made that claim without giving any evidence. This is total superstition on his part, and that is the base of racism .
- Dylan Voltaire
October 21, 2009 1:35PM
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.
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.
His excuse
Seems to be that he was attempting to prevent the pain of prejudice from happening to the children ; which he believed would happen as a virtually guaranteed result of his decision.
We can likely agree that he didn't actually break a law , per se, but he is liable to be punished by the ethics board. Perhaps he sees that as an acceptable trade off.
Especially knowing that the next judge would grant the marriage - not that this fact minimizes the fact that people can interpret his act as prejudicial.
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 9:36PM
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.
Liberty
Actually, it does deny them liberty.
- Dylan Voltaire
October 21, 2009 1:38PM
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.