This stuff is still going on?

Remove all ads!

Yeah... over 40 years ago. We should also tell this guy that the US won the race with the Soviets to the moon!

This guy dug himself deeper with every sentence. In his attempts to try to characterize himself as NOT a racist, he convinced me he WAS a racist.

It is, quite lterally, NONE of his business.

 

Aldeth, I'll bet that stuff survived much of the past 40 years in private settings (i.e. not government buildings or restaurants).

 

I would say so. Of course, I can't say for sure, but more than likely this guy is Klan. That's one of the reasons that Obama is hated so much by these bigots, because he is the result of an interracial marriage. That just drives the Klan crazy.

I mean, if the President of the US is the child of a interracial marriage, how much more "social acceptance" does one need these days?

IMO, that has "The Klan" written all over it.

http://www.examiner.com/x-21743-St-...the-Peace-Refuses-to-Marry-Interracial-Couple

 

NOG, it is NOT his business to make families. That would require him to make a judgement. His position doesn't. His is to literally marry them and that is it. His moral or ethical opinion doesn't matter. If he thinks he does, he needs to be removed. He can concern himself with it all he wants, in private. But he cannot refuse it as a JP.

 

There is an assumption here that the Justice of the Peace had a mandate to marry anyone who asked and he has no discretionary aspect to his position. That may not be the case in all municipalities. Since he has operated this way for over thirty years, and has turned down performing marriages before, it seems the precident is set and he is not required to perform ceremonies that are against his personal beliefs -- at least, until he is told otherwise.

With many justices in a community it may be entire possible for the community to permit a JP to decline a ceremony based on personal beliefs. I personally believe a government employee should either be willing to perform all functions within the law or should not have the position, but many communities are more respectful of personal beliefs than I am.

 

No.

As interracial couples are allowed to marry, he had no basis to say nay. He functions as a clerk. He has zero discretion. When the applicants meet legal criteria he is compelled to marry them. He must have no discretion in such a case because application of the law must not be arbitrary. He processes the marriage according to the law, and that is it. He may, and should IMO, inform them of the legal effects of marriage, but that's another matter.

T2,
seriously, if municipalities give the justice of the peace discretion as to whether to marry or not, the odds are that the according municipal regulation is constitutionally questionable. And that he may have done so for thirty years means little as far as legality is concerned. That said, as this happened in America it is entirely possible that you're right.

 

You would think in today's society, that is not an option. I surely hope not, as that will cause all kinds of bigotry and bias rule over others.

 

If by "private settings" you mean in the privacy of one's mind, I agree. But putting up signs that say "No Blacks" (actually the term used back then was "colored") or "Whites Only" has been illegal for over 40 years - whether you were talking about public or private buildings. Certainly racism still existed, and I'm sure there were instances where blacks were refused service, but that was illegal - and today such actions would probably be considered a hate crime.

I agree, but I believe that the JoP should have discretionary authority only to the degree in determining whether or not the couple can marry under state law. For example, it's perfectly OK to ask them if they are both at least 18 years old, as you cannot get married younger than that without parental permission. That would be suitable grounds for refusing to perform the ceremony.

This should be the basic thought process:

At least 18? check
Different sexes? (gay marriage not legal in Louisiana) check
Not married to anyone else? check

OK, I'll perform the ceremony.

 

When you're a civil servant you do what you have to do, you don't start using your position to try and convince others not to do something that you don't condone. If that guy is not a racist then at the very least he is not taking sides and therefore he either accepts the racist state of affairs or maintains the status quo when he could be working to change society in order to make the world a better place.

I know this subject is really sensitive in the States and that in Europe we don't face the same problems, yet, still from an outsider's point of view it seems that it shouldn't be such an issue in 2009. When I read that document I was reminded of the "Separate but equal" laws.

On the one hand the US currently has a president who is a perfect example that it is possible to rise above prejudice and on the other hand it seems that interracial marriage is still a very strong taboo in some parts (most parts?) of the US.

Being of mixed heritage can only be a drawback when facing bigots and narrow minded individuals and although those may be numerous you have to take into account that being the offspring of such an union opens up perspectives beyond the limitations of racially defined ethnic groups and communities.

Do you in the US really have to belong to a specific ethnic group to be a fully integrated member of society? That is an honest question as from an outsider's point of view it seems to me that most Americans make a point of listing various countries so they can state their origins. I don't know if it's a way of defining oneself.

Texas was a separate country before it joined the Union but is there still any really noticeable difference between someone from Texas and let's say New England? (apart from speech patterns of course). Do Americans first and foremost think of themselves as citizens of a state or as American citizens? I may be getting carried away but I do believe the topic has to do with the definition of what it entails to be American and the sense of identity that you may or may not share with your fellow countrymen.

I'm the product of a multicultural heritage and I've had to face racism in my life but I've never wished that my origins were any different. The racists over here may not like it but we do have a tradition in France that says that your ethnic group or your religion are not relevant at all. This is a valid definition of citizenship.

Putting too much emphasis on issues relating to minorities and ethnic communities within society is probably detrimental. Why is it detrimental? Because it is based on exclusion.

If you have to acknowledge the fact that in reality "mixed race kids have a tough time being accepted by either culture" then it means that both these cultures are enforcing an outdated racial bias. The only way to get rid of this remnant of the past is probably to reconcile and bring together both cultures. I was thrilled by Barack Obama's election because he is in a unique position to do this. One thing is certain though, it won't be easy.

 

I would say some, not most. It increases with probability the further south you go, and it increases in probability the older you are. This guy has been a JoP for 34 years according to the article. Chances are, he's old enough to remember the segregated south.

No - I know several bi-racial people who have no trouble integrating or doing well in society. Heck, one of my company's VPs is bi-racial.

That's more of a cultural thing having to do with family traditions. Many families still eat traditional foods around holidays, like Christmas or Easter. You would never introduce yourself as a member of a particular ethnicity.

I know several people from Texas, and they are... unique individuals. I think some of them think Texas is still an independent country. But generally speaking, no there isn't any real difference.

I don't know anyone who identifies with their state over their country. I don't refer to myself as a Marylander, or a Pennsylvanian (I was born there).

I think you have hit on it exactly with that example. If it were so hard for bi-racial people to be accepted by society, how is it possible that we have a bi-racial president?

 

damn, Ive only been gone for a few hours

 

Many identify themselves from their home region, but not by state, usually by City or Town. I like to refer to myself as a Philly kid, as I'm from the Philadelphia region. Many Philadelphians, Ner Jerseyites and New Yorkers do the same. I can't speak for the rest of the nation, but the few Texans I know call themselves Texans at introduction. It use to mean something more back in the day, but today, I think it's more of a formality or a sense of belonging, depending on the individual.

 

Thanks Aldeth for taking the time to answer my questions. It's always interesting to get some insight into the way Americans see their country and move beyond the stereotype -which isn't that easy considering we are flooded with Mc Donalds, fully dubbed American blockbusters and TV shows...

I loved your comments about Texas by the way, I hope we'll get a Texan to comment as well.

Anyone remembers The Fifth Element with Bruce Willis? It wasn't because of cars flying and Milla Jovovich's outfit that you knew it was a scifi movie but because the president was Black.

@Shoshino: you snooze, you lose!

 

Well, Chandos is from Texas, but I do not consider him typical of the type of Texans I've referred to.

 

Interesting: Loving_v._Virginia

i.e. I doubt that municipal regulation can give a JoP so much leeway as to ignore a supreme court precedent - opening way to allow to replace explicitly racist law through more discrete and plausibly deniable 'mere conduct', like, you know, denial of marriage for humanitarian reasons.

I have a hunch that there is no Alabama law that mandates or allows for denying marriage for humanitarian reasons, like when the parents are dirt poor, or, say,in an interracial relation: After all these poor Negro bastards that will come from such liaisons stand no chance in the US of A ...

As Aldeth said, in his elaborations the JoP effectively dispelled any remaining doubt that he was indeed, and nothing else than, a racist.

 

This is what you aren't understanding. He didn't say 'nay'. He said, 'Try Larry down the hall.'

In one's own home? Try again, Aldeth.

It depends on where you are. I know my herritage only because I'm curious. In areas that are heavily dominated by one ethnicity (italian, hsipanic, black, chinese, etc. neighborhoods/counties), it may really make a difference.

 

Don't be obtuse. He had no right to refuse - as in: No. Right. To. Refuse.

States are not allowed to not marry interracial couples based on law, so much less is he, based on whim or personal tastes or preference. He's an elected public official for ****'s sake.

A cop also cannot refuse to take the complaint of a gay rape victim because he just doesn't like gays and what they do, and wants to hear nothing of it, and rather wants to tell the victim he ought to please go to Harry down the hall, because he won't do it. It is his job to enforce the law. Rape is a crime. So he has to do it, his convictions or preferences be damned.

Part of the job and function of a JoP's is to marry people, citizens, be they black, white, asian, hispanic or any mix thereof. If he doesn't like to marry interracial couples, he ought to seek another job.

 

I don't really understand the judge's reasonings. You don't need to be married to have kids and start a family.

 

I do think it is important for society to see that discrimination is still so prevalent though. It also allows for this man to be ostracised from right thinking society.

 

Wrong NOG. He said no. He is representing the community and state. He didn't marry them. He wouldn't marry them. Because of his prejudices. As a representative of the community and state, he is acting on their behalf. It is illegal for a state, any US state, to refuse the right of marriage to interracial couples. What he did is illegal. That is why you see it on CNN. If it wasn't illegal, it's not newsworthy and you wouldn't see it in the media.