This stuff is still going on?

Remove all ads!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/16/mixed-race-couple-marriage-licence?CMP=AFCYAH

How does someone rise to such a high office which such strong prejudice views?

Reading the article I get a feeling of religion orientating his views, what do you think?

It is good to see that something is being done about it, but I wonder how many couples were completly disuaded from marrying by this guy

 

I don't see any hint of religion in there whatsoever. His logic seems to be concern for children (whether that's really what he's thinking or not, it's the only indication we have).

All in all, though, I don't think this is a big deal. It's disappointing, yes, but he didn't prevent them from marrying, and even suggested a different Justice to do it for them.

 

You think? It's either that or a straight-up shot of good ol' fashion racism.

 

NOG has hit on it. He doesn't tell people they cannot have an interracial marriage, just that he won't do it. First of all, a justice of the peace is not a high political office by any stretch of the imagination. Second, he claims to have turned down four couples in his 30 year career (I seriously doubt he convinced any of them not to marry -- as stated before he even recommended a different justice to perform the ceremony).

I'm somewhat torn on this. While I believe anyone is free to have their own opinions and, so long as they don't harm anyone, free to pursue their beliefs, I also believe that he has taken an oath as justice of the peace to perform his duties within the law. If he does not agree with the law, he should not be in the position. If he is allowed by law to refuse marrying some couples, and his refusal of this couple falls within those guidelines, then he is still performing his duties within the law.

As a secondary issue, the "poor me" syndrome is just ridiculous. The guy sent this couple on their way (actually I think they telephoned him and he gave them another name and number -- it put them out by maybe five minutes of their time) and they decided to call the paper, the news, the ACLU, and anyone else they could think of to shout out 'look at me, I'm being discriminated against!'

 

I agree with T2. When I started to read the article, I was horrified. But as I read on, I saw that the judge clearly states he has nothing against black people. whether that's true or if he's just saying that, I don't know. But all his arguments are not based on anything to the effect of "it's immoral". He refuses to marry interracial couples because he feels that mixed children are not accepted in a black society as well as a white society. Whether we agree or not (I don't) in inconsequential. His decision in logical, not emotional. I don't see discrimination here. And like T2 pointed out, he also directed them to a diffrent parrish that would help them, he didn't try to talk them out of it..

Btw, isn't time we erase the word "race" from our vocabulary when refering to men and women? To me, that word is more prejudice than the article. We should instead speak of "ethnic groups" and "discrimination". I mean there is only one race, the human race. We are not animals.

 

I still think his actions are racist though.

I'm also not sure "ethnic groups" solves anything either. If someone asked me for my ethnicity, I wouldn't say I'm white or European. I'd be more specific, and say Italian and Slovak.

However, with most black people living in the US, they trace their ancestry through slavery, and in many cases they don't know their country of origin. If you ask them for their ethnicity, the best they could say is "African", which isn't much different than calling them "black".

 

They asked the JP to marry them, not his opinion on kids. Who said they were planning to have inter-racial children? It's not his job to even ask that question. Nor does his opinion matter, as he is suppose to MARRY them, not offer advice about child raising. He went beyond his duties as a JP in this matter and should be reprimanded for it, as in being stripped of his JP status.

As for the couple, they probably shouldn't have gone to the media, just to his superiors. Going to the media should only be done if his superiors refused to act on his mis-behavior. Drama, drama, drama, that's what were all about these days.

 

I certainly don't doubt he is biased -- claiming him a "racist" is simply turning it up a notch and feeds the whole 'either you do not discriminate or you're a racist' mentality which pervades our society. Many people have various biases, but I would not classify them as racists (even though the bias may be based on race) -- racist has a very specific connotation in society and I don't think this guy went quite that far.

 

Is there any contention to stop using "racism" and start using "discrimination"?

Now to the second point, as I previously said, "race" is a word that has a meaning that doesn't exist. They started using that word when it was widely believed that black people (amongst others) were "a different kind of species", lower than whites. To still use "race" is to still acknowledge that meaning.

As for ethnic groups, you don't like it? Cool. What's your suggestion? I think it's the best term so far, unless you have another...

 

If this fella is not racist, he is only one step away. It's a real fine line he is walking with this one. I would prefer to think he is a racist, just not one willing to go to the levels others are. It's like he is taking his baby steps compared to others who actively bash people of other races.

Another example would be a father who doesn't accept his gay son. The father may not be a hatemonger, but his decison to not support his gay son in being gay is pretty close to being a gay-hater. Again, a fine line to walk. But you couldn't compare the father to say someone who goes around bashing gays on site or one who vandalizes the property of gays. They are not on the same level in their "disagreement" on gays.

 

I'll take these two together, since my answer is pretty much the same. To me, if you are discriminating against someone on the basis of race, that's pretty much the definition of racism - or at the very least bigotry.

I don't have one - I just don't think yours accomplishes what you are seeking to accomplish. I don't think referring to an African American by race (e.g. black) is much different than referring to them by ethnicity (e.g. African). I do not think the connotations of the words are different. In some cases, you'd be correct. For example, referring to someone as "white" definitely has different connotations than referring to someone as "Italian".

Yeah - it's the "best term so far", largely because it's been the only one offered in the thread. That's as true as me saying my son is my favorite child, while failing to point out he is also my only child. I don't think the connotations between black and African are different - which I thought was what you were trying to accomplish.

 

The JP has little discretion in such matters -- we hashed that out when we talked about JPs marrying homosexuals. It became evident that the way North American society views it, a JP must marry everyone who has the legal right to do so, regardless of his opinions on the matter. No allowance was made for referring the couple to another JP. I would imagine that this situation is the same.

However, as I said in that thread, it seems excessive -- where is the damage to the couple? He referred them to another JP -- he did not impede their ability to get married, he merely declined to be involved. For true discrimination to occur, there must be actual damage or suffering inflicted on the 'victims' -- I see no damages here.

He's not a racist, though there is a racial component in his reasoning. However, I would wager my left nut that there are lots of University Research projects that scientifically validate his thesis that mixed race kids have a tough time being accepted by either culture. Is that how it should be? Of course not. But it's the reality now. Whether that reality gives him the right to decline performing a marriage is another story.

Blades, your comment was . . . interesting. My brother was gay for a long time -- he was with a guy for over 10 years. My father never accepted that behaviour or the partner. But he's not even close to being a "gay hater" and no one could ever deny that he loved his son just as much as he loved his other kids. Just because a parent disagrees with the behaviour of a child doesn't make them one step away from being a criminal.

 

From a legal perspective, you may be right. I don't think the couple would have legal standing in a court of law, although the resident lawyers on the board could probably comment in further detail.

Now that I won't agree with. He had a job to do. Basically, he's saying that he won't perform an inter-racial marriage, because other people are racist towards inter-racial children. That doesn't work as an excuse. No, no, no. I'm NOT the one who is racist - it's all the other people who are racists - that's why I can't marry you.

 

You are not considering when I said:

I'm not saying for a second that it necessarily gives him the right to refuse. I was merely commenting on his facts and reasoning.

 

LKD, that's why I think it's a fine line. A father can love his son whole-heartedly and still not accept being a homosexual? I can agree with that. Does it make it right? IMO, no. But it's a tough one to judge.

As for the judge impeded their marriage, I believe he did just that. Yes, they could of went on to some other JP, but they called him. It was his obligation to marry them, not deny them. At that moment, they were being impeded upon by him. That was wrong. Would that hold up in court if a law-suit was filed, I would hope so if it was necessary. I can go to any Post office to mail a package, but one office can't refuse me because of my race and tell me to go down the street to the next office, they serve whites there. That is not excusable.

 

"Going beyond one's duity" is generally not a punishable offense. Now, if he violated procedure or something, he should be punished accordingly, but that entirely depends on the rules of his job.

Honestly, I think you're only calling it a 'fine walk' or 'fine line' because distance has blurred your view. There's a huge difference between not agreeing with/supporting someone's decision and even just actively opposing it, much less being a hate-monger over it.

I'd say he's passively opposing their decision, which is a moderate line from active opposition and still a ways away from hate-mongering.

I remember that discussion, but I don't remember that conclusion. I think some of us concluded that (who already disagreed with it) while others said it depended on local law. In fact, in the US, given that most states allow retired judges to perform weddings, I think demanding that they must isn't reasonable.

I agree with you entirely on this. Even if that really were his position, the logical thing wouldn't be to deny it outright, but to have a sit-down chat with the couple to make sure they understood what they were getting into.

 

Yeah, let's go to the Justices own words:

I cannot even wrap my head around this. If you don't believe in "mixing the races", how is that not racist?

I don't know anyone who refers to people as "piles". Such turns of phrase are usually reserved for objects. And obviously he's not a racist because he let's them use the bathroom? So at least I guess he doesn't think they have cooties.

Except if they want to marry a white woman.

Well yeah, that's your f'ing job!

Right. You treat all inter-racial couples exactly the same... by not treating them the same as same-race couples.

So long as if you're the same race.

Right... but that's you're job.

 

It's an odd turn of phrase, but I've heard it before. It's similar to 'tons' of friends. So now you value your friends the same way as freight cargo?

Considering this was from Louisiana, that's a valid remark to make. Not letting blacks use the same bathrooms as whites (or water fountains or anything) has a long history with them.

 

Indeed, not racist?

Of course he is racist. That's as blatant as it gets since throwing blacks off the bus is no longer allowed.

As a justice of the peace it is not his job to determine how to consenting adults, of different sexes, decide to live. And this concern for their future children is not his concern to have. He is to marry them, if they meet the legal requirements and keep to himself whatever passes as thought or concern in his mind. The blather about welfare of their children is hogwash. It is none of his business.

Of course there is the remote possibility that he wanted to help them, because they live in a county that is so racist that their inter-racial marriage would indeed would make them a target of racism. I just don't believe that, because it would be even more depressing than a single racist judge of the peace.

The same as with this person that was mentioned before in a thread long dead, as I vaguely remember, who had nothing against gays - but wanted to exercise his religious freedom to not marry gay couples (i.e. them godless sodomites) when they come to him, and who then just couldn't wrap his mind around what on earth he might have done wrong to expose him to scorn and vile persecution.

 

Here I disagree with you. It is, quite literally, his business to make families. The consequences of making families under poor conditions may not be something he legally has to live with, but it is something that he may concern himself with.

Again, if he broke any protocols or rules, he should be punished, but if justices are allowed any leeway on referring weddings to other justices, then he didn't act improperly.