Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, it's okay put forth racist policies and as long as you don't get paid for it? it's okay?

[Dr. Love]

Signs of the Times - Louisiana JP Refuses License to Interracial Couple

"A justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple last week because of concern for the children who might be born of that relationship.

Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace for Tangipahoa Parish’s 8th Ward, also said it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

“I’m not a racist,” Bardwell said. “I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house. My main concern is for the children.”

Beth Humphrey, 30, said she and her boyfriend, Terence McKay, 32, both of Hammond, intend to consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

Humphrey said she called Bardwell Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She said Bardwell’s wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples.

“I simply can’t believe he can do that. That’s blatant discrimination,” Humphrey said.

The Louisiana American Civil Liberties Union and the Tangipahoa Parish Chapter of the NAACP agree.

Louisiana ACLU Executive Director Marjorie R. Esman said Bardwell’s refusal to sign the license is both “tragic and illegal.”

Pat Morris, NAACP Tangipahoa Parish chapter president, said she was shocked to hear that the choice of a spouse is still an issue in Tangipahoa Parish.

Humphrey, a Covington native, said she was discharged from the military over a year ago. McKay is originally from Franklinton. They met where she works, she said.

The couple had planned to go to South Carolina for the wedding, where they would be married in a traditional ceremony by her brother, who is a youth minister, Humphrey said. But McKay lost his job, and by the time he was re-employed he was unable to get off for the wedding.

They decided to go ahead and get married here “to make it right before God,” she said.

“We decided on a very short, simple ceremony with a couple of my friends as witnesses,” she said. “Later, when he got some time off, we would go to South Carolina for the traditional ceremony, although we would actually already be officially married.”

Toward the conclusion of her conversation with Bardwell’s wife, Humphrey said she was asked if this was an interracial marriage. Humphrey told her it was.

“I have no idea why she asked me that,” Humphrey said. “I suppose she asks everyone that question.”

Humphrey said the wife told her that Bardwell does not do interracial marriages.

“I don’t understand this because he is an elected official and discrimination is against the law,” Humphrey said.

Bardwell, who is handicapped, said he has been a JP for 34 years and has never had opposition, but this is his last term.

According to the Secretary of State’s elected officials database, his current term will expire Dec. 31, 2014.

Bardwell said from his experience, “99 percent of the time” the interracial couple consists of a black man and white woman.

“I find that rather confusing,” he said.

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

“Yet, the children are innocent. They had nothing to do with that,” he said.

In many cases, he said, the grandparents or a relative ends up with the children.

“I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”

He said if he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all.

“I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.

No one told Humphrey she and her boyfriend could not get married, Bardwell said. He said his wife even suggested she see Justice of the Peace Terri Crosby of Tickfaw, which Humphrey said she did and Crosby agreed to sign the license.

Bardwell said a justice of the peace is not required to conduct a marriage ceremony and is at liberty to recuse himself “from a marriage or anything else.”

He said the state attorney general told him years ago that he would eventually get into trouble for not performing interracial marriages.

“I told him if I do, I’ll resign,” Bardwell said. “I have rights too. I’m not obligated to do that just because I’m a justice of the peace.”

JPs do not get paid for performing marriages, although the couple may give a “gratuity,” he said.

“I’m not trying to mistreat anyone. I’m just trying to treat everyone equal,” he said.

Esman said it is indefensible for this issue to arise in 2009. No one in Tangipahoa Parish or anywhere else should have to submit to judicial approval of their choice of a spouse.

This has been the law for over 50 years, she said. In 1963, in the case Loving vs. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot prohibit marriages simply because of the race of the spouses.

“The government cannot discriminate based upon race, which is what is happening here,” Esman said. “The choice of a spouse is deeply personal, and the government simply cannot prevent you from marrying the person you love, based upon skin color.”

Bardwell’s decision and his position are wrong, Morris said.

“I think he went a little too far this time,” she said. “What does it matter if one is black and one is white. It’s their decision, their lives. “

According to the clerk of court’s office, getting a marriage license is a relatively easy process. Application for the license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period, although this can be waived by the judge, JP or minister.

The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.

A certified copy of their birth certificate and Social Security care are required. No blood test is required in Louisiana.

The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed within the State of Louisiana. Once it is signed by the minister, JP or judge, the original is returned to the clerk’s office. A certified copy is made and sent to the couple, and the original is put on file." (Don Ellzey, Hammond [La] Star, October 15, 2009)

Bolding mine.

In all seriousness (and I'll respond to your specific point momentarily, Nick), I don't see it a a big deal. He referred them to someone else to do it. I think he was obtuse for not signing it but if he genuinely believes in it, then I can admire a person for sticking to their convictions. If it becomes a huge local issue, then he should do as he said and resign. Not that it matters, given that it's his last term, but he should do it.

If it were a matter of it being illegal (like gay marriage) then I would feel as strongly as you do about it. But it's not a matter of it being illegal for them to marry, it's a matter of him not marrying them. Fine. He doesn't have to do it, and there are plenty of other people that will.

I get that people feel strongly about it being an equality issue and I can see the point. I just don't think it's a big deal.

[Dr. Love]

Originally Posted by Nickdfresh

Great! Where's his resignation letter? If Billy Joe doesn't want to do his job, then: a.) quit b.) get fired c.) cause his employer to get sued because he's a retarded asshole in a position of responsibility



Good. Because my goal wasn't to offend you. It was to make a point...



You are correct. I doubt that was your next step. I was speaking more in terms of societal "baby steps."

There is no excuse to let anything like this incident stand...



That's fine. But you posted in this thread and read it, so you cared on some level. But where do we stop? Does a DMV clerk get to deny a person a renewal of their license because they happen to be of Vietnamese origin, and might be a bad driver?

I care about my opinion, enough to post it, not whether or not they could get married

And Dallas would possibly be a better place if they denied drivers licenses to asians ... but only the women. The men are fine.

[standin]

Originally Posted by lesfunk

I don't think one gets paid to be a justice of the peace. If one doesn't get paid to do it, It ain't his job. If it ain't his job, he don't have to marry nobody if he don't want to.
If he was really breaking the law by refusing those nice people he should certainly be punished . CERTAINLY should be punished.
I don't like defending a racist, but Leftists have to learn that THEY CAN'T JUST PUNISH ANYBODY THEY WANT TO JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY THINK.

What?! First off, if he is paid one quarter that is pay.
If he is paid with authority that is pay.
There are a lot of jobs you do not get paid that not only can you be fired from, but are influential and/or important.
It does not matter if he is paid or not.
If a person takes a position, with or without compensation they agree to uphold that position. Pay has not a damn thing to do with it.

[Dr. Love]

I think the main difference really is that he is providing a service, and can decline to provide that service for any reason. It's no different than a priest or clergyman refusing to perform a marriage based on religious affiliation.

They hold the job, they should sign the license, right? Or is that a different standard?

[standin]

No, it is not the same thing. Technically, is is misusing the recuse clause.
Moreover, like I said, he should have not stated is was recusing himself due to an illegal use of the recuse law. Had he not need to flaunt his disregard for the law allowing interracial marriages he would have died out and no one would have known one way or another unless they did an accounting on his court documents. He just had to be uppity and mouth off.

[Dr. Love]

So, in that case, do you believe that all people that have the legal ability to marry people should be required to do so as long as the people are legally marriageable in line with equality laws because they are providing a government service?

If they refuse to do so, do you think they should give up their ability to legally marry people?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted by Dr. Love

Signs of the Times - Louisiana JP Refuses License to Interracial Couple



Bolding mine.

In all seriousness (and I'll respond to your specific point momentarily, Nick), I don't see it a a big deal. He referred them to someone else to do it.
I think he was obtuse for not signing it but if he genuinely believes in it, then I can admire a person for sticking to their convictions. If it becomes a huge local issue, then he should do as he said and resign. Not that it matters, given that it's his last term, but he should do it.

Okay, so his superiors knew he was racist and that he convulsed his belief system of white supremacy with an ethos masquerading as some bullshit about "marriages not working out" when in fact most marriages don't "work out" regardless of race. He should be marrying NO ONE then! That's fine, but they opened themselves to a lawsuit because apparently they're fucking stupid.

And if you admire a person for sticking to their conviction, that's fine. But again, that brings back my point for your admiration of Hitler. Because he certainly stuck to his position.

But I have no respect, because if it was his postion that he should engender a form of segregation and social engineering, and knew this was a problem he should have recused himself from his position....

If it were a matter of it being illegal (like gay marriage) then I would feel as strongly as you do about it. But it's not a matter of it being illegal for them to marry, it's a matter of him not marrying them. Fine. He doesn't have to do it, and there are plenty of other people that will.

No. It's a matter of him not being in a position to make the choice to marry them or not based solely on race. Because his superiors knew of his predilections, that only makes the suit more plausible..

I get that people feel strongly about it being an equality issue and I can see the point. I just don't think it's a big deal.

Fine. But I think it is a big deal. If NO parishes (essentially county governments for us in the 21st century) get to decide who gets married, then where does it stop? Again, can the department of motor vehicles clerk decide that a "gook" shouldn't have a license, so he'll just tell them to go to someone else? I mean, where is the accountability here? They let some asshole be a JOTP knowing he makes racist decisions? Again, where does that precedent go?

Do teachers get to ignore the "niggars" in their class because they believe blacks shouldn't be educated?

[Dr. Love]

Nick, I think you're instrumentally removing any impact the holocaust had on me by linking it routinely to mundane and un-impactful events. I gotta say there has to be some sort of middle ground between "this guy refuses to do a service that he doesn't have to do" and "you support hitler's extermination of the jews and other ethnic groups"

I wouldn't care if the guy refused to marry them because they were rednecks. He doesn't have to do it, he decided not to do it (for poor reasons), and they got someone else to do it.

If everyone refused to do it, I'd think it would be a bigger deal. One guy decided not to do it. Big deal.

If he opens some concentration camps and starts exterminating bi-racial babies, I'll retract my statements and issue a formal apology for being wrong.

[FORD]

How about pharmacists who refuse to sell birth control pills?

Bottom line is, if you can't do the job you were hired for because of some political reason or some psycho perversion of "religious morals", then find another fucking job.

[lesfunk]

Originally Posted by Nickdfresh

BTW, it's okay put forth racist policies and as long as you don't get paid for it? it's okay?

It's not a question of okay. It's a question of legality. Did he break a law? If so arrest him.
It's really that simple

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted by Dr. Love

Nick, I think you're instrumentally removing any impact the holocaust had on me by linking it routinely to mundane and un-impactful events. I gotta say there has to be some sort of middle ground between "this guy refuses to do a service that he doesn't have to do" and "you support hitler's extermination of the jews and other ethnic groups"

Right. And you're ignoring my more terrestrial examples such as civil servants deciding as too which people they want to serve (which you've yet to acknowledge)...

So, I own a restaurant. And if I see a mixed race couple (basically a black man and a white woman) I get to throw them out, right? I shouldn't get sued because I have the right to my own convictions of separation of the races?

I wouldn't care if the guy refused to marry them because they were rednecks. He doesn't have to do it, he decided not to do it (for poor reasons), and they got someone else to do it.

And I'm saying, where does that stop? What if everyone refused to marry them? Then they can't get married, which is a clear violation of their basic civil rights...

Just because they CAN get married somewhere else doesn't mean they should HAVE too...

If everyone refused to do it, I'd think it would be a bigger deal. One guy decided not to do it. Big deal.

So we should wait until everyone refuses to do it before they can sue? Do we have to wait for every company to fire people without cause before we can sue one for doing it too?

That makes no sense whatsoever!

If he opens some concentration camps and starts exterminating bi-racial babies, I'll retract my statements and issue a formal apology for being wrong.

Okay, so, unless someone murders people, no one can sue them for violations of basic civil rights?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted by lesfunk

It's not a question of okay. It's a question of legality. Did he break a law? If so arrest him.
It's really that simple

Oh, okay dummy. Whether he's (or the Parish) arrested or not, he's subject to civil litigation in addition to, or in lieu of, criminal penalties. And the Parish is culpable for employing an asshole...

[standin]

Originally Posted by Dr. Love

So, in that case, do you believe that all people that have the legal ability to marry people should be required to do so as long as the people are legally marriageable in line with equality laws because they are providing a government service?

If they refuse to do so, do you think they should give up their ability to legally marry people?

Legal marriage is not the same thing as a church sanctioned marriage.

A religious officiate or a magistrate may perform the ceremony.

Here are the basics that you need to know about obtaining a marriage license. The actual specifics depends on where you are getting married.
First you need to apply for a marriage license. After your wedding, once the license is recorded with the county where you were married, you will receive your marriage certificate.

He is not the same as an religious officiate. He resides over the courts. Technically, he should have recused himself from all marriages if he had conflict with American law. A marriage license expires and is limited in legality. If not filed within a certain time frame is not is not a legally binding document. Other laws may take over and legally sanction the marriage, but that is not a religious sanctioned marriage.
Just so you know, in Alabama, last I checked, 48 hours was long enough to deem common law marriage. I think they Recently changed it.

Yes, he was under legal obligation to up hold and wittiness lawful activities for purpose of documentation. Pastors of the Aryan Brotherhood or the Nation of Islam, though I do not think they are legally recognized, would not have to wittiness something against their religious laws

[lesfunk]

Oh, okay dummy. Whether he's (or the Parish) arrested or not, he's subject to civil litigation in addition to, or in lieu of, criminal penalties. And the Parish is culpable for employing an asshole.

Sue everybody. It'll make the world a better place. Who's the dummy?
It's an ugly truth but assholes do exist and do hold positions of authority. What a revelation .
Nick, What happened to you to make you so full of hate? I'm serious.

[Dr. Love]

Dunno how other states do it -- in Texas, pastors, priests and clergymen are able to sign a marriage certificate, same as a justice of the peace. The point I was making was this -- is it okay for some people to refuse to sign and not okay for others?

If you have been granted the legal ability by the government to sign a marriage certificate, then are you obligated to do so no matter your personal views (religious or otherwise) or else give up the ability to legally officiate a marriage?

As for your request for me to acknowledge your other points, Nick, you're right, I overlooked them in my response. Not because I didn't want to acknowledge them, but because I glossed over them as not an apples to apples comparison.

If the person in the DMV is given the option to not issue a license to drive for whatever reason (as is apparently the case here) and chose to exercise it, more power to them. I wouldn't agree with their reasons any more than I agree with this dude's reasons.

But if they have that right, and choose to exercise it, I don't have a problem with them doing so. If he was legally required to do it, fine, he should have done it or been forced to resign. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

What it looks to me like is this: You guys are arguing that he should have been forced to do something that he wasn't required to do when he didn't want to do it because his personal views don't conform to your own or those of the majority of society.

Is that basically the case?

Because from what I can deduce, he didn't have to sign it. If he did have to sign it, then yes, he should have done it, or stuck to his guns and resigned.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted by lesfunk

Sue everybody. It'll make the world a better place. Who's the dummy?

No douchebag, I basically said "sue" those in government that abuse their positions in clear violations of law such as the civil rights act.

And you're the dummy if you need a reminder...

It's an ugly truth but assholes do exist and do hold positions of authority. What a revelation .

Right. But you only care when they're "liberals," right asshole cliche-monger?

Nick, What happened to you to make you so full of hate? I'm serious.

Dude, are you serious? Did you read this fucking thread? Please show examples of my "alleged hate" as compared to yours or anyone elses. But maybe you can reread the part about my lovely, Carmel skinned black (Caribbean) girlfriend and my right to marry her wherever the fuck I want without a douchebag telling me how it "won't work out" as opposed to over 50% of marriages that also "don't work out!"

[lesfunk]

Originally Posted by Dr. Love

h.

What it looks to me like is this: You guys are arguing that he should have been forced to do something that he wasn't required to do when he didn't want to do it because his personal views don't conform to your own or those of the majority of society.

Is that basically the case?

Because from what I can deduce, he didn't have to sign it. If he did have to sign it, then yes, he should have done it, or stuck to his guns and resigned.

You know That's how i see it. I am unable to express myself eloquently like Dr. Love.

[Dr. Love]

Originally Posted by FORD

How about pharmacists who refuse to sell birth control pills?

Bottom line is, if you can't do the job you were hired for because of some political reason or some psycho perversion of "religious morals", then find another fucking job.

I'm not sure if it's a full time job. I doubt it from what I understand of the reqs to be a justice of the peace, and the fact that he's not paid. Actually it doesn't sound much different than being a notary.

Which makes me wonder, can a notary refuse to notarize something on the basis of race/relgion/gender, etc.

[lesfunk]

Originally Posted by Nickdfresh

No douchebag, I basically said "sue" those in government that abuse their positions in clear violations of law such as the civil rights act.

And you're the dummy if you need a reminder...



Right. But you only care when they're "liberals," right asshole cliche-monger?



Dude, are you serious? Did you read this fucking thread? Please show examples of my "alleged hate" as compared to yours or anyone elses. But maybe you can reread the part about my lovely, Carmel skinned black (Caribbean) girlfriend and my right to marry her wherever the fuck I want without a douchebag telling me how it "won't work out" as opposed to over 50% of marriages that also "don't work out!"

To be honest I'm just enjoying watching you get so pissed off over this.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted by Dr. Love

Dunno how other states do it -- in Texas, pastors, priests and clergymen are able to sign a marriage certificate, same as a justice of the peace. The point I was making was this -- is it okay for some people to refuse to sign and not okay for others?

Um, pastors and priests perform a ceremony at behest of their voluntary, affiliated participants. That's sectarian. A justice of the peace is a member of a government and is compelled to fulfill the sworn functions of his office. He doesn't have the right to arbitrarily decide who he'll marry.

If you have been granted the legal ability by the government to sign a marriage certificate, then are you obligated to do so no matter your personal views (religious or otherwise) or else give up the ability to legally officiate a marriage?

If you have voluntarily sought out to do such duties at the behest of state and federal law, then your personal views are irrelevant!

Again, where is the precedent for this? If you enlist in the military, and you refuse to--say--deploy to a combat zone because you believe that killing Iraqis is immoral, you get charged under the United Code of Military Justice.

As for your request for me to acknowledge your other points, Nick, you're right, I overlooked them in my response. Not because I didn't want to acknowledge them, but because I glossed over them as not an apples to apples comparison.

If the person in the DMV is given the option to not issue a license to drive for whatever reason (as is apparently the case here) and chose to exercise it, more power to them. I wouldn't agree with their reasons any more than I agree with this dude's reasons.

Okay. But that person gets fired, or the DMV gets sued. Because they're clearly violating the basic tenets of civil rights law and not doing their fucking job...

But if they have that right, and choose to exercise it, I don't have a problem with them doing so. If he was legally required to do it, fine, he should have done it or been forced to resign. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

No, they don't have the "right." No more than I have the "right" to grab a hot young girls ass because I feel like it and she's my employee. Yeah, I can do it. But that doesn't mean I, or my organization, can't get sued by her or that I "may' do it...

What it looks to me like is this: You guys are arguing that he should have been forced to do something that he wasn't required to do when he didn't want to do it because his personal views don't conform to your own or those of the majority of society.

Is that basically the case?

Um, who said he wasn't "required" to do it? If they met the basic stipulations for marriage under Louisiana law for marriage, who is this cunt to deny them that?

Because from what I can deduce, he didn't have to sign it. If he did have to sign it, then yes, he should have done it, or stuck to his guns and resigned.

He didn't "have" to sign anything. But he CHOSE not to sign based on a prejudicial judgment call. And that's fine. Let the courts decide...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted by lesfunk

To be honest I'm just enjoying watching you get so pissed off over this.

Just like I'm enjoying watching you pissed off that Obama won the election, and Republicans are floundering in a massive douchbaggary of nothing and irrelevance...

[lesfunk]

well as long as we're both having fun....

[Dr. Love]

I believe in the article it said that he could choose not to sign the license for any reason?

Again, priests/pastors/clerfy voluntarily choose to become legally able to perform marriages (to sign the marriage certificate). If they have voluntarily chosen to become able to do this, then they shouldn't be able to refuse to do it for anyone that is legally eligible to get married?

I agree that a clergyman can refuse to do a religious ceremony, but what about refusing to legally marry them and sign the certificate? Is that allowed? Sounds like you are saying that it's not allowed, though I suspect it happens much more often than this scenario occurs.

Should we all be outraged over that too, then?

Again, it doesn't seem like this is anything other than a volunteer job. He doesn't get paid and from what I can tell it's not a full time gig. And on top of that, he appears to be allowed legally to refuse to do it, and did so.

So again what's the big deal? That he's a racist douche?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted by Dr. Love

I'm not sure if it's a full time job. I doubt it from what I understand of the reqs to be a justice of the peace, and the fact that he's not paid. Actually it doesn't sound much different than being a notary.

Which makes me wonder, can a notary refuse to notarize something on the basis of race/relgion/gender, etc.

Sure they can. Then people can sue the their employers for granting office to blatant assholes...

You forgot to bold this BTW: "It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. She said the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted by Dr. Love

I believe in the article it said that he could choose not to sign the license for any reason?

LOL You apparently forgot to "bold" that part.

Again, priests/pastors/clerfy voluntarily choose to become legally able to perform marriages (to sign the marriage certificate). If they have voluntarily chosen to become able to do this, then they shouldn't be able to refuse to do it for anyone that is legally eligible to get married?

I agree that a clergyman can refuse to do a religious ceremony, but what about refusing to legally marry them and sign the certificate? Is that allowed? Sounds like you are saying that it's not allowed, though I suspect it happens much more often than this scenario occurs.

But people don't pay taxes to fucking clerics, nor are clerics compelled to marry those that are not members of their houses of worship. We're talking about the local gov't here, so please stop using this silly analogy, 'kay?

Because no one is talking about a clergyman. We're talking about elected officials/appointees...

Again, it doesn't seem like this is anything other than a volunteer job. He doesn't get paid and from what I can tell it's not a full time gig. And on top of that, he appears to be allowed legally to refuse to do it, and did so.

So again what's the big deal? That he's a racist douche?

Okay. I'm a (hypothetically) volunteer fireman who refuses to rescue "niggars and spic's" and I've made this clear to my superiors. And a number of Hispanic kids die as a result of my clear and public refusal to run into a house to rescue them.

Can I, or my town, be sued for that?

[Dr. Love]

Originally Posted by Nickdfresh

LOL You apparently forgot to "bold" that part.

Actually, I didn't forget. Reading comprehension required. Don't start making this personal just because you don't agree.

But people don't pay taxes to fucking clerics, nor are clerics compelled to marry those that are not members of their houses of worship. We're talking about the local gov't here, so please stop using this silly analogy, 'kay?

It's a volunteer government service. It's no sillier than your Hitler analogies, and I'd said a lot more relevant.

Because no one is talking about a clergyman. We're talking about elected officials/appointees...

Just wanted to know if, since you were arguing equality, would apply a different standard to different types of people that voluntarily seek out the same types of legal power. Seems like you do.

Okay. I'm a (hypothetically) volunteer fireman who refuses to rescue "niggars and spic's" and I've made this clear to my superiors. And a number of Hispanic kids die as a result of my clear and public refusal to run into a house to rescue them.

Can I, or my town, be sued for that?

Doubt it. It is a volunteer service, after all. I'm sure a lot of people would get all wound up and rant on a david lee roth message board about it though.


So are you upset that you think he's a douchebag, or you think he did something illegal? Or is it because you're in an interracial relationship and think you should rage against the man because someone somewhere might tell you that they don't want to marry you?

[Dr. Love]

Originally Posted by Nickdfresh

Sure they can. Then people can sue the their employers for granting office to blatant assholes...

You forgot to bold this BTW: "It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. She said the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."

Missed this post.

So the guy should have resigned/should resign.

[chan_bkny]

Originally Posted by standin

If you are dating for color reason, you might be a racist.

One exception comes to mind - someone is a fetishist. I've heard white guys say they like various ethnic women because of their hair, eyes, booty, etc. It's funny to hear them say these things, yet bizarre and creepy. One guy said to me that he had always been attracted to Asian women. You look at his girlfriend - she's white.

You know what makes my head reel was one time on a talk show, the topic was about interracial relationships, and there on the panel was a white guy and a black woman couple. When asked why he was dating outside his race, he said he "wanted the experience." Excuse me????!!!

Originally Posted by standin

I over heard this chick say to another "Once you go black you never go back"
A person blurted out. "That's racist!" lol... reminds me of some Internet pics from here and there...The girl that said "Once you go black, you never go back" Exclaimed back to the other person "I am not a racist!" the other person said "How is that not racists?" The chick that said it just kept flipping her head and saying "I am not a racist" At that point you're like, would you just explain what you mean by "Once you go black you never go back"!

What do you think it means, Chan?...Seemed an odd statement to me. Have you heard it before?

Yes, I've heard it. In fact, our governor David Patterson said it in jest when he was talking about following in President Obama's footsteps in becoming President. The first time that I heard the "once you go black" expression was probably from a kid in my class (I grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood). It's just a humorous boastful saying. A non-black person who says this is boasting about how s/he is in such a satisfying relationship with a black person that s/he will never date another person who is not black. If it's a black person saying this, then it means s/he gives satisfaction and has "returning customers." It's like my saying that after having drank Pu Erh tea, Dragon Well, Dragon Pearl Jasmine tea, I ain't going back to a Lipton teabag.

[standin]

You do understand the difference between religious law and Federal law.
And being appointed by the judicial system and being appointed by a religious system?

The JoP is a government appointee, if or if not elected.
He is bound by judicial law and an representative of the government, paid or not.
I am not sure how captains got into the conducting the marriage vows, but they too would not be an government employee (exception being a government ship and then employed by the USA government at the very least the captain of the government ship would be a sub-contractor). I assume that the USA government has ships besides military.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted by chan_bkny

...our governor david patterson...

Aside from all the other issues in this thread...

[chan_bkny]

What? Are you a New Yorker?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted by chan_bkny

What? Are you a New Yorker?

A Buffalo, New Yorker!

[Dr. Love]

Originally Posted by standin

You do understand the difference between religious law and Federal law.
And being appointed by the judicial system and being appointed by a religious system?

The JoP is a government appointee, if or if not elected.
He is bound by judicial law and an representative of the government, paid or not.
I am not sure how captains got into the conducting the marriage vows, but they too would not be an government employee (exception being a government ship and then employed by the USA government at the very least the captain of the government ship would be a sub-contractor). I assume that the USA government has ships besides military.

I believe (not 100% certain) that in Texas (I suspect many or most other states as well) you have to be licensed by the state to perform legal marriages. Whether you are a religious clergyman or not.

My question was simply if a person licensed by the state should be required to perform a legal marriage (not a religious one) as a condition of being licensed by the state.

[chan_bkny]

Originally Posted by Nickdfresh

A Buffalo, New Yorker!

Oh, gawd. Say it ain't so.

[standin]

Originally Posted by chan_bkny

One exception comes to mind - someone is a fetishist. I've heard white guys say they like various ethnic women because of their hair, eyes, booty, etc. It's funny to hear them say these things, yet bizarre and creepy. One guy said to me that he had always been attracted to Asian women. You look at his girlfriend - she's white.

You know what makes my head reel was one time on a talk show, the topic was about interracial relationship, and there on the panel was a white guy and a black woman couple. When asked why he was dating outside his race, he said he "wanted the experience." Excuse me????!!!



Yes, I've heard it. In fact, our governor David Patterson said it in jest when he was talking about following in President Obama's footsteps in becoming President. The first time that I heard the "once you go black" expression was probably from a kid in my class (I grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood). It's just a humorous boastful saying. A non-black person who says this is boasting about how s/he is in such a satisfying relationship with a black person that s/he will never date another person who is not black. If it's a black person saying this, then it means s/he gives satisfaction and has "returning customers." It's like my saying that after having drank Pu Erh tea, Dragon Well, Dragon Pearl Jasmine tea, I ain't going back to a Lipton teabag.

I actually heard it on the white side too. The white side, it meant that the person would not be welcomed back to the white race. And when I heard it from black people it always sounded foreboding. Like oh shit what's going to happen, invasion of the body snatchers? And usually not from a very socially diverse family. And color does not guarantee sexual ability. I can attest to that. If I judged the whole black race one experience. Well, needless to say, I did not experience one side of black culture. Not all of black people run dog fighting mills, mistreat women, have no family skills, have low self esteems, have criminal tendencies and have an inability to preform ( I assume that part), many white guys fit that description too (some parts of that is assumed too).


Oh, I admit if I could find someone that looked like me AND be compatible. I would be with me. I am a separatist that way. But Me's are very far and few between. And inevitably the cringe factor comes up of "Wow, we look so close alike we could be related". That conversation's pretty much a deal breaker. Just eww.

[standin]

Originally Posted by Dr. Love

I believe (not 100% certain) that in Texas (I suspect many or most other states as well) you have to be licensed by the state to perform legal marriages. Whether you are a religious clergyman or not.

My question was simply if a person licensed by the state should be required to perform a legal marriage (not a religious one) as a condition of being licensed by the state.

A marriage is not binding until it is submitted to court. The ceremony and certificate is just a temporary marriage until it is registered.

[Steve Savicki]

Originally Posted by Coyote

The more things change...

Speaking of racial issues:

Hotel owner tells Hispanic workers to change names - Yahoo! News

[chan_bkny]

The employees should all start calling him "Lorenzo" in protest.

[chan_bkny]

Look, if you can't speak Spanish, then take a Spanish course. One cannot be a bigot and stubbornly refuse to learn another language and think you can get by with only being half-assed fluent in one language. You're only doing yourself a disservice.