For the children?

[Poimen]

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.

That depends on the person doesn't it? It's a matter of preference. We all have preferences, for one reason or another, and they are not all the same.
*shrugs*

All we have to go on here is the JOP's claims. He claims that for him it comes down to the potential problems inter-racial kids born to the union would likely face. I think that's a valid concern. Maybe not one the man has an official capacity to act on -- but valid none the less.

That's what Paully questioned in starting this thread.

[RamboPreacher]

but is the root cause interracial (melanin/"color"/physical aesthetics, including language), or intercultural (attitudes, agenda's, assumptions in reference to the aesthetics).

[Brian]

Poimen, many times here on Jude2 we back each other up and share some common points of view. Other times we respectfully disagree, this is one of those respectfully disagreeing times! Since when did this JOP become the arbitrator or champion of child rights and protections? He has no "right" whatsoever to try to "protect" any potential child that may or may not even exist from the potential racial prejudices that they may endure other than maybe fighting those very racial biases and prejudices through other means, NOT by keeping mixed race couples from marrying.

Like I was trying to say before, silence is condonement.

Because in fact he did NOTHING to protect those potential children from what he claims will be hardships because he just moved them right down the isle to another JOP. So what did he do? Keep his own hands clean from guilt if anything did happen to those children later in life because it wasnt himself who married there parents? Come on Chris, you know it's a load of bull! The man doesnt like interracial couples and this was his excuse when the piper comes to call, period.

Chris, that is equivalent to someone being a real estate agent and knowing the house he is selling is next door to a known child sex offender. That agent may not in good conscious be able to sell to a young couple based on the possibility that they may one day have children and the child may be victimized but he refers them to another office to another agent who has no problem whatsoever in selling the property. It doesn't wash Chris. His prejudicial bias in evident to most of us who have seen it a million times before, many within our own families.

I love a brother but I think your out of touch on this one.

[dolfan]

Let me say this: I have zero concern about the guy's subjective intent. His objective conduct was a serious violation of the law and --- albeit brief --- a violation of the constitutional rights of these two people. That is always serious. Whether the guy is a racist is a million miles away from the very basic obligation of the law this fellow had and failed to follow.

Now, should he be disciplined for it? I don't know. That would be for the proper court of the judiciary in Louisiana to decide, or since the guy is elected, for voters to determine. We're on the outside looking in to a great extent. More subjective judgments will be made by those whose job it is to make them. Judges do dumb things, bad things, a lot. I don't think any of us knows enough to say that this fellow should lose his job. He just needs to do his job and leave the white hood at the house.

[Poimen]

He just needs to do his job and leave the white hood at the house.

See, that's what's getting my blood boiling over this whole thing, -- legalities, policies, and procedure aside -- the guy is being painted and judged a racist simply because he prefers that people marry within their own race. That's as wrong or judgmental as anything he is being accused of (though by implications and mere inference of course, but accused none the less).

If you don't jump on the band wagon and accept racial intermingling whole-heartedly, "swallow the whole pig" so to speak, then you must be a closet racist. Hog wash!

We are not to judge or despise one the other over non-essential preferences. Inter-racial relationships and marriages is just one of many such non essential issues we are supposed to permit liberty to one another on.

[dolfan]

First, I don't have to permit him anything. He's free to do whatever he will do without my permission.

Second, why is his opinion about interracial marriage the object of liberty and my opinion of his opinion not subject to the same liberty?

Third, I don't accept racial intermingling. I also don't accept that the sun rises in the east, that what goes up must come down and that a straight beats a full house. These things just are and they don't beg for our approval. They stand on their own without it.

Fourth, you classify his "preference" that people marry within their own race as a just a preference quite cavalierly, almost with the same dismissiveness as the significance of choosing Burger King over McDonald's. Fact is, he used his political power to try and force that preference on two American citizens who were exercising their constitutional rights to choose one another in marriage. It moved beyond him simply preferring something and it is not judgmental to say he's wrong. It is not judgmental nor is it inaccurate to say that his motives were racist. The only classification that he concerned himself with in denying their rights was the color of their skin. Whatever the degree of vitriol or disgust or simple distaste he may have had with this couple, be it mild or serious, his decision was one-dimensional: race. He discriminated against this couple. That's racism. It may not be "I hate their guts and hope they burn alive" hatred, but it is garden variety racism.

[Poimen]

You classify his "preference" that people marry within their own race as a just a preference quite cavalierly, almost with the same dismissiveness as the significance of choosing Burger King over McDonald's.

That's because, in my estimation, it isn't much different. Some folks like Coke, some like Pepsi, some are okay with both. It is just preference. Simple as that, in my book at least.

Now, if it comes of anything more than that, anything sinister, hateful, or evil -- well that's a different ball game.

Alas, after much wrangling, I can accept that what the JOP did was invalid and illegal, whether he meant it to be malicious or not. What I dislike is people of any race who share this or similar preferences being labeled racist bigots and/or hatemongers by the supposedly more tolerant.

[Pastor Gary]

What I dislike is people of any race who share this or similar preferences being labeled racist bigots and/or hatemongers by the supposedly more tolerant.

Can you understand how people see it that way? If someone said that they felt like red-haired people should only wed other red-haired people, one might defend that as a preference, or one might see it as a prejudice.

The race/marriage issue is really odd to many of us, because we don't know many people who are 100% any particular race... almost everyone is in part racially mixed, including you, I believe you mentioned. Should we, then, only select potential mates from those who share our precise racial/ethnic mixtures?

I believe -- to be blunt -- that the JOP would not have hesitated to marry a black man and a Korean woman, or a white woman and a Chinese man... it was the mixture of BLACK and white that was the issue, and I think most of us know that. That goes beyond preference to racism, IMHO.

(Obligatory disclaimer: My wife is 1/2 Japanese and I am part Cherokee; my son, 1/4 Japanese and part Cherokee married a girl who is, as far as I am aware, Caucasian. My 1/4 Japanese and part Cherokee daughter is dating a guy who is Filipino.)

[Brian]

Alas, after much wrangling, I can accept that what the JOP did was invalid and illegal, whether he meant it to be malicious or not.

Chris, I can respect a man who weighs out his convictions and reasons together with his fellow brethren and comes to a conclusion that he may not have started with. God bless you brother.

[macgulley]

deleted because I missed a post that addressed my concerns.

[dolfan]

Alas, after much wrangling, I can accept that what the JOP did was invalid and illegal, whether he meant it to be malicious or not. What I dislike is people of any race who share this or similar preferences being labeled racist bigots and/or hatemongers by the supposedly more tolerant.

And, lest I run the risk of being labeled as tolerant, I know my heart. I know that I've got a lifetime of cultural bias programmed into me that I have to work to get around it. I'm no better than anybody of any state of mind, I just doubt myself and my motives somewhat more than this guy in Louisiana.

Edit: My 1/2 brother is married to a black woman and has been for about 8 or 9 years, I guess, now. My maternal great grandmother was Cherokee, and I guess everybody who lives and hails from Lawrence County, Alabama is going to have some Cherokee in them. They even had a powwow last weekend.