Judge Refuses to Marry Black Person and White Person

[Mr.Bookworm]

Seriously (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_on_re_us/us_interracial_rebuff)

I mean, yeah, from a certain very very very very skewed sort of view while squinting with cataracts, I can kinda almost nearly see his point, but wow.

Also, is there any talk of reinstating a "weird news" thread? I would have put this in there, but yeah.

[Preturbed]

He's probably worried the offspring will become president.

[Viridis]

Louisiana. Of course. *hangs head in shame*


Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.
---
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."


Wouldn't this be kind of their decision about raising a mixed child? And if they even have children? I have a mixed friend. He says he got some grief for it as a child but obviously he's still alive and sane so it's not so big a deal that a judge can decide the kids are better off never having been born.

[Geminex]

Conservatives: Rationalizing small-mindedness with "irrefutable" facts since the 18th century!

[bluestarultor]

Can I say I'm honestly not surprised? This isn't even a faith in humanity thing. Some people just don't see mixed marriage in a good light and this guy is one of them. He shouldn't be in the position, but there are still issues with interracial marriages in society as a whole, and he's not entirely wrong in assuming the couple and their children are liable to deal with their share of crap. It's dying down a bit these days, but it's still there.

What I'm saying is as misguided as he is, there doesn't seem to be anything malicious in his intentions and he's never actually told anyone they couldn't get married, just that he wasn't their guy. That's really a very sensible way of expressing his reservations.

[Kepor]

I'm thinking this guy must be pretty old.


What I'm saying is as misguided as he is, there doesn't seem to be anything malicious in his intentions and he's never actually told anyone they couldn't get married, just that he wasn't their guy. That's really a very sensible way of expressing his reservations.

Well, he's denying them a marriage license, so he kinda is saying they can't get married. I mean, they can work around it, but it's a bit of a hassle.

[Ryanderman]

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
I have gay friends. They're great people...

Please don't lump this guy with all conservatives. Really. I know most of you here don't like the conservative political ideology. But this isn't conservative. It's just racist.

[krogothwolf]

I think there is conservative and then there is uber-conservative. Conservative political ideology isn't a bad thing, it's only when it is full blown conservatism that its actually bad. Somethings shouldn't be changed and somethings should. Not only that racism does happen on both sides of the political spectrum.

[NonCon]

Please don't lump this guy with all conservatives. Really. I know most of you here don't like the conservative political ideology. But this isn't conservative. It's just racist.

I know there's a difference, it's just that conservatives, in my experience, have this way of going fuck you to minorities or the underprivileged, and while they harp on and on about how terrible and wicked and awful big government is, they hypocritically try and create a big government that enforces their skewed morality. I know this is actually a reflection on conservatives, and not the ideologies themselves, but I don't think you can separate a system of beliefs from the people who follow it.

[bluestarultor]

Well, he's denying them a marriage license, so he kinda is saying they can't get married. I mean, they can work around it, but it's a bit of a hassle.

I guess I'd best compare it to a doctor not comfortable giving a dying patient a lethal dose of morphine. Some can suck it up and do it, others don't want to have to deal.

On the other hand, the article doesn't say whether he's the only guy in the area, which is a bit different. If he is, then he doubly shouldn't be in the position. I'm saying while I don't agree with him, he's not being, well, evil. I mean, saying "I'm not going to grant you the license, but hey, there's this local church" or something is really pretty reasonable, all things considered. As much as I hate to use the logic, there are a lot of people who would do a lot worse. The guy is pointing them in a different direction, where other people might be pointing various sharp objects.

[krogothwolf]

I guess I'd best compare it to a doctor not comfortable giving a dying patient a lethal dose of morphine. Some can suck it up and do it, others don't want to have to deal.


There is a very significant difference between that and this. One is based on killing someone and the other one is saying "I'm not going to marry you because i don't like interracial couples"

[MasterOfMagic]

What I'm saying is as misguided as he is, there doesn't seem to be anything malicious in his intentions and he's never actually told anyone they couldn't get married, just that he wasn't their guy. That's really a very sensible way of expressing his reservations.
He's being a pain in the ass for no reason other than these people's race. He's doing no one any good by making them go elsewhere for their marriage license, and he's causing the couple grief.

His intentions may not be malicious, but they are frivolous, and stupid.

EDIT:
On the other hand, the article doesn't say whether he's the only guy in the area, which is a bit different. If he is, then he doubly shouldn't be in the position.
It says his wife referred them to another person able to sign it in the area, so he's not. I still don't think someone with the urge to push their personal beliefs on someone like this should be anything close to a judge. Unfortunately yes, getting people like this is about the best we can reasonably hope for.

[Julford Hajime]

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way,"

It's around here I lost my shit and shouted "What the fuck?" at the top of my lungs. He is a justice of the peace, and his job is to interpret the law, not meld it to his whim. I could maybe, MAAAAAYBE, see his point if he'd talked with these two, and from knowing them personally said "I can't in good faith marry you two because, I'm sorry, but this just ain't gonna work out."

Instead, he's going "Is one of you white and the other black? Well, don't waste your time with me." The only 'evidence' he's sighting is that he has "witness[ed] some interracial marriages" as though this not only makes him the best judge of worth of the marriage (pun kinda intended), but that the history of law supporting such marriages was worthless in comparison to his personal feelings.

[bluestarultor]

There is a very significant difference between that and this. One is based on killing someone and the other one is saying "I'm not going to marry you because i don't like interracial couples"

My point is that there's always someone else to do it. If a couple is discouraged by being told by one guy he wasn't going to marry them, they need to seriously reconsider their relationship.

He's being a pain in the ass for no reason other than these people's race. He's doing no one any good by making them go elsewhere for their marriage license, and he's causing the couple grief.

His intentions may not be malicious, but they are frivolous, and stupid.

EDIT:

It says his wife referred them to another person able to sign it in the area, so he's not. I still don't think someone with the urge to push their personal beliefs on someone like this should be anything close to a judge. Unfortunately yes, getting people like this is about the best we can reasonably hope for.

I'm not arguing with any of that. I guess to better express myself, I'm sort of relieved that it's not, you know, worse. Like, bigotry is horrible, but at least not all bigots are the torch and pitchfork kind. He still shouldn't have the position.

[Bells]

So... the couple in question.

The Female is a Human Mammal.
The Male is a Human Mammal.

So, as long as their offspring is a Human mammal, who gives a fuck about anything else?!

PS: Judges should act in a final manner over the ruling of the law. Not Act according to what they thing that might maybe happen perhaps someday.

[MasterOfMagic]

I'm not arguing with any of that. I guess to better express myself, I'm sort of relieved that it's not, you know, worse. Like, bigotry is horrible, but at least not all bigots are the torch and pitchfork kind.

*sigh* Yeah...

[bluestarultor]

*sigh* Yeah...

*pats back* Humans are terrible, but we're working on it.

[Preturbed]

So... the couple in question.

The Female is a Human Mammal.
The Male is a Human Mammal.

So, as long as their offspring is a Human mammal, who gives a fuck about anything else?!

PS: Judges should act in a final manner over the ruling of the law. Not Act according to what they thing that might maybe happen perhaps someday.

I think the argument you're looking for is more like
Party 1 is a Human Mammal.
Party 2 is a Human Mammal.

So, as long as the love each other, who gives a fuck about anything else?!

[bluestarultor]

I think the argument you're looking for is more like
[snip]


I think the logical conclusion to this argument is:

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/9271/supportlove.png

[krogothwolf]

why is the girl child headless?

[bluestarultor]

why is the girl child headless?

I have no clue. :sweatdrop

[NonCon]

I have no clue. :sweatdrop

Necrophilia.

EDIT: Also, why no guy with tentacle beast or girl with corpse? Why no girl alone? DISCRIMINATION!

[Marc v1.0]

I would gladly support all that love if the child-lovers and the animal-humpers were excluded.

Or can we pretend the dog and human represent a platonic love and the two smaller people are just dwarves?

[krogothwolf]

Necrophilia.

you'd think a skeleton would be better then a headless chick. Cause ol'headless there made me start thinking of even weirder things then that.

But Marc, what about the tentacle lovers?

[NonCon]

But Marc, what about the tentacle lovers?

They don't love the tentacle, the tentacle loves them.

[Marc v1.0]

As long as it's an adult, consensual relationship between the human party and the tentacle beast party where no rape occurs save in the form of consented role-playing for their fantasies.

[CABAL49]

So... the couple in question.

The Female is a Human Mammal.
The Male is a Human Mammal.

So, as long as their offspring is a Human mammal, who gives a fuck about anything else?!



That's racist dude. What about sweet green alien love?

[Julford Hajime]

And why do they have to be Human mammals, specifically? What've you got against humans-turned-reptile like that one Spidey villain, Lizard?

[Viridis]

And why do they have to be Human mammals, specifically? What've you got against humans-turned-reptile like that one Spidey villain, Lizard?

Also bird people. We're excluding the bird people.

[Xellos]

What about the female pedophiles? Yet again, women are put on the second rung of society.

[Geminex]

And why do they have to be Human mammals, specifically? What've you got against humans-turned-reptile like that one Spidey villain, Lizard?

Very good point. Society expects them to restrain their criminal urges, but how can they if they are constantly being discriminated against. If you cut them, do they not bleed? Are they not men, as we are, albeit lizard-men? Are they not part of our society, of the nuklear dream? Well, fellow forumers, I had a dream! A dream that every man, no matter how black or white or green or scaly can walk proudly among our threads, their heads held high! And I will fight to achieve this dream!
So vote Geminex for mayor at the upcoming NPF Mayor's elections!
Geminex: For a more equal future.

[Mesden]

Please don't lump this guy with all conservatives. Really. I know most of you here don't like the conservative political ideology. But this isn't conservative. It's just racist.

It's dumb to lump all conservatives with rationalizing racists.

It's almost empirically proven that you can dump rationalizing racists with republicans.

I'm not saying there aren't exceptions and I understand trying to distance one's ideology with something so inherently wrong, but when your ideology is by definition opposed to progression, it definitely leaks over into social issues that need progression.

[Funka Genocide]

so like, this dude is going to get fired right?

because, you totally can't do that. I mean, in America. No seriously, you can't.

[Magic_Marker]

This guys stupid just beat Darkwing's awesome.

[Me-Doken]

It's dumb to lump all conservatives with rationalizing racists.

It's almost empirically proven that you can dump rationalizing racists with republicans.


No, given the enormous numbers of Democratic primary voters who unabashedly cited race as an important factor in their vote (and not that it should matter, but this was a huge phenomenon in the states that Clinton won), it is almost empirically proven that racism transcends party.

so like, this dude is going to get fired right?

because, you totally can't do that. I mean, in America. No seriously, you can't.

No, you can't, not in this century.

I doubt he can be directly fired. If he was elected, there may be a recall option available. In any case, I seriously doubt he will get re-elected after this. I saw a poll that said 75% want him to be punished over this, and while that's sadly low, its also easily high enough for him to lose in a landslide to a challenger, running on the "I am not a racist" platform.

If he was appointed, you'd have to wait until his term was up I guess. But again, he isn't going to get re-appointed now that he is radioactive. So he will be as fired as a Judge can be.

I'm sure he can be disciplined, and maybe he'll be the target of a lawsuit as well, although I'm a bit doubtful that you can do that against a judge over a legal decision, unless there is corruption involved. And maybe he can be disbarred, which I guess would be a way to fire him. Who am I kidding, I have no idea.

Disgusting as the racism is, probably the worst part of this is that a judge thought it was his business to decide whether a marriage would work, period.

[Kepor]

so like, this dude is going to get fired right?

because, you totally can't do that. I mean, in America. No seriously, you can't.

Looks like Louisiana elects the justice of the peace, so maybe.

[MasterOfMagic]

And maybe he can be disbarred, which I guess would be a way to fire him. Who am I kidding, I have no idea.
He may not even be a lawyer. Some states don't require that of their justices of the peace. The title varies so much from place to place its hard to say anything about it.

[The Wandering God]

Louisiana. Of course. *hangs head in shame*

And here I always thought I was the only one from here who came to these forums.

Mostly because a good chunk of this state seems to be occupied by guys like that asshole judge.

His "Won't somebody think of the children?" shtick is so reeking of Republican sentiment it's nauseating. (Certainly we shouldn't count on the PARENTS to think of their children, amirite?)

Also,
I know there's a difference, it's just that conservatives, in my experience, have this way of going fuck you to minorities or the underprivileged, and while they harp on and on about how terrible and wicked and awful big government is, they hypocritically try and create a big government that enforces their skewed morality. I know this is actually a reflection on conservatives, and not the ideologies themselves, but I don't think you can separate a system of beliefs from the people who follow it.
The way I see it is this:

Conservatives value order and freedom.
Liberals value equality and freedom.

Thus Republicans will pass laws that maintain the status quo, and liberals want to pass laws that even things out. Obviously, there are problems with both if taken too far. (Which is what is going on in this case.)

Besides, eventually we'll all be one race anyway. (Unless we destroy ourselves first.) Remember, genetic diversity is a GOOD thing.

[TDK]

I have gay friends. They're great people...

But do you have piles and PILES of them?

[MasterOfMagic]

And do they use your bathroom?

[Nique]

Haha. Ok let's see:

"I'm not a racist... "

O-kaaay...

"I just don't believe in mixing the races that way..."

Well, alright, that's not technically racist, maybe(!?) but it is something else, and it isn't good...

"I have piles and piles of black friends"

Arg! Dude! You are racist! You're TOTALLY racist!

[Marc v1.0]

The general rule is if you start off a story or excuse with "You know I have TONS of X friends, right?" then you need to seriously evaluate the next words out of your mouth.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Didn't write this, but I read this on a thread on another board (http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=63448&view=findpost&p=1362506):

This guy has been a justice for 34 years so it's possible he was raised in an era when the definition of racist was very different from what it is now, hence why he honestly thinks he isn't one. Or maybe he's simply an emotional reactionary who's trying to find a legitimate justification for his irrational feelings towards black people.

Eitherway he needs to be removed from the bench.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/16/louisiana.interracial.marriage/

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- The actions of a justice of the peace in Louisiana who refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple have prompted some top officials, including Gov. Bobby Jindal, to call for his dismissal.

"This is a clear violation of constitutional rights and federal and state law. ... Disciplinary action should be taken immediately -- including the revoking of his license," the Republican governor said.

SWB

[bluestarultor]

Shouldn't the governor be able to just dismiss the guy himself? Given he's pretty much the highest elected official in the state, there has to be some pull on his end somehow. 0_o

[Premonitions]

I wanna Kick an old white guy's ass now, and then mess up his toilet
Now, on to the discussion at hand,

I'm not arguing with any of that. I guess to better express myself, I'm sort of relieved that it's not, you know, worse. Like, bigotry is horrible, but at least not all bigots are the torch and pitchfork kind.

This Aint about Neo-Nazis, Noone gives a fuck about those idiots! It's about the White supremacist power structure and DAMMIT I'M ALL OUTTA CHEESE! (http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=b6104f8443001ace1ded1d031ae03017)

[Archbio]

"I just don't believe in mixing the races that way..."

Well, alright, that's not technically racist, maybe(!?) but it is something else, and it isn't good...


"I have piles and piles of black friends"
Arg! Dude! You are racist! You're TOTALLY racist!

I think there's some observation to be made from the fact that a rethorical trick meant to deflect an accusation of racism has come to be considered a more obvious sign of racism than... well... things like insisting on the need for races being kept separate in some way.

I think it might be a positive sign.

[bluestarultor]

This Aint about Neo-Nazis, NOone gives a fuck about those idiots! it's about the White supremacist power structure and DAMMIT I'M ALL OUTTA CHEESE! (http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=b6104f8443001ace1ded1d031ae03017)

Okay, I seem to have caught this mid-edit, but I'll roll with it.

When you get the extremists, they are, in fact, harder to deal with, because they go underground and try not to leave undue evidence against themselves, no survivors, clean the prints, etc. They're overall much more dangerous because of this, and while, no, they don't hold political clout, they cause much more damage to everything ranging from persons to property to public order.

A guy like this is an ass, yes, but it's only taken four couples to call him out on it and only took so many because what he's doing really isn't all that damaging. Inconvenient, yes, but overall pretty benign. If you still want to point out the power structure in this, I can make the point that he's going to be removed post-haste because of the attention this is getting, which will encourage others to do the same if put into the same situation. Overall, this case is actually GOOD for cleaning out the power structure in a pretty benign way.

If you look at the numbers, white people comprise a small portion of America compared to "minorities." Minorities are still considered the minority because they're the political minority. The government is chock full of WASPs even now, because it takes money to campaign and get in. On the other hand, America as a whole is decidedly NOT WASP, which means that those few are going to be crushed like bugs if they don't cater enough to public opinion. :J

[Premonitions]

When you get the extremists, they are, in fact, harder to deal with, because they go underground and try not to leave undue evidence against themselves, no survivors, clean the prints, etc. They're overall much more dangerous because of this, and while, no, they don't hold political clout, they cause much more damage to everything ranging from persons to property to public order.

Hah, okay, really?
So, you're worried about a secret, shadowy cabal of white supremacists? Most of the people who hate that hard are'nt secret about it at all. In fact, they never shut the fuck up about it. So while yeah, Swastika-face guy might kill a person or two, and yeah, that REALLY sucks, compare the threat of a terrorist cell and their bombings to a Crazy-ass warlord that has been waging war on the surrounding regions for years and opressess the people in his own land.

While the terrorist might kill maybe twenty people, or even a hundred people over the course of his career, the warlord kills and oppresses millions in his whole lifetime, manipulates the minds and hearts of a whole army and country to his whims to make them perpetuate his evil over years to come.


A guy like this is an ass, yes, but it's only taken four couples to call him out on it and only took so many because what he's doing really isn't all that damaging. Inconvenient, yes, but overall pretty benign. If you still want to point out the power structure in this, I can make the point that he's going to be removed post-haste because of the attention this is getting, which will encourage others to do the same if put into the same situation. Overall, this case is actually GOOD for cleaning out the power structure in a pretty benign way.

This judge, this obviously racist judge, has been in office for, what, thirty plus years? In all that time he's probably done much more to hurt his surrounding community in less than subtle ways along racial lines. Because Swastika-face guy? he doe'snt get to be a justice. He probably does'nt get a job(Which is kinda fucked up, but I digress) unless his uncle with a swastika on his chest let's him work at his business. Mr. "hmm, black people are lazy, best not say anything though, less the PC police get me" gets to run things.


If you look at the numbers, white people comprise a small portion of America compared to "minorities." Minorities are still considered the minority because they're the political minority. The government is chock full of WASPs even now, because it takes money to campaign and get in. On the other hand, America as a whole is decidedly NOT WASP, which means that those few are going to be crushed like bugs if they don't cater enough to public opinion. :J
And this has what to do with what, exactly?

[bluestarultor]

Hah, okay, really?
So, you're worried about a secret, shadowy cabal of white supremacists? Most of the people who hate that hard are'nt secret about it at all. In fact, they never shut the fuck up about it. So while yeah, Swastika-face guy might kill a person or two, and yeah, that REALLY sucks, compare the threat of a terrorist cell and their bombings to a Crazy-ass warlord that has been waging war on the surrounding regions for years and opressess the people in his own land.

While the terrorist might kill maybe twenty people, or even a hundred people over the course of his career, the warlord kills and oppresses millions in his whole lifetime, manipulates the minds and hearts of a whole army and country to his whims to make them perpetuate his evil over years to come.

Warlord? Come on. Comparing this guy to a warlord holds the same weight as comparing a rat to a Tasmanian devil. Unless you're not making the comparison, in which case, I have no idea what you're getting at here.

This judge, this obviously racist judge, has been in office for, what, thirty plus years? In all that time he's probably done much more to hurt his surrounding community in less than subtle ways along racial lines. Because Swastika-face guy? he doe'snt get to be a justice. He probably does'nt get a job(Which is kinda fucked up, but I digress) unless his uncle with a swastika on his chest let's him work at his business. Mr. "hmm, black people are lazy, best not say anything though, less the PC police get me" gets to run things.

Uh, he's not a judge? He's a justice of the peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_peace#United_States), which from what I'm reading is like a judge wannabe that only is able to deal with misdemeanors and shit real judges don't need to be bothered with. Read the link. The worst this guy could have done is ruled against a black guy over a parking ticket.

And this has what to do with what, exactly?

My point being, yeah, there's probably a TON of racial bias in the system, but they can't cross the line too much or else the media snaps it up and the people cause them grief. Kinda like right now.

[MasterOfMagic]

Warlord? Come on. Comparing this guy to a warlord holds the same weight as comparing a rat to a Tasmanian devil. Unless you're not making the comparison, in which case, I have no idea what you're getting at here.
Probably because he was comparing him to the terrorist cell, as far as I can tell.


Uh, he's not a judge? He's a justice of the peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_peace#United_States), which from what I'm reading is like a judge wannabe that only is able to deal with misdemeanors and shit real judges don't need to be bothered with. Read the link. The worst this guy could have done is ruled against a black guy over a parking ticket.
He's in a position of power, and thus has been influencing things was the point. A person who's openly racist will be ignored, a person who's not can subtly encourage the culture (there's a better word than culture, but I can't think of it for the moment).

[bluestarultor]

He's in a position of power, and thus has been influencing things was the point. A person who's openly racist will be ignored, a person who's not can subtly encourage the culture (there's a better word than culture, but I can't think of it for the moment).

There's very little the guy can influence. His duties boil down to:
- marriage
- petty offenses
- small claims

And if the parties don't like his ruling, they don't even have to appeal. They can just get an entirely new trial and his is essentially thrown out. The guy can't even set precedent with those conditions.

Really, the worst this guy is even in legal standards is a pain in the ass. His position is there to take the burden off of judges and then only if people feel like letting him, be it before or after the fact.



Edit: I'm STILL not saying he should be left in the position. Just that his overall impact is much less than people seem to think.

[MasterOfMagic]

There's very little the guy can influence. His duties boil down to:
- marriage
- petty offenses
- small claims

And if the parties don't like his ruling, they don't even have to appeal. They can just get an entirely new trial and his is essentially thrown out. The guy can't even set precedent with those conditions.

Really, the worst this guy is even in legal standards is a pain in the ass. His position is there to take the burden off of judges and then only if people feel like letting him, be it before or after the fact.
The ability to not be ignored has nothing to do with his job description. In fact, while being a justice of the peace doesn't merit many powers in the government, it does carry a bit of prestige to the layman.

[Premonitions]

Warlord? Come on. Comparing this guy to a warlord holds the same weight as comparing a rat to a Tasmanian devil. Unless you're not making the comparison, in which case, I have no idea what you're getting at here.
You brought in the issue of violence. My original point was that "pitchfork weilding mobs" were hardly the real issue as it pertains to racism, as they rarely cause any more trouble than low-level violence, and that the real issue is the Constant racial pressure in our culture everyday. Since you used the threat of some undergorund Terrorist organization, as a constant threat of violence, I used a parallel between an active and constant violent opression and intermittent, sporadic acts of violence. To put it another way, What is a bigger threat, the wolves which might be in the forest or the bear in your house?


Uh, he's not a judge? He's a justice of the peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_peace#United_States), which from what I'm reading is like a judge wannabe that only is able to deal with misdemeanors and shit real judges don't need to be bothered with. Read the link. The worst this guy could have done is ruled against a black guy over a parking ticket.
Meh when I heard this elsewhere they said judge, post title says judge, does'nt affect my point much, we still had a racist involved in an important position in that state's legislature, he still affected people in his communtiy, and there's still similar situations going on in different ways in different places

My point being, yeah, there's probably a TON of racial bias in the system, but they can't cross the line too much or else the media snaps it up and the people cause them grief. Kinda like right now.
okay... so... you're point is.... They're not allowed to beat people up anymore,(if they get caught) so we should be cool with them calling people names and dicking them around passive agressively? what does this have to do with anything being said?

[bluestarultor]

Edit: You know what? I'm just going to step out of this discussion until people cool down a bit.

[Magus]

There are a lot of supposedly not-racist people who think that people of different races shouldn't get married, usually based on the Catch-22 belief that people won't accept biracial children into society, which is usually because there's a bunch of people who think that people of different races shouldn't get married.

I don't know, I guess they're racist in this one thing then, as I really do think it's racist. I mean, when you start out from a position of asking people what race they are in determining whether or not you'll let them marry, then said action is racist, whether or not your intentions are technically racist.

I just don't think it's justified to tell people they can't get married because some racists are going to have a problem with their children, rather we should be telling the racists to GTFO, to put it in internet slang terms.

[Premonitions]

Edit: You know what? I'm just going to step out of this discussion until people cool down a bit.


Somebody gave you some cheese (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Dmnu3Zvzs) did'nt they?
edit: boy that starts to look creepy after a while....

[Fifthfiend]

There are a lot of supposedly not-racist people who think that people of different races shouldn't get married, usually based on the Catch-22 belief that people won't accept biracial children into society, which is usually because there's a bunch of people who think that people of different races shouldn't get married.

I don't know, I guess they're racist in this one thing then, as I really do think it's racist. I mean, when you start out from a position of asking people what race they are in determining whether or not you'll let them marry, then said action is racist, whether or not your intentions are technically racist.

I just don't think it's justified to tell people they can't get married because some racists are going to have a problem with their children, rather we should be telling the racists to GTFO, to put it in internet slang terms.

It's racist because the entire point is to make the victims of racism reorder their lives to accommodate racists, that they have to live a certain way because if they don't then racists will get upset. It's tacitly saying that we can't go around expecting racists to like, stop being racist, so instead we have to punish people for not kowtowing to racism.

[Premonitions]

It's racist because the entire point is to make the victims of racism reorder their lives to accommodate racists, that they have to live a certain way because if they don't then racists will get upset.

*nitpick hat*
Just as "having Black friends use your toilet" does'nt mean you're not engaged in racist activites at a given time, "My wife's black" does'nt mean you're inherently not-racist,
*takes off nitpick hat*
but yeah, everything else fifth said is true.

[Fifthfiend]

It looks like the bit Premonitions meant to quote got edited out before he hit the button. Basically the statement he's referring to was dumb for the reasons he says it was.

[Premonitions]

S'all good baby, just jump into my next naked hug-fest (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showthread.php?t=35604&page=19)and it's forgiven

[Nique]

I think it might be a positive sign.

¿Que?

I guess I was sort of (humorously) coming from the standpoint of giving him the benefit of the doubt with the first statement cause, yeah, if you're genuinely concerned or whatever then well you can't really call that somewhat legitimate concern racist. But if your foundation is shaky enough to pull the 'My friends are black! PILES OF MY FRIENDS!' card, well...

On the rest of the thread:

This is almost like the 'Republican's for Rape' thread in that really there is no other position than this is stupid and wrong. We're basically inventing nuances to explore.

[Fifthfiend]

It can be worth exploring those nuances. I didn't really know what my views on this were until I'd thought about it some.

[Premonitions]

¿Que?

I guess I was sort of (humorously) coming from the standpoint of giving him the benefit of the doubt with the first statement cause, yeah, if you're genuinely concerned or whatever then well you can't really call that somewhat legitimate concern racist. But if your foundation is shaky enough to pull the 'My friends are black! PILES OF MY FRIENDS!' card, well...

On the rest of the thread:

This is almost like the 'Republican's for Rape' thread in that really there is no other position than this is stupid and wrong. We're basically inventing nuances to explore.

His arguments are almost word for word the same arguments made by those against gay marriage(and or adoption) in regards to child rearing...... take that as you will

[Archbio]

I guess I was sort of (humorously) coming from the standpoint of giving him the benefit of the doubt with the first statement cause, yeah, if you're genuinely concerned or whatever then well you can't really call that somewhat legitimate concern racist.

I don't see why you can't. No context or pretext makes "people shouldn't miscegenate (and I will use my authority to try and enforce that)" not racist. It's just a basically racist notion with no motivation outside of racism, even if that racism is supposed to come totally from outside.

My light observation was that it must mean something that something so unambiguously racist is seen as more ambiguous than a rethorical trick created to obfuscate, a trick that relies on a statement that's just racist because of the context in which it's used. When I said it was a "positive sign" I meant that I was taking that for a sign that "I have friends that are X" was a discredited rethorical trick, but I don't know, maybe on the contrary it means that people are expecting covert, shamed and defensive racism... and not racist attitudes carried on supposed good intentions: which is the way of a lot of racism in Western societies historically.

[bluestarultor]

His arguments are almost word for word the same arguments made by those against gay marriage(and or adoption) in regards to child rearing...... take that as you will

Only studies actually show that the main reason people don't want gays to adopt, the entire turning out gay thing, is completely the opposite. I read somewhere that kids raised by gay couples actually had something like a 6% lower chance of turning out gay than kids raised by straight couples. On the other hand, interracial marriages are looked down upon in, well, frankly an infinite percent (or nearly so) more than same-race marriages, given you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who'd be all like "a WHITE guy and a WHITE woman? God, that's just WRONG!" And given that there's pretty strong evidence the kids share in that crap, it's honestly, while not a good reason to break the law and deny a marriage license, at least true.

Just thought I'd point that out.

[Marc v1.0]

If he had said to the couple "Look, I'll marry you, but I want you to know that as a mixed-race couple, your children may be heavily discriminated against for most of their lives from both races. I want you to be absolutly sure you've considered this situation and had time to cover it with each other how you would want it handled." that would be cool, not racist, and very mature.

On the other hand "No, you're mixed race and I don't do that" then half assing a "Well, it was for the children! I love blacks! I know more black people then anyone else I know! Honest!" when he got called on it...yeah, lame.

[Premonitions]

Only studies actually show that the main reason people don't want gays to adopt, the entire turning out gay thing, is completely the opposite. I read somewhere that kids raised by gay couples actually had something like a 6% lower chance of turning out gay than kids raised by straight couples. On the other hand, interracial marriages are looked down upon in, well, frankly an infinite percent (or nearly so) more than same-race marriages, given you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who'd be all like "a WHITE guy and a WHITE woman? God, that's just WRONG!" And given that there's pretty strong evidence the kids share in that crap, it's honestly, while not a good reason to break the law and deny a marriage license, at least true.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Well, There are also people making the argument that the kids, straight,gay or otherwise, will have to deal with the social issues of "Johnny has Two mommies/daddies" and get mistreated, which would be similar to "Johny's parents don't match" and by that logic, they should be discouraging the marriage and procreation of anyone not white, and anyone who might have female children. Or people with genetics pre-disposed for "ugliness" or anything our culture does'nt like. It's still bad justification for bad behavior.

As for the kids themselves, that's an issue of self identity, social treatment, and the crapshoot that is phenotypes. I myself look pretty "mixed" but not so much so that I'm not distinctly African-American. I self-identify as Black And/or Bi-racial(meaning it's different at different times). I can definitely attest that, when I'm not being treated "black" I'm being treated "something else", and that has been a major issue for me, not helped by how my family chose to deal with it.

In fact this was an endless source of the giggles for me during Obama's campaign where you'd hear "He's half white too, you know" in this sort of argumentative way. My response being: "No, not really, not looking like that he's not. He's half bi-racial and Half Black because he looks pretty damn black, has been treated pretty damn black throughout his life, and when he was'nt getting that experience, he was getting the bi-racial experience. But never the white experience."

Put simply, This guy's racist, fuck him, let's go get a drink.

[DarkDrgon]

Put simply, This guy's racist, fuck him, let's go get a drink.

5 steps ahead of you

[bluestarultor]

Well, There are also people making the argument that the kids, straight,gay or otherwise, will have to deal with the social issues of "Johnny has Two mommies/daddies" and get mistreated, which would be similar to "Johny's parents don't match" and by that logic, they should be discouraging the marriage and procreation of anyone not white, and anyone who might have female children. Or people with genetics pre-disposed for "ugliness" or anything our culture does'nt like. It's still bad justification for bad behavior.

As for the kids themselves, that's an issue of self identity, social treatment, and the crapshoot that is phenotypes. I myself look pretty "mixed" but not so much so that I'm not distinctly African-American. I self-identify as Black And/or Bi-racial(meaning it's different at different times). I can definitely attest that, when I'm not being treated "black" I'm being treated "something else", and that has been a major issue for me, not helped by how my family chose to deal with it.

In fact this was an endless source of the giggles for me during Obama's campaign where you'd hear "He's half white too, you know" in this sort of argumentative way. My response being: "No, not really, not looking like that he's not. He's half bi-racial and Half Black because he looks pretty damn black, has been treated pretty damn black throughout his life, and when he was'nt getting that experience, he was getting the bi-racial experience. But never the white experience."

Put simply, This guy's racist, fuck him, let's go get a drink.

That I can agree with. Not because I'm bi-racial or anything (I'm whiter than sour cream and sunburn like a vampire), but because there's also a stigma against broken homes and not having much money (we're best described as a single-income, working-class household and had certain rough times over my childhood) and various other factors I've dealt with over time. Simply put, people can be dicks for next to no reason at all, and if there's any way they can justify it, they will.

Like I've been very vocal about saying, I certainly do not agree with this guy. I've just been trying to raise a point that ultimately, the most impact he's going to have is going to be a possible cleanup of the system in places where it matters more than his measly post and that while his justification and actions are wrong, they're better than others and overall, this is a pretty benign way of combating a much larger and more serious issue.

Putting this in perspective, this guy was being a midget prick bending over to trip people and now he's getting kicked in the ass for it, which is going to provide a template for how to kick someone a bit bigger in the ass for being a prick and so on up the line.

[Viridis]

Followup, comments from the justice. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/interracial.marriage/index.html)

[bluestarultor]

Followup. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/interracial.marriage/index.html)

That's really not so much follow-up as much as saying the same stuff in different words. Has anything actually happened? I mean, he says he stands by it, but that really doesn't count, and of course he's going to stand by it, because back-pedaling would be an admission he's in the wrong.

I was, you know, hoping to hear about an actual suit being filed against him.

[Viridis]

A few new things from that article. For starters: The couple went to another justice and got married; they have contacted an attorney to see what they can do in regards to Bardwell.

[Nique]

I don't see why you can't. No context or pretext makes "people shouldn't miscegenate (and I will use my authority to try and enforce that)" not racist. It's just a basically racist notion with no motivation outside of racism, even if that racism is supposed to come totally from outside.


Well, let's put it this way - I'M concerned about possible racism my hypothetical children might face. I'm of a largely European persuasion and my wife is Korean/Hawaiian so good luck figuring out exactly what my kids will look like. That concern alone is not racist.

That said, I realize that I quoted the portion about 'not believing in mixing races in that way'. All I really meant was that I guess if I squinted just right and ignored everything else he said, maybe the reason for 'not believing in mixing races in that way' wasn't technically racist, but it is most certainly something else that is just as bad. Although I think we've pretty much established that it is racist though.

Bardwell has not returned repeated calls from CNN this week. But he told Hammond's Daily Star in a story Thursday that he did not marry the couple because he was concerned for the children who might be born of the relationship and that, in his experience, most interracial marriages don't last.

Well uhh, ok, MOST marriages don't last regardless of the ethnicity of the couple so by that logic he shouldn't be endorsing any marriages whatsoever.

[Mesden]

All the obvious racism aside, what's to stop them from having kids anyhow? Do you really think the couple, hell bent on getting married, would stray from having kids and a family just because you didn't officiate a wedding for them? State marriage is entirely superficial to a degree and won't rear any couple who wants to have kids from having some damn kids.

The man is ignorant, racist, and has logic development akin to a six year old.

[TheWolf13]

That article seems to have been write by a journalist who doesn't know what she is writing about. There is a difference between issuing a marriage license and marrying a couple. One the justice of the Peace has the legal right to deny the other he does not.

If he refused to issue the license the couples only option is to travel to a different county to obtain a license.

If he refused to marry them all they need to do is find someone licensed to marry them by the state of Louisiana.

A justice of the peace does not have a legal obligation to marry a couple and does so in addition to the normal responsibilities of his job.

[Hatake Kakashi]

I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way.

I bet he's got gills and a pointed head. Might I suggest dating someone with almond-shaped eyes and slightly darker skin? You might find them a refreshing dip in the gene pool...


"I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

I think the only part missing there was

Then I break out the whips and plows and yell "BACK TO WORK, N****RS!" And wait for the cotton harvest to come in. *chawspit*

Wow. I wonder if he'd exclude any future black sons-in-law from Christmas because "them thar negroes have Kwanzaa. Shouldn't mix the holidays. Neither group would accept us."

[secretskull]

Don't you people think you're taking this a bit too far? Yes, he is racist, do to the definition of the word. He is doing something different because of their race. I don't agree with his reasons myself, but I don't think we should be all up in arms because of that. It seems that the children truly are what he was concerned about.

I mean, we don't let cousins marry, because we're worried about the children. (Admittedly, for a different reason).

In short, though his reasoning is wrongheaded in my opinion, and if he was actually acting to prevent them for marrying each other I would be more upset. But, as things are now, he's simply being more vocal about his beliefs, and isn't willing to give up on his principles, (such as they are).

[Viridis]

Don't you people think you're taking this a bit too far? Yes, he is racist, do to the definition of the word. He is doing something different because of their race. I don't agree with his reasons myself, but I don't think we should be all up in arms because of that. It seems that the children truly are what he was concerned about.

I mean, we don't let cousins marry, because we're worried about the children. (Admittedly, for a different reason).
He's afraid, essentially, that the children might get bullied. That's about it. For something like that, it's not his decision to make and he shouldn't go around making it for everyone he comes across.

He decided two people shouldn't get married because they might have kids and those kids might possibly be bullied because they're different.

Every kid gets picked on for something at some point. If not this, then something else.

[secretskull]

He decided two people shouldn't get married because they might have kids and those kids might possibly be bullied because they're different.

Not that shouldn't get married, just that he isn't willing to endorse it himself. He isn't stopping them, but he doesn't think it's right.

[krogothwolf]

The thing that bugs me is that there is a belief that kids will be treated poorly if they are mixed race. Kids are cruel and will make fun of each other for anything. Shouldn't we be working on it to make it so kids will not be making fun or picking on others due to race or religion? School's should be teaching them otherwise which makes me wonder if he's worried about the other kids, or the parents of the other kids teaching them to hate.

Honestly, you'd think by now the world would be over this racism crap. We are all pretty much the same anyways.

[MasterOfMagic]

In short, though his reasoning is wrongheaded in my opinion, and if he was actually acting to prevent them for marrying each other I would be more upset. But, as things are now, he's simply being more vocal about his beliefs, and isn't willing to give up on his principles, (such as they are).
And his principals he is being vocal about are exactly why he shouldn't hold the position he does.

I mean, we don't let cousins marry, because we're worried about the children. (Admittedly, for a different reason).
Such an amazingly different reason. So much so that trying to compare the two is rather disingenuous. And in any case, the "for the children" thing seems more like a cop out to me. As it usually is for stuff like this.

[secretskull]

And his principals he is being vocal about are exactly why he shouldn't hold the position he does.

He isn't exactly broadcasting his opinion to the masses. It might not be the best way to go about it, but it is his right to express his opinion and stand by it, even through this medium. It may verge on abuse of power, but it doesn't seem to constitute one, as he hasn't been dismissed yet, (and they would dismiss him like a shot if they had a legal recourse).


Such an amazingly different reason. So much so that trying to compare the two is rather disingenuous. And in any case, the "for the children" thing seems more like a cop out to me. As it usually is for stuff like this.

I apologize if I offended in any way. I was trying to show that we use "for the children", to justify many many things in life. We shouldn't start doubting it just because it's a more hot-button issue at stake.

[NonCon]

He isn't exactly broadcasting his opinion to the masses. It might not be the best way to go about it, but it is his right to express his opinion and stand by it, even through this medium. It may verge on abuse of power, but it doesn't seem to constitute one, as he hasn't been dismissed yet, (and they would dismiss him like a shot if they had a legal recourse).

I feel that having such backwards, ignorant views is sufficient enough to disqualify him for the position, especially since you can't be certain it won't influence other decisions relevant his job.

[MasterOfMagic]

He isn't exactly broadcasting his opinion to the masses. It might not be the best way to go about it, but it is his right to express his opinion and stand by it, even through this medium. It may verge on abuse of power, but it doesn't seem to constitute one, as he hasn't been dismissed yet, (and they would dismiss him like a shot if they had a legal recourse).
My qualm with him being in office isn't that he expressed an opinion. Its that he actually holds the opinion he expressed. In other words, its fine if he wants to say what he wants to say, but believing in these kinds of things puts serious doubt on his capability to carry out the law.

I apologize if I offended in any way. I was trying to show that we use "for the children", to justify many many things in life. We shouldn't start doubting it just because it's a more hot-button issue at stake.
Well, this particular "for the children" is worthless. You have to judge these things on a case by case basis.

[bluestarultor]

Guys, I think we're forgetting that his actions actually are against federal and state law. I mean, it's a pretty benign way of expressing himself, and as I said, he doesn't really hold much influence, but the fact of the matter is that he's going to be dismissed once this hits court, because he's broken the law on four occasions and has admitted it. That's the same as a guy working at a bank having embezzled money four times and admitting it or a teacher having a fling with students four times and admitting it. They don't get to keep the position and will never work in the field again. Admittedly, his is less serious than my other examples, and he may not face jail time, but the guy isn't going to keep the job.

[secretskull]

I feel that having such backwards, ignorant views is sufficient enough to disqualify him for the position, especially since you can't be certain it won't influence other decisions relevant his job.

My qualm with him being in office isn't that he expressed an opinion. Its that he actually holds the opinion he expressed. In other words, its fine if he wants to say what he wants to say, but believing in these kinds of things puts serious doubt on his capability to carry out the law.


It's not really for me to judge on this matter. I don't know how he's done his job all this time. But I will say that he's been doing his job for a few decades, while holding these views, and there haven't been any serious complaints other then this.

Guys, I think we're forgetting that his actions actually are against federal and state law. I mean, it's a pretty benign way of expressing himself, and as I said, he doesn't really hold much influence, but the fact of the matter is that he's going to be dismissed once this hits court, because he's broken the law on four occasions and has admitted it.

Is it against the law though? Does a Justice of Peace have the right to refuse to marry certain people if he so chooses? I assumed the government would of done something against him already if he had actually broken the law.

The couple is seeking legal action against him yes, but that's a matter for civil court.

[Funka Genocide]

I think it's pretty obvious that this is a case of pure, unadulterated ignorance left to fester for decades and culminating in, strangely enough, a justice of the peace.

remove him from office, let him know that yes he is being a racist and go on about your business.

Besides, who gets married to make babies anymore? Do that shit for a tax write off!

[bluestarultor]

Is it against the law though? Does a Justice of Peace have the right to refuse to marry certain people if he so chooses? I assumed the government would of done something against him already if he had actually broken the law.

The couple is seeking legal action against him yes, but that's a matter for civil court.

"This is a clear violation of constitutional rights and federal and state law. ... Disciplinary action should be taken immediately -- including the revoking of his license," the Republican governor said.

Patricia Morris, president of the NAACP branch of Tangipahoa Parish said her NAACP chapter has forwarded the case to the state and national levels of the civil rights group.

"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," Morris said Thursday. "If he doesn't do what his position calls for him to do, he should resign from that position."

The U.S. Supreme Court tossed out any racially based limitations on marriage in the landmark 1967 Loving v. Virginia case. In the unanimous decision, the court said that "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."

Yes, his actions were against the law.

[Megaman FTW]

You guys know that po-dunk hicktown I live in that I've been saying is a racist ass backwards hole in the swamp for the last year?

Well, turns out that happened right here in my back yard. Hammond, Louisiana is only 20 minutes drive away from my house. I go there once a week to go to Wal Mart and Game Stop.

So... Yeah. I totally believe this. Racism has been a giant problem in this area for a long time, and I've heard of much worse than this. Heck, even now black people can't move into Holden (The even smaller town, where I go to school 15 minutes away) without fear of having a cross burned in their yard/their house burned down/their children beaten because people are so blatantly openly racist.