• 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?

#41
Jimmy Bones said:
Wow, lot of racially oriented posts today.

A Justice of the Peace is not required by law to marry anybody he doesn't feel right doing so. The Supreme Court settled that the races may wed one another, but doesn't require judiciaries to actually serve whoever they don't feel comfortable serving. Priests aren't required to, either.

Reserve the right to refuse service and all that. All they need to do is find someone else who IS willing to, and it isn't that hard. There are Judges, JOP's, priests, Navy captains, all sorts who will for a nominal fee. And technically, they only need to be registered by the state - let them register and then have a ceremony elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, when I got married, the minister who married us said that before he would marry us, we had to have counseling sessions with him and he would have to approve of the marriage. He was very clear in stating that it was our decision to marry, but his decision as to whether or not he would be the one to do it.
He said very frankly and very firmly, "This is my condition. If you do not agree, I will not marry you."
No one involved batted an eye. And yes, I realize it isn't the same as a refusal to marry us at all. My point is, ministers have that option. Don't know about JOPs.

On a related note, why is it that everyone gets outraged when a JOP refuses to marry an inter-racial couple but no one bats an eye when two women or two men want to marry? Why is discrimination not ok with one group of people but it is ok with another? Does this seem odd to anyone else?? I mean, we are all just people, right?
 
#42
casualmadness said:
On a related note, why is it that everyone gets outraged when a JOP refuses to marry an inter-racial couple but no one bats an eye when two women or two men want to marry? Why is discrimination not ok with one group of people but it is ok with another? Does this seem odd to anyone else?? I mean, we are all just people, right?
Click to expand...

The obvious difference to me is that same sex marriages are not yet legal in about 80% of the States in America. If they become legal, than I hope that the public will find a refusal to grant people their rights offensive also.
 
#43
Dr. Cheese said:
The obvious difference to me is that same sex marriages are not yet legal in about 80% of the States in America. If they become legal, than I hope that the public will find a refusal to grant people their rights offensive also.
Click to expand...

So...let me make sure I understand this. It's ok to discriminate against people as long as the government says it's ok? What about when black men and women did not have the same rights as white men and women in this country? Was discrimination against them ok because the government said it was ok? Because no laws had been passed to allow black and white people to marry and have children?
You're saying that if gay marriages become legal, then there should be outrage. I tend to believe that the outrage should come first...as it did a few decades ago when another group of American didn't have the same rights as the majority.

Just my two cents.
 
#44
casualmadness said:
So...let me make sure I understand this. It's ok to discriminate against people as long as the government says it's ok? What about when black men and women did not have the same rights as white men and women in this country? Was discrimination against them ok because the government said it was ok? Because no laws had been passed to allow black and white people to marry and have children?
You're saying that if gay marriages become legal, then there should be outrage. I tend to believe that the outrage should come first...as it did a few decades ago when another group of American didn't have the same rights as the majority.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

That is not a logical argument. Marriage is a legal act, and cannot be officially performed without state recognition. A justice of the peace may be totally sympathetic to a same sex couple and still be unable to marry them due to state law.
That is pretty straight forward and not the same as denying a couple rights that have been accepted as legal for over a generation.
 
#46
Dr. Cheese said:
That is not a logical argument. Marriage is a legal act, and cannot be officially performed without state recognition. A justice of the peace may be totally sympathetic to a same sex couple and still be unable to marry them due to state law.
That is pretty straight forward and not the same as denying a couple rights that have been accepted as legal for over a generation.
Click to expand...

+1. And as far as the discrimination and government, historically, there were laws made specifically to oppress a people because of their skin. As far as marriage in this case, the laws were made to define and structuralize the process of marriage. They were not written with the intention of denying ppl with same sex preferences.
 
#48
Dr. Cheese said:
That is not a logical argument. Marriage is a legal act, and cannot be officially performed without state recognition. A justice of the peace may be totally sympathetic to a same sex couple and still be unable to marry them due to state law.
That is pretty straight forward and not the same as denying a couple rights that have been accepted as legal for over a generation.
Click to expand...

But it should be legal. There should be outrage that it isn't legal. Proposition 8 was a massive step backwards for California, and I don't know how they got away with it. Surely taking away the rights of a group of citizens is discrimination?
 
#49
Happynoj said:
But it should be legal. There should be outrage that it isn't legal. Proposition 8 was a massive step backwards for California, and I don't know how they got away with it. Surely taking away the rights of a group of citizens is discrimination?
Click to expand...

Interesting you should say this. Im not stating for or against it, but I dont recall it being legal in any other country either. The UK for instance. :eyebrow:
 
#52
Dr_Funkdamental said:
+1. And as far as the discrimination and government, historically, there were laws made specifically to oppress a people because of their skin. As far as marriage in this case, the laws were made to define and structuralize the process of marriage. They were not written with the intention of denying ppl with same sex preferences.
Click to expand...



So it's OK to discriminate as long as its not becasue of race? You are sounding very hippocritical right now. Equal rights is an across the board type of thing.:scowl:
 
#53
ZombieBRAINS!! said:
So it's OK to discriminate as long as its not becasue of race? You are sounding very hippocritical right now. Equal rights is an across the board type of thing.:scowl:
Click to expand...

You are making an argument where there really is none. The situation in the original post described a JP who refused to perform a legal marriage on the basis of race. In the case of same sex marriages, a legal marriage is not even an option in most states due to the law.

Anybody who does not like that state of affairs should either actively lobby state legislatures or support court cases to establish legal precedents as was done for most Civil Rights situations.

Complaining to a JP would achieve nothing since he or she would not have the legal authority to do what the same sex couples want done. Any wedding the JP would perform would have only symbolic value unless a really sharp lawyer could develop some sort of constitutional argument and be ready to fight for years in court.
 
#54
Dr_Funkdamental said:
Interesting you should say this. Im not stating for or against it, but I dont recall it being legal in any other country either. The UK for instance. :eyebrow:
Click to expand...

The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Spain, Sweden and South Africa all currently recognise same-sex marriage equally to opposite-sex marriage. There are several countries who are planning to or considering introducing same-sex marriage laws, including Nepal, Portugal, Iceland, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Argentina and Venezuela.

The UK doesn't recognise marriage between same-sex couples, but we do have 'civil-partnerships', which are legal unions that grant same-sex couples exactly the same legal status and rights as marriage. It is basically marriage but under a different name. New Zealand has the same system. Denmark, Finland, Hungary and Iceland have civil-partnerships which are exactly the same as marriage, but are very close.
 
#55
Hawaii has similar domestic partnership laws.

Mixed race weddings are also fairly common here, though it's usually between different flavors of asians and islanders, less so whites, and even less so with blacks and latinos. Normally people don't bat an eye, only people who get grumpy are the islander men when a non-islander is in a relationship with an islander woman.
 
#58
With respect to comparing same-sex marriages to mixed-race marriages:

I think you guys (both sides) are discussing this on two different levels. Dr. Cheese and Funkdamental seem to be discussing the sheer illegality of the act of denying people who have the legal right to be married that right. I feel they are right.

Happynoj and casualmadness seem to be arguing that denying same sex couples the right to marry is wrong, legality aside. I feel they are right, too.

And, for me personally, I think the situations are pretty much synonymous.

Mike
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back