Interracial marriage denied
- Thread starter jpappl
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Ok, I find it arrogant to even ask someone to change their religion. Let alone demand..
What's wrong with these people?
I could not marry a very religious person - especially if we were planning on having kids.
I have no idea.
I predict that this guy will get in big trouble, and rightfully so.
I thought this comment from the article was interesting: "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."
How, then, do they justify bans on same-sex marriages, plural marriages, etc.?
I thought this comment from the article was interesting: "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."
How, then, do they justify bans on same-sex marriages, plural marriages, etc.?
Your trolling again, Orly. You know perfectly well why a JoP can not refuse to marry this couple, we are talking civil vs religious.
Why, when you know the answer, would you want to stir up trouble? :shrug:
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
I'm torn.
I know some people just shouldn't have children. But not knowing the area, I can't really pass judgement on the Justice of the Peace's decision.
I know some people just shouldn't have children. But not knowing the area, I can't really pass judgement on the Justice of the Peace's decision.
I doubt he will.
There are several states that allow people to not perform marriages which do not align with their own moral beliefs.
I can't recall which states, however.
That's the question, isn't it?
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
In 1963 the Supreme Court only said that States cannot prohibit interracial marriages, not that they could not place *any* restrictions on whom one can marry.
States can prohibit plural, marriage, marriage to a cocker spaniel, marrialge to a girl who's 6 years old, marriage of two mentally challenged individuals. States can currently prohibit same sex marriages as well.
In this case, I wonder if people would have a different feeling if the couple denied the right to marry were in different circumstances. Suppose they were drug addicts and he felt they were not trustworthy enough to start a family, so refused to marry them? I suspect that in that case, there are those who would be calling for his receiving a medal.
The stupid thing here, imo, is hius quaint belief that his refusal to marry them prevents them from having and raising children together.
States can prohibit plural, marriage, marriage to a cocker spaniel, marrialge to a girl who's 6 years old, marriage of two mentally challenged individuals. States can currently prohibit same sex marriages as well.
In this case, I wonder if people would have a different feeling if the couple denied the right to marry were in different circumstances. Suppose they were drug addicts and he felt they were not trustworthy enough to start a family, so refused to marry them? I suspect that in that case, there are those who would be calling for his receiving a medal.
The stupid thing here, imo, is hius quaint belief that his refusal to marry them prevents them from having and raising children together.
But does that apply to government employees, or just private citizens and/or representatives of private organizations (like a church, for example)?
That's a good question.
I am surprised nobody here has chimed in on this - it was big news when it happened.
LOL. That's why we have laws.
I am sure there are a lot of people where he is that agree with his views.
I would be really surprised if government employees were allowed to discriminate in this manner. But who the hell knows? I've been told that Louisiana politics are as corrupt as you'll find anywhere. :shrug:
This and that
I've never filled out a marriage license application, and I probably won't. (Although I did once get married at the Church of Elvis in Portland, Oregon.)
At any rate, I would thus ask: Are applicants expected to provide such information on a Louisiana (or any other state's) marriage license application?
I took a brief look around, but didn't find anything suggesting it is so.
I mean, I'm just not sure, short of being high at the time of presenting the application, how that would come up. For instance, I have a number of small, faint scars on my arms from various causes, though mostly from my cat. And no, not all of the feline scars are long lines. In fact, I have a circular scar forming just above my right wrist from a claw puncture wound that got infected and is only now, after a couple of months, finally healing. Now, generally speaking, nobody is going to mistake these for track marks. To the other, I was once sitting in a restaurant in Salem, Oregon, with some friends; this happened to be during our witchcraft phase, so three of us were wearing pewter pentacles around our necks. As we were leaving the restaurant, we encountered some random woman and got into a strange conversation about nothing, toward the end of which she disclaimed that she had lots of Jewish friends. Now, I'm accustomed to the confusion about pentacles and pentagrams, witchcraft and Satanism. But Judaism? I mean, come on. Did she think the stars on the American flag stand for the fifty greatest Jews of all time?
But, yeah. Short of fresh track marks, or being cracked out, I'm not sure how the drug question would enter into the equation. Other than that, I get what you're saying. Although I will suggest that in that case, some folks we might expect to give the guy a medal would actually turn out to be libertarians angry at the government's intrusion into people's private lives.
It's a good question, a compelling notion. But I'm unsure at this point how plausible it is.
I'll take a look around, too, but if you find one of those laws, let us know. Because the part of that proposition that strikes me as accurate is that there are laws allowing certain public employees to refuse to undertake tasks that violate their consciences. However, this doesn't apply to all public officials. If a police officer refuses an arrest because it violates his conscience—say, a DV where he thinks "she had it coming"—although his conscience disagrees with the law, the cop isn't going to win out by citing one of these conscience laws.
In this case, anti-miscegenation laws are clearly unconstitutional. That is the standing law, the supreme law of the land. I'm not sure our society will benefit if we exempt people from the Constitution for reasons of conscience.
Consider the gay fray in Oregon, which opened in the 1990s because some parents were offended at books in the public library. Now, generally speaking, librarians stand up for the First Amendment, even going so far as to force HarperCollins to publish Michael Moore's Stupid White Men after the company tried to kill the book for political reasons. Still, though, imagine a librarian coming onto the job and deciding that her conscience says that books like Heather Has Two Mommies (the Oregon catalyst) shouldn't be on the shelves, because it tells a story about a young girl living in a lesbian household. Or Darwin, since evolution is crap. Or Marx and Engels, since Communism is evil. Maybe Barbara Sproul's Primal Myths since the book is full of nothing but blasphemy.
I mean, there are limits to exercise of conscience. There was a lawsuit filed last year against a clinic in New Mexico because one of its employees had a habit of "accidentally" removing female patients' IUDs and then refusing, on (erroneously founded) grounds of conscience, to reinsert them or insert a new one. A couple years ago a scientist who sued his former laboratory because he was dismissed after refusing, for reasons of conscience, to do the work he applied and was hired to do.
There comes a point where the only real option under one's conscience is to quit their job and get a new one. I mean, can you imagine me going to the academy, applying for a job as a police officer, getting hired, and then refusing—for reasons of conscience—to carry a firearm while on duty? Really, that would be utterly stupid on my part, wouldn't it?
Panademoni said:
I've never filled out a marriage license application, and I probably won't. (Although I did once get married at the Church of Elvis in Portland, Oregon.)
At any rate, I would thus ask: Are applicants expected to provide such information on a Louisiana (or any other state's) marriage license application?
I took a brief look around, but didn't find anything suggesting it is so.
I mean, I'm just not sure, short of being high at the time of presenting the application, how that would come up. For instance, I have a number of small, faint scars on my arms from various causes, though mostly from my cat. And no, not all of the feline scars are long lines. In fact, I have a circular scar forming just above my right wrist from a claw puncture wound that got infected and is only now, after a couple of months, finally healing. Now, generally speaking, nobody is going to mistake these for track marks. To the other, I was once sitting in a restaurant in Salem, Oregon, with some friends; this happened to be during our witchcraft phase, so three of us were wearing pewter pentacles around our necks. As we were leaving the restaurant, we encountered some random woman and got into a strange conversation about nothing, toward the end of which she disclaimed that she had lots of Jewish friends. Now, I'm accustomed to the confusion about pentacles and pentagrams, witchcraft and Satanism. But Judaism? I mean, come on. Did she think the stars on the American flag stand for the fifty greatest Jews of all time?
But, yeah. Short of fresh track marks, or being cracked out, I'm not sure how the drug question would enter into the equation. Other than that, I get what you're saying. Although I will suggest that in that case, some folks we might expect to give the guy a medal would actually turn out to be libertarians angry at the government's intrusion into people's private lives.
It's a good question, a compelling notion. But I'm unsure at this point how plausible it is.
• • •
One Raven said:
I'll take a look around, too, but if you find one of those laws, let us know. Because the part of that proposition that strikes me as accurate is that there are laws allowing certain public employees to refuse to undertake tasks that violate their consciences. However, this doesn't apply to all public officials. If a police officer refuses an arrest because it violates his conscience—say, a DV where he thinks "she had it coming"—although his conscience disagrees with the law, the cop isn't going to win out by citing one of these conscience laws.
In this case, anti-miscegenation laws are clearly unconstitutional. That is the standing law, the supreme law of the land. I'm not sure our society will benefit if we exempt people from the Constitution for reasons of conscience.
Consider the gay fray in Oregon, which opened in the 1990s because some parents were offended at books in the public library. Now, generally speaking, librarians stand up for the First Amendment, even going so far as to force HarperCollins to publish Michael Moore's Stupid White Men after the company tried to kill the book for political reasons. Still, though, imagine a librarian coming onto the job and deciding that her conscience says that books like Heather Has Two Mommies (the Oregon catalyst) shouldn't be on the shelves, because it tells a story about a young girl living in a lesbian household. Or Darwin, since evolution is crap. Or Marx and Engels, since Communism is evil. Maybe Barbara Sproul's Primal Myths since the book is full of nothing but blasphemy.
I mean, there are limits to exercise of conscience. There was a lawsuit filed last year against a clinic in New Mexico because one of its employees had a habit of "accidentally" removing female patients' IUDs and then refusing, on (erroneously founded) grounds of conscience, to reinsert them or insert a new one. A couple years ago a scientist who sued his former laboratory because he was dismissed after refusing, for reasons of conscience, to do the work he applied and was hired to do.
There comes a point where the only real option under one's conscience is to quit their job and get a new one. I mean, can you imagine me going to the academy, applying for a job as a police officer, getting hired, and then refusing—for reasons of conscience—to carry a firearm while on duty? Really, that would be utterly stupid on my part, wouldn't it?
*************
M*W: What I really found to be stupid in this whole charade was the fact that the judge said he "...was concerned about the children they might have." Doesn't he realize that people have babies whether they are married or not.
M*W: What I really found to be stupid in this whole charade was the fact that the judge said he "...was concerned about the children they might have." Doesn't he realize that people have babies whether they are married or not.
If he doesn't want to marry them...then why don't they go to a new judge? Is he the only one who can give licenses in the state? So they have to attempt to ruin his life over a disagreement? Let the man do what he wants. Pharmacists should be allowed to not carry contraception out of moral disagreement, and judges should be able to deny marriage licenses.