| 
|
Page: Profile: Wren's Nest News Local
| Total Views: 4,937,694
|
Article: 21259
[Civil]
Date Posted:
10/16/2009
9:37:18 am EDT
Wvox Stats
Views: 3,057
RSS: 20,602
Comments: 15
|
Interracial Couple In Louisiana Denied Marriage License
Author: CNN Source: CNN
Title: INTERRACIAL COUPLE IN LOUISIANA DENIED MARRIAGE LICENSE
Civil rights advocates in eastern Louisiana are calling for a justice of the peace of Tangipahoa Parish to resign after he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple.
"He's an elected public official and one of his duties is to marry people. He doesn't have the right to say he doesn't believe in it," Patricia Morris, president of the NAACP branch of Tangipahoa Parish, located near the Mississippi line, said Thursday.
"If he doesn't do what his position calls for him to do, he should resign from that position."
| Options: [Read Full Story] [Comments Locked]
[Email to a Friend]
|
|
Community Thoughts: There are 15 comments posted | Reverse Sort |
| Just For The Record... | Oct 17th. at 5:45:08 pm EDT
|
Lupus (ewing, New Jersey) - Email Me
I wholeheartedly agree with the statements made by other posters regarding the unfair application of racism and bigotry as being exclusive to the South. In fact, the miscegenation "work" pioneered by Dr. Goddard was done at his offices in Vineland, New Jersey, and his published papers, including the book "The Kallikaks" were some of the pieces that helped influence Adolph Hitler in his decision to formulate his Final Solution. We here in the North are just as capable of ignorance and hate as anyone else.
|
| Straighten Up And Fly Right... | Oct 17th. at 3:42:38 pm EDT
|
bigcat (peoria, Illinois) - Email Me
In this my reasoning would be the same as for those religious types that refuse to do some aspect of their job because it "goes against their religious principles".
If he finds it so difficult, he should do something else that is not likely to be so taxing.
For some, it can become something of a power trip to deny people something simply because it is likely to go against their own personal grain, even if it is well within the laws for people to have. He needs to do his job or to step down if he cannot complete his tasks as his job dictates. That is what anyone else on the job would be told.
|
| Not A Scapegoat | Oct 17th. at 1:26:53 pm EDT
|
Hoolet (Columbia, South Carolina) - Email Me
There is plenty of blame for racism to go around, yet we are always the scapegoat for others to dump their own guilt on.
For example: 1) In the mid 19th Century, there were free blacks living prosperously throughout the Confederacy, yet many northern states had laws forbidding blacks to settle there.
2) New England Puritan preachers taught that Natives were children of the devil who had to be exterminated. The northern-majority US Congress later began oppressing the natives severely, and when Southrons (who were generally favorable to natives) lost their political voice in the 1860s, extermination became US policy for two decades.
3) Massachusetts was the first colony to legalize slavery.
4) When northern states abolished slavery, few slaves were emancipated, because the law allowed slave owners to sell off their slaves to Southern slaveowners, which the vast majority did.
5) According to US Census figures, of the 10 most segregated cities, not one is in Dixie, and the rate of interracial crime is higher in the northeast than in the South.
So quit blaming us for this mess when y'all have as much or more racial problems than we do. One bigot refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple does not typify the South.
|
| WOW | Oct 17th. at 12:32:12 pm EDT
|
Lupus (ewing, New Jersey) - Email Me
And here I thought miscegenation laws had been left behind decades ago. Dr. Goddard would be proud.
|
| It Is Interesting. | Oct 17th. at 11:01:17 am EDT
|
TheStormofWar (Salt Lake City, Utah) - Email Me
In the article, the JoP stated he denied other couples before. From what I understand, as long as the couple proved citizenship, different genders (should be obvious) and, if married before, proof of termination of the previous marriage, they could not be denied.
Marriage is implied in the 9th and 14th Amendments (Meyers v Nebraska, 1923. Unrelated, but the majority opinion does specifically mention right to enter contracts and marriage/civil unions are a considered contracts as far the government is concerned) , and should not have been denied in this case. I'm fairly sure the ACLU is just chomping and frothing to go after this one (I support them here) .
From the JoP's POV, he may not be racist as such, and that is his personal truth. However, I'm pretty sure what he did was legally incorrect, and he needs to either rectify that situation, step down, and be forced out.
|
| Should We Be Surprised? | Oct 17th. at 10:38:08 am EDT
|
Aritimi Morgana (RotterdamJct/Schdy/Scotia, New York) - Email Me
I'm not. Ever since the election of this president, which some pagans here hate as much as they do fellow pagans, the amount of racist propaganda spewed has shot through the roof. Hey, even the Klan is going urban, trying to build their white-power army to take over the country (sarcasm) .
As for haters, some of the most vitriolic nastiness has been from pagans themselves towards one another and towards other religions. And despite asking them why they hate other religions so much, they NEVER give a reason why, just vague excuses.
The pompous jerk should lose his job--he was completely out of line. His remarks about having a stable marriage were total BS, that it wasn't being racist. He was about as transparent as a plate-glass window with that statement.
Love shouldn't come with specific requirements, after all, as the phrase goes, 'love is blind'. That should apply to all human beings.
|
| ... | Oct 17th. at 4:41:48 am EDT
|
Draken (Bronx, New York) - Email Me - Web
As I implied before, a civilized area would can this JP for discriminating. If you give a marriage license to one couple, you have to give one to them all.
Oh wait, this is the buy-bull belt I'm talking about. To summarize:
*In the late 1700s some people wanted democratic rule. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that the king ruled by God's will.
In the mid 1800s some people wanted to end slavery. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God approved of slavery.
In the early 1900s some people wanted to give women the vote. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God made women inferior to men.
In the mid 1900s some people wanted to end segregation. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved God wanted to keep the races separate.
When you look back at how your parents and grandparents dealt with these things, are you ashamed or proud?
Now some people want to allow gay marriage. Conservative elements of the church are pointing to the Bible and saying it proves God hates homosexuality.
When your children and grandchildren look back at how you deal with this, will they be ashamed or proud?*
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize posting cold hard facts constituted "intolerance."
Find More info -- HERE
|
| The Legalities Are VERY Clear | Oct 17th. at 3:03:38 am EDT
|
nasionnaich (Stanchfield, Minnesota) - Email Me
Unless there is some law stating otherwise, government -- both State and Federal -- does not have the right to dictate who can marry and who cannot, nor who they can marry. The JP in question, as an Officer of the Court, represents the State of Louisiana.
Last time I checked (yesterday, after I first read about this on MSN) , there were no enforcable laws in the State of Louisiana dictating whether a "white" person can (or even should) marry a "black" person. The JP in question, as an Officer of the Court in the State of Louisiana, has deliberately decided, all on his own, that he somehow knows far more about the subject than any licensed psychologist/psychiatrist in the entire Nation.
He is not a preacher, he is (apparently) not a licensed psychologist/psychiatrist -- he plain decided to not carry out the duties of his office because HE doesn't want to approve/officiate over any "mixed-race" marriages.
He should, at the very least, lose his job.
--nasionnaich
|
| The Right To Marry... | Oct 16th. at 11:39:54 pm EDT
|
Hoolet (Columbia, South Carolina) - Email Me
...is implicit in the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution. Apparently, bigotry is alive and well in the Neopagan community, and people of Southron heritage are, unfortunately, fair game (maybe the only people who are fair game) .
|
| Miscegenation..... | Oct 16th. at 10:03:22 pm EDT
|
bigcat (peoria, Illinois) - Email Me
no longer carries the same weight as it did in earlier times as many more mixed couples are getting married and there was no valid reason for him to deny them in the first place.
As for divorce, that can happen to any couple and is hardly a valid reason to deny anything. Fortunately for them, he wasn't the only JP working.
|
| I Want Anyone | Oct 16th. at 7:11:39 pm EDT
|
Orion 6Xray (Park City, Kentucky) - Email Me
Who can, Show me this supposed right anyone has to get married. From what I have seen that's a civil contract between two people and the state for taxation purposes and setting up a corporation.
No one has the "RIGHT" to get married.
|
| Malfeasance And Deprivation Of Rights? | Oct 16th. at 3:33:12 pm EDT
|
Terry (Irvington, Virginia) - Email Me
This seems like a pretty simple case, not of whether this government agent's actions were illegal, but merely of what legal tactics are most suitable for taking him down or penalizing his illegal actions? The right cause of action choices should be a slam-dunk case, with costs and fee recovery to the ACLU, NAACP, or other Plaintiff counsel.
As to marriages ending in divorce, he might well have skipped the adjective interracial, and just noted that's the outcome of most marriages, period. Why then officiate any of them, or be in a position required to not discriminate as a government agent?
A bigger problem with government agents and marriage officiation exists when clergy in most but not all states are designated as state agents, while also acting in roles as private clergy, lumped together by bad laws. That practice historically has roots in theocracy at the local level in most early US states, and a presumption of literate clergy but citizens incapable of understanding a simple marriage registration document. In today's world, it might be best to default to assuming that anyone who can't complete and sign before witnesses a simple marriage license form be prevented from marrying at all, absent petitioning a Probate court to demonstrate competency to enter such a contract.
When clergy act as marriage officiants in a role as state agents, they rightfully should be subject to the same non-discrimination laws as any other government actors. That means that if particular clergy don't wish to marry certain persons, of another or no sect, or race, sexuality, etc, they should not qualify as state agents at all, and should be subject to full legal sanctions if they do become state agents and discriminate over protected criteria.
More honest and astute clergy of some large sects do recognize that set of issues, and have started to promote changes to marriage laws, usually during attempts to end anti-gay discrimination, to remove legal officiant requirements as the only practical way to not trap clergy in a legally unjustifiable no-win conflict. Eliminating officiants and simply requiring filing of a properly executed marriage contract document is a really easy and obvious solution, that leaves any religious or other ritual, or the option of neither, a private, non-government matter.
That leads to a next step, however. Eliminate marriage laws themselves, and limit government to registration of what in name and fact are purely secular domestic partnership contracts, open to any number and sexes of persons competent to contract. Use legal process for document execution similar to some European and Asian countries, that leaves any religious, cultural, or personal social practices entirely private and none of government's business. Follow a partnership model in other ways based on Uniform Commercial Code for business partnerships, but addressing special issues of domestic relations. Anything less is like putting out spot fires, rather than resolving overdue biases in archaic traditions of wrongful bigotry in legal process.
|
| Over-reaction | Oct 16th. at 3:21:41 pm EDT
|
Venus of the Earth (North Adams, Massachusetts) - Email Me
As sad as it is to see the racism of this man, any marriage official is allowed to deny marriage to any couple for any reason. The government can't deny it, but the individual official can say that he won't do it personally. They got the marriage license from another JP, so it really doesn't matter what one racist thinks. He has the right to carry out his beliefs so long as no one gets hurt and no laws are broken. The NAACP should not get involved in this.
|
| Divorce Rate Is Bad For Everyone | Oct 16th. at 10:38:43 am EDT
|
Maeven (Los Angeles, California) - Email Me
This country's entire population has a high divorce rate, regardless of ethnicity. It's at best a 50/50 gamble for all of us. That's a completely ludicrous answer. Where was this dinosaur hiding when racism went extinct?
|
Disclaimer: The Witches' Voice inc does not verify the accuracy of the details stated in this listing, nor do we vouch for the value of the goods or services presented here... As with all contacts and financial dealings in cyberspace, we encourage you to use caution and wisdom in your dealings with strangers.
Political Statements: Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren's Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches' Voice, Inc. TWV is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization.
|
State/Country flags created by 3dflags.com and are used with permission
Web Site Content (including: text - graphics - html - look & feel)
Copyright 1997-2009 The Witches' Voice Inc. All rights reserved
Note: Authors & Artists retain the copyright for their work(s) on this website.
Unauthorized reproduction without prior permission is a violation of copyright laws.
Website structure, evolution and php coding by Fritz Jung on a Macintosh G5.
Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren’s Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches’ Voice, Inc. TWV is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization.
Sponsorship: Visit the Witches' Voice Sponsor Page for info on how you
can help support this Community Resource. Donations ARE Tax Deductible.
The Witches' Voice carries a 501(c)(3) certificate and a Federal Tax ID.
Mail Us: The Witches' Voice Inc., P.O. Box 341018, Tampa, Florida 33694-1018 U.S.A.
| |
