The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

South Strikes again.
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=550
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Monte [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Does this count?

Does this count as racism? A Louisianna judge denied a marriage license to an interracial couple, saying that he just couldn't lay that kind of stigma on their children.

Does that constitute racism? The guys says he has lots of black friends, and he's not a racist. And yet, he denied a marriage license based on the couple's race.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:08 pm ]
Post subject: 

It could be a cover for racism but if you believe his stated position its more of a fear of racism - still outside his authority.

Author:  Rafael [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

What does it matter if it "counts"?

Author:  Monte [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'm curious what the conservatives on the board will accept as racism. Clearly blatantly racist statements bade by commentators and other conservatives are not enough to qualify. I want to know where the line is for conservatives on the board. Is denying an interracial couple a marriage license indicative of racism? Or no?

Author:  Uncle Fester [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:30 pm ]
Post subject:  South Strikes again.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,567 ... latestnews

Quote:
Interracial Couple Refused Marriage License in Louisiana

Thursday, October 15, 2009

* Print
* ShareThis

HAMMOND, La. — A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.

Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."

If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.

Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.

Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.

"That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age."

Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.

"We are looking forward to having children," Humphrey said. "And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."

"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."

The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."

"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzmann said.

According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.

Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.

The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.

"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

Monte beat ya to it.

Author:  Lydiaa [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

Depends... does he deny ALL inter-racial marriages or just this one based specifically on 1 (or selected) race?

If it is ALL inter-racial marriages, then he's just an arsehole, if it's just this one then he's a racist.

Author:  Lydiaa [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

oh wait .. haha .. I learnt to read...
Quote:
If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.


He's just an un-informed arsehole.

Author:  Beryllin [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: South Strikes again.

I understand his reasoning, but that's not his call to make. Racist or not, he's in the wrong. IMO.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Monte wrote:
I'm curious what the conservatives on the board will accept as racism. Clearly blatantly racist statements bade by commentators and other conservatives are not enough to qualify. I want to know where the line is for conservatives on the board. Is denying an interracial couple a marriage license indicative of racism? Or no?


In and of itself, denying an interracial couple a marriage license is not racism. It does not appear to be in this case either. That still does not make it either acceptable or legal.

In order to show racism you would need to show how it favored one race over another; something I don't see in the article. That said, it is still ignorant and unacceptable.

Author:  Ladas [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

At least Monte has learned to curb his tendency to insult groups or demographics instead of individuals when making such remarks.

Author:  DFK! [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

This is racism alright: an extension of the racist, bigoted mindset behind affirmative action. Let me elaborate.

Affirmative action states that we must use racial discrimination to remove/combat racial discrimination against individuals within certain groups.

This judge is simply extending that logic: we must use racial discrimination to remove/combat racial discrimination against individuals who haven't been born yet within certain groups.

Author:  Ladas [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

To answer the question though, I am of the opinion that his position is racist.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

His position is clearly a reaction to the anticipated racism directed to such hypothetical offspring by others in the future. It is an inappropriate call to make on his part and falls clearly outside his duties, rights, and responsibilities as an officer of the law, but does not necessarily provide evidence one way or the other as to his own racism.

Author:  FarSky [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Ladas wrote:
At least Monte has learned to curb his tendency to insult groups or demographics instead of individuals when making such remarks.

Indeed. I'm impressed to learn that one Louisiana justice of the peace constitutes the political bearing of the whole of the southern United States. Why even bother holding elections for this quarter of the country when we're all of the same opinions about everything?

Author:  DFK! [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

FarSky wrote:
Ladas wrote:
At least Monte has learned to curb his tendency to insult groups or demographics instead of individuals when making such remarks.

Indeed. I'm impressed to learn that one Louisiana justice of the peace constitutes the political bearing of the whole of the southern United States. Why even bother holding elections for this quarter of the country when we're all of the same opinions about everything?


Interestingly, we can't even narrow you dirty southerners' political inklings down to party lines, since this particular justice's party affiliation remains undisclosed.

Author:  darksiege [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:
His position is clearly a reaction to the anticipated racism directed to such hypothetical offspring by others in the future. It is an inappropriate call to make on his part and falls clearly outside his duties, rights, and responsibilities as an officer of the law, but does not necessarily provide evidence one way or the other as to his own racism.


I agree with this statement.

Author:  FarSky [ Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

DFK! wrote:
FarSky wrote:
Ladas wrote:
At least Monte has learned to curb his tendency to insult groups or demographics instead of individuals when making such remarks.

Indeed. I'm impressed to learn that one Louisiana justice of the peace constitutes the political bearing of the whole of the southern United States. Why even bother holding elections for this quarter of the country when we're all of the same opinions about everything?


Interestingly, we can't even narrow you dirty southerners' political inklings down to party lines, since this particular justice's party affiliation remains undisclosed.

Apparently, we don't have red states or blue states down here. We must be white states, then. As white as freshly-pressed sheets.

Author:  Micheal [ Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:07 am ]
Post subject: 

sigh.

He's a racist by the way.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Ladas wrote:
At least Monte has learned to curb his tendency to insult groups or demographics instead of individuals when making such remarks.

FarSky wrote:
DFK! wrote:
FarSky wrote:
Indeed. I'm impressed to learn that one Louisiana justice of the peace constitutes the political bearing of the whole of the southern United States. Why even bother holding elections for this quarter of the country when we're all of the same opinions about everything?


Interestingly, we can't even narrow you dirty southerners' political inklings down to party lines, since this particular justice's party affiliation remains undisclosed.

Apparently, we don't have red states or blue states down here. We must be white states, then. As white as freshly-pressed sheets.

Oh come on, every time I see people from the south on the TV, they're always toothless with banjos - so it's gotta be true.

Micheal wrote:
sigh.

He's a racist by the way.


Really Micheal? His actions tell you that he believes one race to be superior? Which race does he believe to be superior?


darksiege wrote:
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
His position is clearly a reaction to the anticipated racism directed to such hypothetical offspring by others in the future. It is an inappropriate call to make on his part and falls clearly outside his duties, rights, and responsibilities as an officer of the law, but does not necessarily provide evidence one way or the other as to his own racism.


I agree with this statement.


Thirded.

Author:  Micheal [ Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:54 am ]
Post subject: 

Either one over the third one, the mixed heritage race.

Isn't segregation considered racism anymore?

Separate but equal was considered racism during the civil rights movement. This not only applied to facilities, but in keeping the races separated. Is this not considered racism anymore? I'm confused, or you are.

My opinion is you must be, because it seems perfectly clear to me.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Micheal wrote:
Either one over the third one, the mixed heritage race.


Which action or statement of the jurist makes you think that he believes either parent to be inherently superior in racial qualities to the prospective child?

Jim Crow laws are symptomatic of racism. Anti-miscegenation laws are symptomatic of racism. Segregation is not racism; it is well documented through studies both in the Bay Area and in Boston that blacks as well as whites were willing to pay more in order to live in neighborhoods that were more racially similar to their own race. Are all those people racist?

Author:  Micheal [ Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:55 am ]
Post subject: 

His refusal to marry the couple based on the possibility they might have that child. He refuses to entertain the possibility that such a child could have a reasonable life because neither 'race' would accept the child. He is legislating reproductive rights, to avoid the intermingling of the races.

If that isn't a complete enough answer for you, I won't be able to answer it to your satisfaction, nor do I intend to keep trying.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:10 am ]
Post subject: 

Nowhere did he say that he thought "that such a child could have a reasonable life". He is legislating nothing, he does not have that power. He has no control over the couple's reproduction.

Nowhere does he give me the impression that he believes any race inherently superior to the other, and I have no clue where you came to that conclusion through any logical means; I can only conclude that you're going with your "gut".

Author:  Rorinthas [ Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: South Strikes again.

Why do we have to put a label on it such as rascism? what does it profit us? He's certainly out of order. He needs to be overruled at the least, or removed at the most.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/