• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.

Goobieman said:
Did you decide to not try to turn this into a discussion about the 2nd amendment, or were you going to get back to that?
Click to expand...

I'm calling your selective BS.
 
Gibberish said:
The mere fact that having children isn't a right granted or controlled by the government.
Click to expand...
The right in question here is marriage, not having kids.

The theoretical hardships children may or may not face has no stance on deciding who can and cannot marry.
Click to expand...
Why?
The question is why the right or marriage is exempt from the controlling in terest of the state 'welfare of the children'?
Simply stating that it is exempt doesnt answer the question.
 
Goobieman said:
Why?
The question is why the right or marriage is exempt from the controlling in terest of the state 'welfare of the children'?
Simply stating that it is exempt doesnt answer the question.
Click to expand...

There are not any children in this instance.......... :roll:
 
Goobieman said:
The right in question here is marriage, not having kids.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, so you mean the judge shouldn't have disqualified the couples right to marriage, since having kids had nothing to do with their right to marry?

:roll:
 
winston53660 said:
I'm calling your selective BS.
Click to expand...
Ironic, given that the whole point of this is to illustrate that the 'compelling state interest in the welfare of the child' argument is selective BS (as was noted long, long ago).

That much has been made VERY clear -- all that matters is which rights can be comprimised by the 'compelling state interest in the welfare of the child' argument, not the actual welfare of the children. If there's a right that someone likes -- in this case, that of people of mixed races who want to marry -- the 'compelling state interest' argument is tossed out the window.

You may now resume trying to turn this into a argument about guns.
 
Lightdemon said:
Hmmm, so you mean the judge shouldn't have disqualified the couples right to marriage, since having kids had nothing to do with their right to marry?
:roll:
Click to expand...
This is an example of you not understanding the issue at hand.
Deliberate or not, I'll let you decide.
 
Goobieman said:
This is an example of you not understanding the issue at hand.
Deliberate or not, I'll let you decide.
Click to expand...

Everyone has been asking you the same question.

What's the big deal? So what if mulatto children grow up with "particular" hardships?? Who the hell doesn't have any hardships when growing? Are the mulatto kid's hardships so much worse?
 
Equal protection under the law refers to the issuing of the license, an important constitutional protection and one of the foundations for the opinion issued in Loving.
Click to expand...

Are the couple actually restricted from getting the license? Are they unable to get a license from another justice?
 

I don't think anybody is arguing the state does not have an intrest in the welfare of children. The sooner you realize that the better.
 
Goobieman said:
The question is why the right or marriage is exempt from the controlling in terest of the state 'welfare of the children'?
Simply stating that it is exempt doesnt answer the question.
Click to expand...
Because it's pure speculation. The justice does not know what the welfare of the children will be or if they will even be able to have children. A decision is being made based on a hypothetical situation that may or may not occur. That is wrong.

Essentially the justice is saying "because X may occur in the future I am going to deny you A today." There are a thousands of reasons that "welfare of the children" could be used to deny almost every marraige in America.
 
Last edited:
Panache said:
Are the couple actually restricted from getting the license? Are they unable to get a license from another justice?
Click to expand...

Yes, but if it's illegal then there's the question of why this guy is still a justice.
 

Ahh ok.

Assuming his premise is true, and I invite anyone to present evidence supporting or contradicting it, then I would agree with his decision in a very general sense.

IF interracial marriages don't last long, than if I were in his position I would require the couple to attend pre-marital counseling before wedding them.
 

You're just jumping on the hyper-emotional "racist" train without bothering to learn anything about the specific situation at hand.

It's not racist to say that mixed marriages fail due to incompatible cultural differences if he has good evidence to support that claim. If he can prove his basis, then denying those marriages absent pre-marital counseling is not only good policy, it should be the law.
 

Seeing as one has nothing to do with the other, how do you suppose your post makes any sense at all?
 
Arcana XV said:
THEY'RE HALF BLACK!!! 111 one Their life is ruined before it's even started.

Just ask the President.
Click to expand...

Right, right, and all Germans want to exterminate Jews, JUST ASK HITLER!!!

Oh what your pathetic ability to reason must say about atheists given Stalin.

Please stop trolling.
 


A dergatory version would be, "high yellow", usually pronounced, "high yeller". usually referring to a mulato that is more white than black. I'm a high yeller. The other end of that spectrum would be, "red bone", referrin to a mulato that is more black than white. Some of my siblings are red bones, as well.


Jerry said:
Right, right, and all Germans want to exterminate Jews, JUST ASK HITLER!!!

Oh what your pathetic ability to reason must say about atheists given Stalin.

Please stop trolling.
Click to expand...

I'm of mixed race and my life is far from ruined. That's a stupid comment. The only problems I ever had beacuse of my mixed race were some fights in high school, with black kids, because I wasn't, "black enough", or because I, "acted white". I think that in the long run, being confronted with that attitude did me a favor.
 

What are the statistics supporting the Justice's position and how do your experiences compare to those statistics?
 
Jerry said:
What are the statistics supporting the Justice's position and how do your experiences compare to those statistics?
Click to expand...

I don't know what the official statistics are. My parents have been married for 47 years and half my siblings have been divorced one, or more times, so if you go by the generational statics we're all right on target...:rofl

Outside of my family, I don't know any other mixed race families. There were no other mixed race families, that I knew of, in our area. So, my experiences are limited to my family.

One thing, though, we were accepted more by our white neighbors than our black neighbors, so the immediate assumption that Bardwell is a racist, based on that experience, could be very erroneous.

This is a brew-ha-ha, because it happened in the south. If it would have happened in Maine, it wouldn't have even made the news.
 
Jerry said:
Seeing as one has nothing to do with the other, how do you suppose your post makes any sense at all?
Click to expand...

Of course it does. We are not discussing a government proposed repercussion for actions deemed vital to either a child, or the state. Therefore his argument is in regards to policy, and not justice.

Is the policy advocated by the Justice of the Piece racially motivated, where race -- not the ability to have children -- is the so called "independent variable" in Goob's argument?

You know what that means:thinking
 

If health care was in any way relevant to this topic, you would have demonstrated how in this post.

But you did not, which only means you know health-care not relevant in any way, and therefore there is no irony.

Please just admit to lying so that we know you have some character.
 

So then you are for justices being able to deny marrying citizen's based on their personal opinion of a statical stereotype?

Let's look at a like scenario. If a justice believes rich people spoil their children and that being spoiled isn't a healthy environment for a child he/she should be able to deny the couple, who may never spoil their child, their ability to be married?
 
Last edited:


I have never used any of those terms, nor mulatto. They recall the days of the Quadroon Ball in the antebellum South to me, and as such, carry a heavy negative connatation. I've never heard anybody use any of those terms either, including the term mulatto.

Maybe it's a regional thing, but I hate all those terms.
 

I never once in this thread implied that the guy is racist. What I did say is that his thought process was odd, to say the least. And he did not only say that "those types of marriages don't last", he also implied that due to the way things are in the South the children would suffer. His main intent is to protect kids from the effed up society he lives in. According to him, of course.

If I were a Southerner, I'd be majorly insulted. Just saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…