A Louisiana justice of the peace refuses to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple...He doesn't think that the marriages work out very well and is concerned for the children the couple may have... He claims not to be racist, I don't believe that for a second...I was shocked when I read about this...So, what are your thoughts???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091016/ap_on_re_us/us_interracial_rebuff

 

it´s idiotic !

i just can´t follow one thing ... what is the justice of peace in the states ?

 

For Bar and other puzzled citizens of the world.

In the United States a Justice of the Peace is a very minor judge. He/she has jurisdiction in cases such as moter vehicle laws (reckless driving, speeding, etc.) and is empowered to issue marriage licenses, etc in some states. He might also handle cases like public drunkenness, disorderly conduct, etc.

 

so sad. It would be nice to see people to be able to marry in the US.

 

SO STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! discrimination is STILL alive and well in the U.S.!!!!!!!!

 

I can see his point. Interracial couples and their half-and-half offspring do face abuse from both sides - their children especially. The black community doesn't want the child because it's too white, and the white community doesn't want it because it's too black.

Nonetheless, concerned though he may have been, he does not have the right to refuse.

Was he racist? It's hard to tell. If he is, then he has been clever enough to choose a valid point to justify what he did.

 

I believe you're right - can any of our American peeps confirm it? I'm pretty sure that the JP's role in a case like this is only to rubber-stamp the application - his concern that the marriage won't work out is not legal grounds for refusing a licence.

 

I think it's interesting to note that he explicitly says he didn't tell them they couldn't get married, only that he felt unable to do it with a clear conscience. Not only that, but they were directed to another judge who would.

This is hardly the action of a racist man.

 

Had a laugh at this line...

 

Ok, there are actually two issues here and I am confused by the article. I believe the issuance of a license is pretty much rubber stamped (some states have medical requirements such as blood tests before issuance). The other question is the marriage; was the JP being asked to marry them or not, if so, any person who has the authority to marry may refuse to do so for whatever reason he/she desires and does not even have to express the reason.

While I disagree with this man's reasoning he is within his rights to refuse to marry the couple, again, for whatever reason he has. Is the man racist or just ill informed, I can't say.

 

with the outbreak of the outbreak of this all... this "minor judge" is screwed

 

The state this case is in, is pretty well known for being discriminatory, but I don't have enough info to decide if it was based on race or not. They will still be able to get married, he just refuses to do it, it's illegal to just not allow some one to get married, Unless there gay of course. Hope fully that will change soon too.

 

Civil marriages, and the issuance of marriage licenses, is a purely ministerial function. It's not for this guy to judge whether the marriage will last or not, or whether the children will be happy.

And I'm sorry, this guy's racism is the worst kept secret in captivity. His statements are laden with it. "They come to my home, they use my bathroom...". Why was it even necessary to say something like that?

 

I have a few lawyer friends who are praying for the state to legalize gay marriage, their divorce cases will double in cost and the number of divorces will increase by at least 15%.

 

It's understandable seeing that the more people getting married, the more people getting divorced

 

I agree that all indications are that he is racist, but he is still within his rights to refuse to marry them for whatever reason he has. In fact, if someone who performs marriages does so against his own conscience he is violating what he is sworn to. In his mind, for whatever reason, he is confident of his statements and therefor has a responsibility to act on that conscience.

I am licensed to marry in this state and if I feel uncomfortable with the union, I will refuse to perform the ceremony and I am not required to make known my reasoning. For arguments sake, let's say I know one of the two has a drug problem or is a prostitute and I am uncertain the other party is aware, I will not perform the ceremony. I am within my rights and performing as required by the law of the state.

 

And on what do they base that conclusion, pray tell?

 

Perhaps the laws are different in Texas...but in California, a Justice of the Peace doesn't ask any questions -- he just punches their ticket. As long as the marriage is legal.

 

Althouth a J. P is usually empowered

to perform marriages, this one was not asked to perform that function; he was only asked to grant the marriage license. His action was clearly racist. The reasons he gave may have been valid 20 years ago, but America today is much more accepting of mixed race marriages.
His argument about having a lot of black friends and their being welcome in his home reminds me of a classic definition of the difference between Southern Racism and Damnyankee racism.

In the south, we don't care how close the (people of color, Niggers in the original quote) get; just so ling as they don't get too high.

In the North we don't mind how rich and powerful black folks get, just don't let them get too close.

 

Simple, if you increase the number of marriages, you increase the number of divorces and the cost for a same sex divorce will be significantly greater than that of a marriage between male and female. As to the number of divorces, if you check the statistics where same sex marriages are legal (look at Sweden for instance) the divorce rate is higher than those of opposite sex marriages. Oh, just in case you think I am making this up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_divorce check it for yourself.