Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Supreme Admiral, Oct 16, 2009.
I can't believe something like this would happen in Louisiana of all places.
Precisely my thinking.
At least, though, he does tell them they can go to another JoP. He doesn't try to stop them from marrying, exactly.
I want to thank all of you who have not used this thread to attack the South or Louisiana in particular.
I was born and raised (and still live in) south Louisiana. There is a ton of racism. I had to face it in my own family, as my own father spouted the tirades and hate he'd grown up hearing from his father, as well as my brother from our father.
I broke the cycle because of of my strong Catholic upbringing. I engaged in many a dinner table argument over the issue of equality and love of all people. My father, of course, didn't hear it then and doesn't now.
I've shut him up by assuring him his grandchildren will remain far from him should he EVER bring up hate talk in their presence.
And if you're wondering how I could be raised Catholic with a father like I mentioned, my faith was a journey I took ownership of because of my mother and grandmother, as well as good friends and an inspiring priest who made the faith more than just going through the motions.
I see. So that works in general, does it? If one JoP won't marry you, you can find another who will (and who won't use the first one's refusal as evidence that the marriage shouldn't be allowed)?
That's a good point. I volunteer as a big sister and my "little" is bi-racial. The only one who has ever given us any grief while we're out and about was an older black man.
No, I didn't mean to imply it was right or a good idea, just that it was reasonably fair.
Actually I was only asking if that would work.
Oh. Yes, I don't see why it wouldn't. Plenty of people out there willing and able to perform marriages.
^ I didn't know it worked that way. I thought one justice's word was binding on all, de facto if not de jure.
Not that I ever heard of, no, but different rules for different places, and I'm far from a legal expert. I dare say that this guy, mistaken as he may be, knows his job well enough to know that suggesting that couples he wouldn't wed go to another Justice wouldn't be futile. He doesn't really strike me as an asshole.
He is a public official who is misusing his office by refusing to officiate at a marriage between two parties who have (presumably) satisfied all of the legal requirements for same, for the sole reason that they are of different ethnic backgrounds. This is what's called racial discrimination.
If "one could argue [that a public official] has the right to decide what he does and doesn't do," then one could also see that argument as faulty, realizing that this case involves an official who has crossed well over the bounds of any discretion the office may have allowed, and even more easily argue that he is unfit, as demonstrated by his own actions, to be holding that office and ought to be considered for dismissal. Passing the buck by refusing to perform a function which is among the duties of the office to which he was appointed -- no matter how principled he may believe that refusal to be -- is still passing the buck. For a public official to be doing so for reasons of race is discriminatory, and it is against the law which he swore an oath to uphold when he took that office. The "right to decide what he does and does not do" does not reach so far as that. He overstepped his authority, pure and simple.
Yep, he did. I don't dispute that he was obligated to perform his duty regardless of personal belief. I'm just saying that compared to most people who get the racial discrimination brand, this one wasn't all that bad.
If you've kept up on the news of this story, the JoP in question directed the couple to find another JoP who would be willing to marry them.
Yes, but a little cancer is still a cancer. Whatever way one looks at it, it's still racism. The judge may think he's being principled, but his logic is inherently flawed: There is no guarantee that this couple will produce children; that, should children result from the marriage they will appear mixed (I'm half NA but appear white, unless you really know what you're looking for); and ultimately, no guarantee that they will experience any hardship based on their mixed heritage. The man is basically saying that being mixed is a handicap -- that is racism. It is racism wrapped up in a false logic that makes it look not "all that bad," but it's just as ugly as any other racism out there. Uglier, in a way, because it can be passed of as, again, not "all that bad."
I questioned his sincerity when he did that (as if he'd said "yeah, right, good luck finding another one who'll do it"), but if it was genuine, well, I guess that's the pickle on the giant crap sandwich that was that couple's day.
I concur with the opinion that it is the justice's obligation to carry out the law. Nothing more, nothing less. His personal beliefs are irrelevant. He is required to serve the public trust. His individuality does not exist, in this context. His opinion does not count, he exists solely to serve the people according to the law.
Just like the pharmacist who refused to sell condoms on principle; they are not, and should not be, allowed to interject their own opinions.
Among many people in many places (all of them bad) being black or mixed IS a handicap. I don't think acknowledging that fact in and of itself is racist. A racist would say or imply that being black or mixed makes you a lesser human being, which this guy didn't.
Whether it's words like "handicap" or "lesser"...the result is the same. Mixed ethnicity can, logically, only be a handicap to racists.
Yes, that's true. However, racists still have power over people in a lot of places - whether it is through overt methods like beatings and Klan rallies, to more subtle approaches like not hiring or enrolling someone for being black. As such, being black or mixed can have detrimental effects in one's life. That's a handicap.
Almost any black person out there will tell you the same thing. Should it be so? No, of course not. Is it? Hell yes.
And this justice is only making things worse by continuing that cycle of racism. He could have stood up against it, but failed. His inaction allows racism to continue.
Exactly. It is inarguable that some people have faced significant challenges as a result of being mixed. But the label of "handicap" is not one that describes their inherent state of being as mixed, it describes the attitudes and behaviors of racist individuals around them. Arguing semantics could become overly complex and convoluted, though. The most basic fact of the case is this: the man was showing racist behavior. Whatever the motivations or faulty logic behind his behavior, the behavior itself is racist. A person who thinks that an interracial couple should not be married/have children, for the sake of said children is serving only to reaffirm racist attitudes and is therefore engaging in racist behavior.
Separate names with a comma.