Those are, at best, rationalizations of racism.

 

The first and third, I agree, but not the second.

A white Louisiana Justice of the Peace has refused to issue a marriage liscense to an interracial couple because he says that he has concerns for any children that the couple might have .

]

 

Would becoming President be one of those concerns?

Would becoming President be one of those concerns?

 

The judge will prevent future Obamas one couple at a time, if he has to.

The judge will prevent future Obamas one couple at a time, if he has to.

:lol:

You make a fine response, except as to the bolded, which I disagree with.

 

In everything that we do, we make decisions based upon the evidence that we have been presented with in our own lives. If I have seen many instance of children who have been belittled, chastized, and jeered for being bi-racial, and have had social anxiety disorders and resultant behavioral problems because of it, then it is not at all conjecture or impossible to justify a personal stance that interracial couples should not marry. As with any good lawyer's stance, it is based upon actual evidence.

 

You make an excellent point, however, with your remark about our personal response.

 

Children of many races, including those of two white parents have behavioral disorders and social anxiety disorders as well. Kids can be cruel. Any difference can be perceived as a reason for shunning and making fun of another kid. I put forth this for your consideration: It's not the belittlement, chastisement or jeers that creates the disorders and problems. It's that they children are not being properly supported and taught to deal with their differences by their parents. There's plenty of actual evidence of that as well. Children who have shabby clothes, for instance, because their parents don't neglect them. I know quite a few well adjusted, thriving bi-racial children. Just because SOME have encountered difficulties, doesn't make it the norm, and should not be used as justification for not marrying two individuals who have yet to even have children.

 

The other issue is that the assumption is that two people who are marrying MUST have children. Again, there is a possibility no children were ever intended. At this point, the argument then would go back to your biblical references argument. At which point, I would argue that one's personal religious beliefs should not impede the rights of others, especially in this instance.

Would becoming President be one of those concerns?

 

Good one!

Yes...no question..I don't think it is against the law. If he isn't a racist than who is??:idunno:

 

It used to be. That law was overturned in 1967.

For some, there are scriptural references, particularly during the Old Testament return from captivity in Babylon and in a few other sections.

 

For others, the belief that the psychological effects brought on by backlash upon offspring is not justified.

 

For others still, there is some documentary evidence of 1) significantly higher divorce and separation rate of interracial couples; 2) significantly higher medical numbers in children for certain medical profiles that seem to be racially connected, such as sickle-cell anemia.

 

I do not comment upon the propriety of those bases, but simply offer them as other explanations.

Sickle-cell Anemia has been proved to not only affect black people. That is one reason that most states don't require the blood test any more.

 

As to the rest of your post. It should be left up to the couple to decide if they want to marry and have children and no one else.

As far as the children argument go I think it depends on where you live. I know in my corner of Southeastern Kentucky it would be very hard on the children (I've seen it first hand a few times with kids I've known). To me that is not a reason to deny the marriage, but I do think as potential parents they owe it the children to raise them in a place that would be accepting of them and not somewhere where they would be ridiculed and feel like outcast.

I have often found that any person that has to tell you they are not a "Racist" usally means they have racist behavior.................Which means they are a racist.

Example that ignorance is still alive in this country.

A few clarifications. He did not refuse to grant them a license. He cannot issue a license in his capacity as JOP. He says he does have the legal right as a JOP to recuse himself from performing a wedding ceremony.

 

So, while I completely disagree with him, he has not prevented them from getting married or even from getting a license. He simply said he would not perform the ceremony. I'm alright with that.

Yes...no question..I don't think it is against the law. If he isn't a racist than who is??:idunno:

 

"Racist" is a term thrown around way too much these days in my opinion. These days people are being labeled racists for simply disagreeing with policy. Some are being labeled racists for how they vote. Even conservatives are being labeled as racists by many.

 

Scenario: You're at a sidewalk ATM at 1:00 am getting some cash. After your $200 comes out you notice an old woman approaching from the left. At the same time to your right you notice a young black male with corn rows wearing a hoodie, his pants half way down, his left hand in his pocket and his right hand holding his crotch...Which one makes you nervous? Does the black male make you nervous because of the color of his skin? Or is it the "culture" he represents that makes you nervous? Would you feel any less nervous if the male is white and dressed the same way? Would you feel any different if the black male were dressed in a nice business suit with a briefcase in one hand and a ATM card in the other?

 

A racist IMO is one that thinks a particular race is genetically inferior to his/her race because of the color of their skin.

 

You asked "If he isn't a racist than who is??" A White Supremacist is a racist. Adolf Hitler was a racist.

 

If the black man above makes you nervous, maybe you're being prejudice.

 

Prejudice - Racist. Is there a difference?

 

I know I rambled and this don't really apply to the thread. I just think "racist" is too widely used these days.

This judge is stupid. Everyone has the right to form their own opinions and views, but a judge must enforce the law. What he did was wrong.

This judge is stupid. Everyone has the right to form their own opinions and views, but a judge must enforce the law. What he did was wrong.

 

In the interview I saw he said he broke no law. He says the state constitution allows JOPs to recuse themselves. He did that.

 

What law did he break in your mind?