Its just a common sense kind of thing.  Just because someone asks for a service to be handled by another doesn't mean the person has to render the service.  If someone comes up to you and says, here is $15 drive me to downtown doesn't mean you must comply.  There are many bogus reasons a justice can refuse to do something.  If they don't want to, just go to someone else.

This is the main problem I have with making any type of marriage a right.  If a person objects to it like lets say they think the couple is too young or they are being forced into it, there is no choice of refusal.

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by kobie173

Good lord, Sargoth. Could you possibly be more off base?

If interracial marriage is legal in Louisiana, and he is presented with a legal application for a marriage license from an interracial couple, he is LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO ISSUE IT, YOU OBSTINATE FOOL. 

He is not allowed to deny it based on his conscience LEGALLY. Period, end of fucking story.

 

You mean that's the story?  I thought this was about race.  What's the story then?  Is it racial or not?  Because when you read the story, it's race, and when I read your comments it's race.  But when you wanna get all "I win" it's the law.  So which is it you waffle wannabes. 

 

What pisses me off the most is he think's interracial offspring "doesn't fit in" with any other race. I'm interracial and this is obviously a load of bullshit. I can't believe their are still bigots like this guy in this day and age.

Pretty sad that it's 2009 and this is still an issue

And that's coming from a person who wants a ban on gay marriage.

The irony is just overwhelming.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Its just a common sense kind of thing.  Just because someone asks for a service to be handled by another doesn't mean the person has to render the service.  If someone comes up to you and says, here is $15 drive me to downtown doesn't mean you must comply.  There are many bogus reasons a justice can refuse to do something.  If they don't want to, just go to someone else.

This is the main problem I have with making any type of marriage a right.  If a person objects to it like lets say they think the couple is too young or they are being forced into it, there is no choice of refusal.

When the person handling the service is a public employee, and the service in question is legal, then YES THEY DO.

EDIT: And in your examples of objection, if they are of legal age, then there is no choice of refusal, and there should not be.

This is like a DMV employee refusing a license to an Asian woman, because a stand-up comedian once said Asian women are bad drivers.

If that was the case, then why is a Justice needed?  They would just need a court clerk with a fancy stamp.  What I am saying is simple.  You cannot force someone to put their pen to paper and marry someone if they object to it.  In your example of not giving an asian woman a driver's liscense.  Its not like there aren't dozens of other DMV employees who will.

Originally posted by Cleffy

If that was the case, then why is a Justice needed?  They would just need a court clerk with a fancy stamp.  What I am saying is simple.  You cannot force someone to put their pen to paper and marry someone if they object to it.  In your example of not giving an asian woman a driver's liscense.  Its not like there aren't dozens of other DMV employees who will.

Because that's the law? And again, you miss the point. If there is no legal reason not to do so, then the public servant cannot make an arbitrary choice based on their personal biases. And whether you buy that they are racist or not, they ARE biases.

Originally posted by Cleffy

If that was the case, then why is a Justice needed?  They would just need a court clerk with a fancy stamp.  What I am saying is simple.  You cannot force someone to put their pen to paper and marry someone if they object to it.  In your example of not giving an asian woman a driver's liscense.  Its not like there aren't dozens of other DMV employees who will.

If a person is unwilling to do his job due to personal bias, it's not the couple that should looks elsewhere, it's that public servant thats needs to get fired and replaced.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Cleffy

If that was the case, then why is a Justice needed?  They would just need a court clerk with a fancy stamp.  What I am saying is simple.  You cannot force someone to put their pen to paper and marry someone if they object to it.  In your example of not giving an asian woman a driver's liscense.  Its not like there aren't dozens of other DMV employees who will.

 

If a person is unwilling to do his job due to personal bias, it's not the couple that should looks elsewhere, it's that public servant thats needs to get fired and replaced.

Sounds about right, given the circumstances in this case.

Some of you Americans are really full of shit,i mean really full of it,come to my country and you would  fall over.In the UK their are millions of mixed race people and marriages,you walk down the street and their is black men with white women and mixed race kids,no one gives a shit.

You really are living in the past,really backward thinking.

Originally posted by osirisss

Some of you Americans are really full of shit,i mean really full of it,come to my country and you would  fall over.In the UK their are millions of mixed race people and marriages,you walk down the street and their is black men with white women and mixed race kids,no one gives a shit.

You really are living in the past,really backward thinking.

 

 

The UK is no bastion of tolerance, nor is anywhere in Europe.  Although I agree with you I think some people's views on marriage are....interesting =p

I'm curious why Muslims feel so ostrasized in your country.  (not being sarcastic here) Are Muslim-Anglosaxon relations really as bad there as they are being portrayed here in the US?  I read a lot more stories of home grown British terrorists than US (and our population is much larger.)  Curious as to what your thoughts are on that.

Thanks :)

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Cleffy

If that was the case, then why is a Justice needed?  They would just need a court clerk with a fancy stamp.  What I am saying is simple.  You cannot force someone to put their pen to paper and marry someone if they object to it.  In your example of not giving an asian woman a driver's liscense.  Its not like there aren't dozens of other DMV employees who will.

If a person is unwilling to do his job due to personal bias, it's not the couple that should looks elsewhere, it's that public servant thats needs to get fired and replaced.

Justices of peace are fired and replaced by elected appointees or through elections.  If the people have a problem with a Justice, then they can be fired and replaced just from opinion.  Its not a Justices job to rubber stamp papers.  A Justice of Peace is suppose to determine if an act falls within morale norms and will maintain the peace.  This justice did not think an interracial couple met these guidelines.  His job is to determine it, and if he is not removed then its assumed the morale norm is prohibiting interracial couples from marriage.  I disagree with his position, but I can't very well force him to sign a peice of paper or do something against his position.  I think the couple has 2 decisions, replace him through popular opinion or go to another Justice of Peace.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Cleffy

If that was the case, then why is a Justice needed?  They would just need a court clerk with a fancy stamp.  What I am saying is simple.  You cannot force someone to put their pen to paper and marry someone if they object to it.  In your example of not giving an asian woman a driver's liscense.  Its not like there aren't dozens of other DMV employees who will.

If a person is unwilling to do his job due to personal bias, it's not the couple that should looks elsewhere, it's that public servant thats needs to get fired and replaced.

 

Justices of peace are fired and replaced by elected appointees or through elections.  If the people have a problem with a Justice, then they can be fired and replaced just from opinion.  Its not a Justices job to rubber stamp papers.  A Justice of Peace is suppose to determine if an act falls within morale norms and will maintain the peace.  This justice did not think an interracial couple met these guidelines.  His job is to determine it, and if he is not removed then its assumed the morale norm is prohibiting interracial couples from marriage.  I disagree with his position, but I can't very well force him to sign a peice of paper or do something against his position.  I think the couple has 2 decisions, replace him through popular opinion or go to another Justice of Peace.

He still has to stay within the law. If the law says that that interracial marriage is okay, then the public servant can't use interracial marriage as an argument.

Originally posted by osirisss

Some of you Americans are really full of shit,i mean really full of it,come to my country and you would  fall over.In the UK their are millions of mixed race people and marriages,you walk down the street and their is black men with white women and mixed race kids,no one gives a shit.

You really are living in the past,really backward thinking.

 

 

Oh, look.  Someone found the need to fill the obligatory, "America Sucks", position.

That took some real guts and enlightenment.  We put a half-white possibly Muslim President in the White House and we're still a bunch of trailer humping hicks.  Really?  Then where's your half-white UK Prime Minister at?  Seems we have better racial relations over here, now doesn't it????

Fat people shouldn't be allowed to marry because fat children get bullied. Whenever a ginger person gets married it must be to a non-ginger person so the child at least has a chance of not being a ginger kid. All adults wishing to get married must have their eyesight checked, if both parents have less than average eyesight they mustn't be allowed to marry because no one likes kids with glasses. Scientists may never marry other scientists, all kids hate nerds.

A convicted sex offender comes in to get married.  The Justice of Peace doesn't like the fact a sex offender is getting married and thinks the children will end up being raped.  Is the justice of peace in this situation allowed not to sign the documents.  I mean aside from the sex offender offense, he is perfectly within his legal rights to marry.

I like this guy, he has balls.

You all should try it sometime!

Originally posted by Cleffy

A convicted sex offender comes in to get married.  The Justice of Peace doesn't like the fact a sex offender is getting married and thinks the children will end up being raped.  Is the justice of peace in this situation allowed not to sign the documents.  I mean aside from the sex offender offense, he is perfectly within his legal rights to marry.

A convicted sex offender would have legal restraints on his proximity to children. Including his own.

Originally posted by rebelhero1

I like this guy, he has balls.

You all should try it sometime!

Since when was acting as if you were above the law equivalent to "having balls"?

He broke the law by doing this.  He'll lose his job soon enough.

He didn't break the law.  The law states that you cannot determine who can and cannot get married.  He didn't say they can or cannot.  He said he wouldn't sign the form.  There are no laws that force someone to sign papers.

Originally posted by Cleffy

He didn't break the law.  The law states that you cannot determine who can and cannot get married.  He didn't say they can or cannot.  He said he wouldn't sign the form.  There are no laws that force someone to sign papers.

He didn't break the law, he acted as if he WAS the law.

If there was no legal reason for that couple not to be married, then he overstepped his bounds by not issuing the marriage certificate. He does not get to make shit up as he goes along.

Just think about it.  A marriage liscense requires the consent of a Justice of Peace or a clergyman.  Its like at the end of the ceremony when they ask for objections, he merely objected.  Its not like they cannot go to someone else for the signature.  Its a formality to indicate there was a witness of official state capacity or credibility to acknowledge the marriage.  Like I said before, there is nothing illegal about not signing a paper.  When you sign a paper it means you accept the terms that are on that paper.  This individual did no consent, and him being forced to sign his consent is in itself a tyrannical act.

Its not like the guy is going, NO you can never get married.  Then telling all the other Justice of Peace not to sign their papers.  He also isn't going on TV saying they are committing a sin against nature.  This guy refused to do something based on his past experience.  OMG stop the presses, a rascist is getting ready to lynch somebody.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Just think about it.  A marriage liscense requires the consent of a Justice of Peace or a clergyman.  Its like at the end of the ceremony when they ask for objections, he merely objected.  Its not like they cannot go to someone else for the signature.  Its a formality to indicate there was a witness of official state capacity or credibility to acknowledge the marriage.  Like I said before, there is nothing illegal about not signing a paper.  When you sign a paper it means you accept the terms that are on that paper.  This individual did no consent, and him being forced to sign his consent is in itself a tyrannical act.

Its not like the guy is going, NO you can never get married.  Then telling all the other Justice of Peace not to sign their papers.  He also isn't going on TV saying they are committing a sin against nature.  This guy refused to do something based on his past experience.  OMG stop the presses, a rascist is getting ready to lynch somebody.

It violated the constitution, according to this Indiana law professor (http://newsinfo.iu.edu/tips/page/normal/12249.html).

He absolutely overstepped his bounds by not issuing the license. And the fact that you somehow are insinuating that him having to do his job is a "tyrranical act" is simply hilarious. You only think people should have to obey the laws that they like.

An excerpt from the AP story:

"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."

Where in here does it say ... "unless the justice of the peace decides he doesn't think their kids will turn out right"?

Carrying out the law -- and this union was well within the bounds of the law -- is the obligation of the justice of the peace. He abdicated this obligation. Period.

Originally posted by kobie173

He absolutely overstepped his bounds by not issuing the license. And the fact that you somehow are insinuating that him having to do his job is a "tyrranical act" is simply hilarious. You only think people should have to obey the laws that they like.

 

While I don't disagree with you in principle that he should have married the couple, and that the law says he must, that doesn't mean that the law is not tyrannical.  Laws are not, not tyrannical because they are laws.  I think you'll agree with me on that in principle

A Justice of Peace's job is not to sign marriage liscenses.  Its to maintain peace.  There is nothing in the job description that says its his duty to sign marriage licenses.  He is given the power to have his signature recognized as official on marriage licenses. 

There is no law in the US that says a person has to sign a document for the reason I mentioned above.  Can you imagine if you legally had to sign certain documents?

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by kobie173

He absolutely overstepped his bounds by not issuing the license. And the fact that you somehow are insinuating that him having to do his job is a "tyrranical act" is simply hilarious. You only think people should have to obey the laws that they like.

 

 

While I don't disagree with you in principle that he should have married the couple, and that the law says he must, that doesn't mean that the law is not tyrannical.  Laws are not, not tyrannical because they are laws.  I think you'll agree with me on that in principle

Why would I agree with that? Any law, just by nature of being a law, is "tyranny"? Even laws that are designed to NOT exclude people?

By that logic, since laws are "tyranny," and "tyranny" is bad, then we should have no laws. And that's called "anarchy."