For the children?

[one love]

It actually is grounded in experience and has a good bit of merit. In many places all over this country bi-racial kids are subject to added scorn, ridicule, hate, and isolation. It's not as bad as it used to be. BUT, it does exist and it is something to be concerned about. I know cause I have family and friends who are bi-racial. Now, there is no valid reason for them to be treated this way. Still, the fact that it happens makes it a valid concern (IMO).

As for this Justice, I respect his abiding by his convictions (we need more politicians who are men of conviction and not popular consensus). It's not as if he forbade them marriage. He just could not, in good conscience, perform the marriage union for them. As long as his stated reason is the true motivation and/or his preference here is not racial bigotry, then I personally don't have a problem with it. Rest assured the thought police will seek to have this man made a public example of because he doesn't fit the popularist notions regarding race relations -- and he will most likely be branded a racist, driven from office, shamed, his family drug through the mud of it all with him. Why? because some self important bi-racial arrogant couple feels the need to force others to whole heartedly accept and embrace such relationships.

The real problem here, to me, is the fact that this couple is seeking vengeance and retribution (clearly a sinful action, not just a legality issue) because this man opted not to perform their ceremony, but instead referred them to a Justice who would.

My how intolerant those screaming for tolerance and acceptance can be.

Poimen this proves to me it all comes down to where or how you were raised. With all do respect he is WRONG. He has no legal reason to not marry them. Do you have any Idea the hurt that follows something like this?
I see your point but I do disagree and feel it is not valid. This is "hidden racism"

[dolfan]

Poimen, to be honest, that argument is absurd, bro. Let's put it to the test.

A 79 year old man goes to the local office where driver's licenses are renewed because his is about to expire. The clerk thinks that it should be a rule that 79 year olds should only be able to drive if they pass a vision test and if they can pass a written test on the rules of the road. Because of his personal convictions and opinions, and without regard to the law that makes this man eligible for licensure in every way and does not require such testing, the clerk simply imposes his own rule and says, "No license for you."

Your question: "However, could an individual not opt to excuse themselves and permit a substitute to handle the issue for personal reasons? If not, why not?"

The answer is "no", and the very most basic reason is because it is his job to issue the license -- period. If he won't do his job, why pay him to be there? It is his job to determine, as much as the law authorizes him to do so, if the person meets the basic eligibility rules, and if so then to issue the license. It is not his job to decide if the man "deserves" a license. The clerk is not allowed to substitute his personal opinions for the law.

Nor is the justice of the peace. You know, I find it kind of amusing that anyone who stands against judicial activism, as I know you do, would even slightly defend the actions of the justice of the peace. He has substituted his personal opinion for the law; he has made a new rule out of thin air and applied it to these people.

You asked whether I can cite an actual law that says he must marry all of those whom he may marry. Well, no because it is feasible that someone may come before his court for marriage and he has to go to the bathroom and gets too sick to marry them just at that moment. No law is going to say "he must marry all those whom he may marry." Law does not get written like that. Here's the law, though, and I can cite it:

There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. .... Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes [laws forbidding interracial marriage --- laws that do not exist anymore and do not exist in Louisiana, incidentally --- Dolfan] ,classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. 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.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

The JP here cited concern for "children who might be born" to this couple. He lacks subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over theoretical people who do not exist. He's in the wrong business if that is his concern, OR He's in the same category of weird as Jonathan Lee Riches is in --- Riches is a federal inmate who actually filed 2 lawsuits against phone numbers and one against the Ming Dynasty.

[MacUser]

My surname is from England... that can be traced back to a real town, castle (coat of arms), church records etc. The story tells of two brothers that came to this new world.

My closer paternal great grandmother was reported heavy Chickasaw mix. I have photos of her with super long black hair.

Another maternal family story also includes two young adopted Choctaw girls as their Choctaw parents didn't think they would survive the Trail of Tears. They gave them up to a white family and they married brothers in that family. We are the descendants of one.

My wife also has American Indian heritage of Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee. Her grandmother was a 4'9" little dark skinned woman that could cook!! I do miss that cornbread.

[Poimen]

Poimen, to be honest, that argument is absurd, bro. Let's put it to the test.

A 79 year old man goes to the local office where driver's licenses are renewed because his is about to expire. The clerk thinks that it should be a rule that 79 year olds should only be able to drive if they pass a vision test and if they can pass a written test on the rules of the road. Because of his personal convictions and opinions, and without regard to the law that makes this man eligible for licensure in every way and does not require such testing, the clerk simply imposes his own rule and says, "No license for you."

But that's not the example used at all. It is rather like the clerk excusing themselves to the restroom and directing the 79 year old to the next clerk. The 79 year old is not diminished, discriminated against, nor forbidden from exercising their legal right to have and/or obtain a license.

The answer is "no", and the very most basic reason is because it is his job to issue the license -- period. If he won't do his job, why pay him to be there?

I can agree with that. However, I would be accommodating if occasionally a situation arose where the clerk had a consciteous reason to excuse themselves, permitting someone else to ensure that the work is done, if they otherwise are faithful to their job.

It is his job to determine, as much as the law authorizes him to do so, if the person meets the basic eligibility rules, and if so then to issue the license. It is not his job to decide if the man "deserves" a license. The clerk is not allowed to substitute his personal opinions for the law.

But no one is determining what anyone deserves. It's not about deserving or not.

Nor is the justice of the peace. You know, I find it kind of amusing that anyone who stands against judicial activism, as I know you do, would even slightly defend the actions of the justice of the peace. He has substituted his personal opinion for the law; he has made a new rule out of thin air and applied it to these people.

That's just it though. He has made no rule. He has not enacted an otherwise unconstitutional law. He simply personally wishes to be excused from performing the marriage. Big whoop!

You asked whether I can cite an actual law that says he must marry all of those whom he may marry. Well, no because it is feasible that someone may come before his court for marriage and he has to go to the bathroom and gets too sick to marry them just at that moment. No law is going to say "he must marry all those whom he may marry." Law does not get written like that. Here's the law, though, and I can cite it:

There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. .... Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes [laws forbidding interracial marriage --- laws that do not exist anymore and do not exist in Louisiana, incidentally --- Dolfan] ,classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. 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.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Forgive my ignorance but is a finding or opinion the same as a law? I wouldn't think so -- not properly speaking. To me a law is something the legislature passes -- not something a judiciary opines.

The JP here cited concern for "children who might be born" to this couple. He lacks subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over theoretical people who do not exist.

Agreed. However, in his case, this particular issue (being asked ot perform an inter-racial marriage) has been a rare occurrence, otherwise not inhibiting his practice of the office. So he has found some latitude to express his own preference without forbidding the occurrence itself. So what?

I don't get all the fuss, not in this instance anyhow. It was a simple fix. Get your license (which they could have), go on over to the other JOP (which they could have), take the vows (which they could have) and get on with your life (which they should have). It's not that big a deal,IMO.

[dolfan]

Ummm. Court opinions ARE law, my brother. Loving v. Virginia is law. Not just an opinion about the law, but is the law. That law says, and I repeat, "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." If you are looking for some codified version of that in Louisiana law that specifcally lists what a justice of the peace may do, you probably won't find it. Again, law does not get written that way.

"To me", is not a definition of law, either. That's the problem in this whole case -- the justice of the peace decided what the law was "to him". Can't do it AND exercise that particular office within the law. All three branches of government create law. There's no problem with that fact. Judicial opinions are law. I'm not sure where you arrived at this idea that legislatures alone create law. That's never been the case in American history, ever, nor was it ever intended that it should be. Each branch supposedly has its limitations in doing so (which is why I'm kind of astounded at your position with this case; your view empowers this lowly justice of the peace to turn the U.S. Constitution on its ear with not so much as a wink and a nod).

And, yes, he made a rule. As a judge, he applied the law that forbids State infringement on the freedom to interracially marry in such a way as to allow State infringement of that freedom. That is, by definition, rule making. Your thought is that because they could just go find another JOP that it wasn't a big deal. The point is not how inconvenienced they were, but whether this judge, by making and applying an unconstitutional rule so as to deprive two Americans of their protected freedoms, should be accountable for it.

You argue that he should not be accountable because he has to answer to his conscience. His conscience didn't run for justice of the peace; his conscience didn't take the oath of office to uphold the law and the constitution, and to faithfully administer the law. His conscience doesn't get to make the rules here. He was not asked to rule (nor does he have the authority in any event to do so) on the question of the legality of interracial marriage or miscegenation or whatever you would call it. He was asked to do his job, and he refused to do it under a pretext of a nebulous concern for speculative people who don't exist and may never exist. He allowed his personal opinion to intervene between himself and his job. His job as judge is one where he applies the law, even if he is opposed to the law itself. If he personally wishes to be excused from performing marriages that are not unlawful, he needs to find another job because performing those marriages is part of his job.

[macgulley]

Poimen, this situation is comparable to someone going to a local restaurant and having the waiter say "I won't serve you because you are ___(pick your bias: black, white, mixed, fat, female, gay, in a wheelchair, etc.) but I'll refer you to another waiter who has no such convictions."
Would you defend the waiter as you are defending this JOP?







edited for clarity

[EagerBeaver]

I just wonder what would happen if an interracial couple decided to get baptized together at Virginia Beach someday.

[Poimen]

Ummm. Court opinions ARE law, my brother. Loving v. Virginia is law. Not just an opinion about the law, but is the law. That law says, and I repeat, "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." If you are looking for some codified version of that in Louisiana law that specifcally lists what a justice of the peace may do, you probably won't find it. Again, law does not get written that way.

"To me", is not a definition of law, either. That's the problem in this whole case -- the justice of the peace decided what the law was "to him". Can't do it AND exercise that particular office within the law. All three branches of government create law. There's no problem with that fact. Judicial opinions are law. I'm not sure where you arrived at this idea that legislatures alone create law. That's never been the case in American history, ever, nor was it ever intended that it should be. Each branch supposedly has its limitations in doing so (which is why I'm kind of astounded at your position with this case; your view empowers this lowly justice of the peace to turn the U.S. Constitution on its ear with not so much as a wink and a nod).

If I was taught that I don't recall it. I simply remember being taught that the legislative branch makes laws. However, I did understand that the opines of the judiciary carried the same weight as law. But opines change to, right?

And, yes, he made a rule. As a judge, he applied the law that forbids State infringement on the freedom to interracially marry in such a way as to allow State infringement of that freedom. That is, by definition, rule making. Your thought is that because they could just go find another JOP that it wasn't a big deal. The point is not how inconvenienced they were, but whether this judge, by making and applying an unconstitutional rule so as to deprive two Americans of their protected freedoms, should be accountable for it.

I don't agree. I don't see that he made any rule. I see that he recognized the existing rule, and opted himself not to perform it. That is all. I can see that as grounds for dismissal. However, again, in this case, with his frankness and conviction about about it, the sparsity of his being faced with it, and the fact that none are in fact being denied their right or freedom, I think he should be extended lenience.

However, I can see where he crossed a technical line that may very well cost him his job. I just think it ridiculous that it would go that far -- especially when he has NO acted with racial bigotry and the couple were NOT barred from being married.

You argue that he should not be accountable because he has to answer to his conscience. His conscience didn't run for justice of the peace; his conscience didn't take the oath of office to uphold the law and the constitution, and to faithfully administer the law. His conscience doesn't get to make the rules here. He was not asked to rule (nor does he have the authority in any event to do so) on the question of the legality of interracial marriage or miscegenation or whatever you would call it. He was asked to do his job, and he refused to do it under a pretext of a nebulous concern for speculative people who don't exist and may never exist. He allowed his personal opinion to intervene between himself and his job. His job as judge is one where he applies the law, even if he is opposed to the law itself. If he personally wishes to be excused from performing marriages that are not unlawful, he needs to find another job because performing those marriages is part of his job.

I get what you are saying. You are technically right. But practically speaking it's not that big a deal. Not in this case anyhow, based on the facts as given.

If I went before a judge to be married and he opted not to perform the wedding, excused himself, but politely referred me to another judge who would I wouldn't be demanding his job nor questioning his judgment on actual judicial function proper.

However, I think were this JOP messed up, and what will cost him, is that he was honest with the couple as to why he would not personally perform their marriage. he should have excused himself with no explanation. Then this whole fiasco wouldn't have happened.

Who ever said transparency was a mark of quality leadership?

Nevertheless, based on your explanations Dolfan, I can see where the man technically failed to faithfully execute all of his duties and where his action, whether honest conviction or not, are grounds enough for his removal.

I just think it's ridiculous that it's going that far on such an isolated and otherwise inconsequential case. I mean the federal government runs roughshod over constitutional limits and carry on with business as usual. Some poor honest "good ole boy" merely refrains from performing a wedding because of honest conviction, and the race card get's played to levy him out of his office and no doubt leverage all the mileage the thought police can get out of it.

[Poimen]

Poimen, this situation is comparable to someone going to a local restaurant and having the waiter say "I won't serve you because you are ___(pick your bias: black, white, mixed, fat, female, gay, in a wheelchair, etc.) but I'll refer you to another waiter who has no such convictions."
Would you defend the waiter as you are defending this JOP?

I don't think it's comparable. But, after reading Dolfan's explanations I can say, whether I like it or not, that this man's actions are grounds for his dismissal -- though I believe it an unfortunate happenstance in this instance. He should of just kept his mouth shut and excused himself from performing the wedding without any explanation.

[macgulley]

I just think it's ridiculous that it's going that far on such an isolated and otherwise inconsequential case.

I don't really want to be argumentative but on what basis do you assert that this is an isolated case? And, I suppose all cases are inconsequential when it's not your ox being gored.

Some poor honest "good ole boy" merely refrains from performing a wedding because of honest conviction, and the race card get's played to levy him out of his office and no doubt leverage all the mileage the thought police can get out of it.

I don't consider it "playing the race card" when the issue really is racial, as this one is. The "poor honest good ole boy" wouldn't marry a couple because of the color of their skin. That's the bottom line.
"Playing the race card" means taking something that is not racially motivated and claiming it is, i.e. Jimmy Carter calling everyone who doesn't want the government to control healthcare "racist." That ain't what's happening here.

[Paully_44]

because some self important bi-racial arrogant couple feels the need to force others to whole heartedly accept and embrace such relationships.

and what makes them self-important and arrogant?


"such relationships"? really?

[Poimen]

I don't really want to be argumentative but on what basis do you assert that this is an isolated case?

The fox news article (my source) stated the Justice had only ever been faced with this about 4 times during his service. Evidently this is the 1st time it's ever been an issue of any sizeable note. I'd call that isolated.

And, I suppose all cases are inconsequential when it's not your ox being gored.

Touche. I'm not as prone to outrage sense I'm not in a bi-racial relationship. That's a valid point.

I don't consider it "playing the race card" when the issue really is racial, as this one is. The "poor honest good ole boy" wouldn't marry a couple because of the color of their skin. That's the bottom line.

"Playing the race card" means taking something that is not racially motivated and claiming it is, i.e. Jimmy Carter calling everyone who doesn't want the government to control healthcare "racist." That ain't what's happening here.

Well, to me, anytime a person uses their race, or someone's non-malicious preference/prejudice concerning race, to cry foul that is playing the race card. In this case the JOP is being made out to be a Racist bigot when he has clearly stated otherwise and offered convincing evidence to the same -- namely his large number of black friends.

[Poimen]

and what makes them self-important and arrogant?

Well, as noted above in an earlier reply to macgulley, after re-readng the article it is ot the couple but the ACLU who is acting in self-important arrogance. I apologized for misunderstanding and misrepresenting what is know about the issue. I misread.

However, I don't think it an illogical assumption that the ACLU's involvement is likely due to the couple's seeking them out. But that would be an assumption, one that cannot be sustained without further information. It could be anyone who heard about the issue. It could be media related alone. I dunno. Therefore I apologized and retracted any charges of vindictiveness on the part of the couple. I misread and though they were filing charges, not merely a complaint.

I think they had every right to file a complaint. It was more than justified. I just didn't believe seeking legal action was appropriate. I misunderstood. I hope this helps clarify where I was coming from though.

"such relationships"? really?

What do you mean "really?" I don't understand what it is you are asking r expecting me to reply to here.

Perhaps some clarification of what I meant by such relation ships"? Simply that the kind of relationships in question in this case are inter-racial ones as opposed to non inter-racial ones. Nothing more.

Is there something else you are trying to ask me about that phrasing or was that it?

[Pastor Gary]

Perhaps some clarification of what I meant by such relation ships"? Simply that the kind of relationships in question in this case are inter-racial ones as opposed to non inter-racial ones. Nothing more.

Is there something else you are trying to ask me about that phrasing or was that it?

I think he -- and most of us -- are wondering why there is any issue at all with people with varying amounts of melanin in their skin marrying. Period.

[paul]

There are two different things happening here, as I see it. One is the official duty of a government official. One is the personal convictions or prejudices of the official in his individual capacity.

Yes. It is a dichotomy.

A person who issues drivers' licenses may not refuse to issue a license to a 79 year old driver on the basis that the issuer thinks that the elderly should not drive because they pose a risk of harm to other drivers and passengers.

Agreed. However, could an individual not opt to excuse themselves and permit a substitute to handle the issue for personal reasons? If not, why not?

In Louisiana, a justice of the peace has quite an extensive authority; most states don't even have justices of the peace anymore. But, in Louisiana, they act most closely to what Alabama calls district courts --- they have jurisdiction over small claims, misdemeanors crimes, evictions. And, like circuit, district and probate court judges in Alabama, they can perform weddings.

Does can perform weddings mean must perform weddings?

They must follow the law --- at least, they are supposed to follow the law. Whether they "must" is a political question answered by either the elected officials with power to pull the rug on him or the people who vote for his office. But, the law is that interracial people can marry and that race is not a test for eligibility for marriage in the United States. If they otherwise met all of the eligibility requirements to qualify for a marriage license, the judge's own convictions are irrelevant. The only thing remaining to do is to solemnize the marriage and issue the license. Concern for hypothetical children --- or even real ones --- is legally irrelevant and immaterial. It may strike a certain moral or philosophical chord (an issue for moralists and philosophers to debate as long as they have air in their lungs to do it), but the denial of the license is discordant with the law and the whole matter ends with the official, legal duties of the justice of the peace here. All other noise about it is just a bunch of ... well, noise.

What law did this JOP violate? Can you cite an actual law that says he must personally marry any and all legally eligible couples who come before him in his official capacity without exception?

As a parent, grandfather of mixed married couples...also dealing with numerous couples you have married cross racial and cultural. Their chance of survival as a family unit is as strong as their desire to do so. As it is with all couples mixed or non mixed.

I will not label the JP as raceist because i cannot judge the motives of his heart. But I will say that by his actions he certinally is one predijuice dude.
In my oponion that simply stinks.