• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Wow, is this 2009?

#2
Dr. Cheese said:
Invalid Link Removed

A justice of the peace in Louisiana refuses to marry white/black couples. This was settled in by the Supreme Court in 1967. Why does this man still have a job?
Click to expand...
I am confused by what the Supreme Court apparently settled. The article says it ruled that "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry." Doens't that mean that this JP has the right to refuse to marry people? (ie the government can't force him to marry interacial couples). I don't agree with it, but it seems the law is on his side unless the article is poorly written.

BTW I note that the article doesn't mention what race the JP is. I wonder if he is black,white or some other race?
 
#3
Since the JP makes it a point to say he has black friends that he allows to use the bathroom (proof he is not racist) I'm pretty sure he is white.;)

JPs may very well have a right to refuse to marry couples but using frank racial reasons not to do it probably is going to run his actions against a few discrimination statutes.
 
#4
BTW, Mark, Loving vs. Virginia (1967) struck "anti-miscegenation" laws that prohibited interracial marriage in a fair number of American states.

I put "anti-miscegenation" in quotes because it is a word whose etymology I find very questionable. Given that humans have always bred across ethnic (racial) divisions, the notion that it is somehow unnatural is just goofy. For the record, when it comes to marriage, I honestly think people should stay out of each other's business, and let them make the decisions they want.
 
#5
Dr. Cheese said:
BTW, Mark, Loving vs. Virginia (1967) struck "anti-miscegenation" laws that prohibited interracial marriage in a fair number of American states.

I put "anti-miscegenation" in quotes because it is a word whose etymology I find very questionable. Given that humans have always bred across ethnic (racial) divisions, the notion that it is somehow unnatural is just goofy. For the record, when it comes to marriage, I honestly think people should stay out of each other's business, and let them make the decisions they want.
Click to expand...
Ah okay, I think I will chalk it down to a poorly written article then (as it assumes knowledge on the part of the reader). Its an odd quote that they chose to use from the ACLU lawyer as it doesn't really support their case either way. Hopefully this person, wahtever his race, gets hit with some anti-discrimination complaints.
 
#7
That's crazy! What if they get pregnant first? Back in 1964 that's what a friend of mine's parents had to do in order to get married. I guess having a black baby out of wedlock was frowned upon more than having a black man for a husband or some such.
 
#8
Dr. Cheese said:
Since the JP makes it a point to say he has black friends that he allows to use the bathroom (proof he is not racist) I'm pretty sure he is white.;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that bathroom comment sure did show how open-minded the guy is, huh?! :D

One of my son's is married to a black woman, and my two grandchildren are the most beautiful, precious kids you'll ever find. I do grow weary of the "I'm doing it for the kids" argument.

I will say, however, that the most vocal critics of my son and daughter-in-law's marriage are black men. A lot of them do not like to see a white man with a black woman. They've been married more than 5 years, and the only problems/confrontations they've had have been initiated by black men. I know that opposition to interracial marriages crosses all racial boundaries, but that has been their experience.
 
#10
Jeff K said:
Yeah, that bathroom comment sure did show how open-minded the guy is, huh?! :D

One of my son's is married to a black woman, and my two grandchildren are the most beautiful, precious kids you'll ever find. I do grow weary of the "I'm doing it for the kids" argument.

I will say, however, that the most vocal critics of my son and daughter-in-law's marriage are black men. A lot of them do not like to see a white man with a black woman. They've been married more than 5 years, and the only problems/confrontations they've had have been initiated by black men. I know that opposition to interracial marriages crosses all racial boundaries, but that has been their experience.
Click to expand...

I'm embarrassed to admit that the kind of black opposition does happen. It happens with Black women mad at black men for marrying white women also.

There is racism involved and also feelings of rejection. For black men, it is the sense of "there was a time when they forced you, now you are willingly going there?" For black women, the problem often goes to self-esteem since the dominant beauty images in this country tend to be white women, and even the women of color tend to be the fairer ones.

That said, we all need to respect each other's choices.:cool:
 
#13
I would assume that the JP has the right to refuse to marry people. Here in Canada Pastors and JPs have the right to refuse gay couples if they don't want to, just like they have the right to refuse to marry anyone else. Not saying that it is right, or wrong for that matter, but the JP in question has his views on things and you can't force him to change his views and the law protects his rights to have those views.

lowsound
 
#14
Sounds like Louisiana to me. I was born and raised here and there is a lot of racial attitudes here from all races. I've been in a "mixed" relationship for a while and have gotten some stares when we are out. So far, nothing too bad has happened with me, but my lady has caught some nasty comments for dating out of her race.
 
#15
Mark Latimour said:
I am confused by what the Supreme Court apparently settled. The article says it ruled that "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry." Doens't that mean that this JP has the right to refuse to marry people? (ie the government can't force him to marry interacial couples). I don't agree with it, but it seems the law is on his side unless the article is poorly written.
Click to expand...

Isn't the JP an executor of the state? I'm not sure how it works over there, but if the JP is an actor of the state, then the article is binding on him, and HE cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry.

Other than that, it probably isn't that difficult to get another JP to marry them...
 
#18
Maybe it's time to bring back this show.


jeffersons-cast.jpg
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back