Author Topic: Louisiana judge quits. (Read 2113 times)

Spanky · « **on:** November 04, 2009, 09:55:05 AM »

The story says that he refused to marry a mixed couple. Of course they are filing a civil rights suit against him.

I'm don't really see what he did wrong.
Here is the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091104/ap_on_re_us/us_interracial_rebuff

Spanky

BBF · « **Reply #1 on:** November 04, 2009, 03:12:56 PM »

Those days are over, right or wrong, the laws have changed, so be it!

Questor · « **Reply #2 on:** November 05, 2009, 02:45:30 AM »

It was foolish of him to deny the marriage directly. He should have known this would happen. There are other ways of saying no that are effective, yet don't get you in trouble.

Gerry N. · « **Reply #3 on:** November 05, 2009, 07:42:54 PM »

Thje idiot should have obeyed the law as it is written. He decided to act like God and apply what he thought it should have been. I hope they sue the moron into the poor house. Stupidity should hurt, and hurt bad.

Gerry N.

rio grande · « **Reply #4 on:** November 05, 2009, 07:55:32 PM »

Quote from: Gerry N. on November 05, 2009, 07:42:54 PM

Thje idiot should have obeyed the law as it is written. He decided to act like God and apply what he thought it should have been. I hope they sue the moron into the poor house. Stupidity should hurt, and hurt bad.

Gerry N.

Very mean-spirited comment.
He only spoke out loud what many secretly agree with. And they don't dare to express themselves precisely for fear of the heavy-handed retaliation you approve of.
Only slaves must obey laws without question.
If "the law" someday allows us only airguns painted bright orange I suppose you would have us "obey the law as it is written" or else "...hurt, and hurt bad"?
It used to be a free country.

williamlayton · « **Reply #5 on:** November 05, 2009, 09:25:11 PM »

He should have resigned.
I actually have no concerns with mixed marriages---some work and some fail.
I can remember when a young woman was going with an Italian and folks got all hot and bothered about a white woman with a WOP.
Course if he was Chec it would have been OK.
My daughter and son both married out of race---whatever race is---and they are doing OK.
OH WELL
Blessings

teamnelson · « **Reply #6 on:** November 05, 2009, 09:29:36 PM »

Depends on Louisiana Law ... Marriage is not always a right, and officials arent always required to perform them. I've been licensed in a couple states now and I've always had the right of refusal. It is always their option to go elsewhere. I've refused to perform weddings for various reasons and will continue to do so, especially when don't ask don't tell is repealed.

Dee · « **Reply #7 on:** November 06, 2009, 02:45:14 AM »

I suppose I am a walking contradiction on this one. I am from a mixed marriage. My Father was a full blood Cherokee, and my Mother is as white as the driven snow, but MAY have a small amount of Cherokee blood back several generations.
Here is where it gets tricky. If the man did not want to perform the marriage because of his beliefs, then it'S on down the road to the next preacher or judge.
WHY DO I FEEL THAT WAY? THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AMERICA. NOT A DEMOCRACY, BUT INSTEAD A REPUBLIC!
We have digressed in many places where you cannot allow smoking in your restaurant, even if you yourself smoke. WHY? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SAID SO.
If a Muslim has to be let off the assembly line five times a day to pray, he is let off. If a black is offended by the Confederate flag we have to take it down.
If the white man, or the PATRIOTIC AMERICAN is offended? WELL THAT'S JUST TOO DAMN BAD.

Brett · « **Reply #8 on:** November 06, 2009, 03:16:26 AM »

Couldn't have said it better. If a member of some "minority" feels offended they feel the need to sue or demand some form of retribution and usually get it but if a white or Christian is offended we are bashed for being "intolerant" and backward thinking "neanderthals"?

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #9 on:** November 06, 2009, 03:17:18 AM »

Let me get this stright , the police don't have to protect you but the judge has to marry you , Ya just got to love America and we wonder why the world laughs its azz off at us .
I believe an American has the right to refuse to be a part of any action they believe is wrong . I have to ask , why would a couple want to be married by someone who was aginst it ? bet the pictures would have had very few smiles !
DEE yep !

williamlayton · « **Reply #10 on:** November 06, 2009, 04:38:37 AM »

A Minister can refuse.
A civil servant can refuse by resigning---not by refusing. A Republic puts demands on civil servants.
Blessings

Dee · « **Reply #11 on:** November 06, 2009, 04:43:56 AM »

Is he elected, or hired? There is a difference.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #12 on:** November 06, 2009, 04:52:44 AM »

hum, seems a judge would have the ablity to decline if he felt he could not hear a case of officate a cermony . That said Merriam Webster's collegiate Dictionary defines a civil servant - a member of a civil service - a member of the administrative staff of an international agency.
civil service -the adminstrative service of a govt. exclusive of the armed forces : one in which appointments are determined by competitive test .
To that the Court system is not part of the Adminstrative branch of govt. nor are judges picked by test . I myself am on a board of appeals that works for the court system in my county and we are not considered civil servants either though we do recieve pay for our time while hearing cases . We also have the righ to decline hearing any case as a group or indivisual with out giving reason .

Dee · « **Reply #13 on:** November 06, 2009, 05:10:15 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on November 06, 2009, 04:52:44 AM

hum, seems a judge would have the ablity to decline if he felt he could not hear a case of officate a cermony . That said Merriam Webster's collegiate Dictionary defines a civil servant - a member of a civil service - a member of the administrative staff of an international agency.
civil service -the adminstrative service of a govt. exclusive of the armed forces : one in which appointments are determined by competitive test .
To that the Court system is not part of the Adminstrative branch of govt. nor are judges picked by test . I myself am on a board of appeals that works for the court system in my county and we are not considered civil servants either though we do recieve pay for our time while hearing cases . We also have the righ to decline hearing any case as a group or indivisual with out giving reason .

There ya go SHOOTALL. My point exactly. Sometimes some use a broad brush to paint with paint, that is the wrong color for the house.

Brett · « **Reply #14 on:** November 06, 2009, 06:31:43 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on November 06, 2009, 03:17:18 AM

Let me get this stright , the police don't have to protect you but the judge has to marry you , Ya just got to love America and we wonder why the world laughs its azz off at us .
I believe an American has the right to refuse to be a part of any action they believe is wrong . I have to ask , why would a couple want to be married by someone who was aginst it ? bet the pictures would have had very few smiles !
DEE yep !

Agreed, why not just go find another judge, why make a big stink over it?

gypsyman · « **Reply #15 on:** November 06, 2009, 08:13:17 AM »

Because they found a lawyer that smells money!! gypsyman

teamnelson · « **Reply #16 on:** November 06, 2009, 08:16:32 AM »

Quote from: williamlayton on November 06, 2009, 04:38:37 AM

A Minister can refuse.
A civil servant can refuse by resigning---not by refusing. A Republic puts demands on civil servants.
Blessings

Sadly, after the hate crimes rider was passed in the defense spending bill, it won't be long before Minister's can't refuse either.

Dee · « **Reply #17 on:** November 06, 2009, 10:14:56 AM »

And that TeamNelson will test one's faith will it not? Kinda might separate the wheat from the tares all the way around, don't you think? When that happens, and it will. Some who "talk the talk" will have to "walk the walk" or declare THEMSELVES for the frauds they are.
Perhaps that is what this country needs. A strong dose of reality.

williamlayton · « **Reply #18 on:** November 06, 2009, 01:16:45 PM »

This gentleman was a JP I believe.
JP's in Texas and Louisiana are elected officials---IE civil servants who must follow the letter of the law. Yes, I know a lot of JP's bend the rules to their advantage.
That said If he refused what is a clear mandate of law--State and Federal and someone calls his hand on the issue, which they did, he has only two choices.
I agree wholeheartily about following conscience---I also agree that elected officials do what they swore to do----few do, I agree.
Now I applaud him for following his conscience.
Blessings

Dee · « **Reply #19 on:** November 06, 2009, 01:52:48 PM »

I would challenge you william to quote that law, whether it be La or Tx, that says a Justice of the Peace HAS TO PERFORM A MARRIAGE he does not want to perform.
That law sir, does not exist. He should have said I don't have time, and nothing would have been said. He made an issue out of it based on personal belief, that many such as your self MISCONSTRUE for DUTY, and take issue with. You are correcting us for something you actually know nothing about.
He was NOT DUTY BOUND to perform the marriage. JPs refuse to perform marriages every day for various reasons, and are just more descriet about their reasons.
Sheriff REFUSE to enforce seat belt laws and such all the time as they know it will loose the next election if the enforce it in some areas. There is no penalty for it.
This issue is RACIAL. That is the problem here.

Spanky · « **Reply #20 on:** November 06, 2009, 04:17:37 PM »

Quote from: Dee on November 06, 2009, 01:52:48 PM

This issue is RACIAL. That is the problem here.

The judge did the right thing and ended up having to resign because of it. Now the couple gets their "15 minutes of fame".
That's the problem.
I hope the judge for their civil suit has the same moral standards as this one and throws the case out of court.
It's a real shame that a long time servant of the law had to step down because of this BS.

Spanky

Redtail1949 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 06, 2009, 06:35:30 PM »

the judge was duty bound to obey the laws of the land..not his own judgements of right or wrong. if he could not do it because of whatever his personal beliefs he had no business being a judge.

Redtail1949 · « **Reply #22 on:** November 06, 2009, 06:39:32 PM »

yes they can refuse if they know they are under the age of consent either party or someother reason that is recognized by the laws of the land. they can not refuse for their own personal beliefs if they do they face just what he is facing.

Mohawk · « **Reply #23 on:** November 06, 2009, 07:27:28 PM »

There is no law in Texas that states that a judge MUST perform a marriage. As Dee stated, he can refuse, at least in Texas. This same scenario has come up in Texas decades ago but there was no legislation enacted regarding it. In short, if the judge did not want to do the wedding he should have gone fishing or something.

williamlayton · « **Reply #24 on:** November 06, 2009, 08:50:18 PM »

This is La. but the laws should be simular.
Hummmmm.
I find this interesting. If there is no law preventing and a law that says you must uphold the law---and further too, add confusion to this run-on sentence---and the act of marriage is to make a cohabitation legal--are they, this couple in a catch 22?
I think this judge would find hisownself in some amount of problem for refusing to make legal what the law says by refusing to marry a couple who are legally able to be married.
In effect what he is doing is forcing them to be in an illegal state of cohabitation.
This could effect/affect any legal proceedings they wanted to engage in---buying a home, car, joint checking--the status of a child.
I just don't think he has the legal grounds to make such a decision---even a moral decision---maybe a prejudicial decision.
Good discussion.
Blessings

Graybeard · « **Reply #25 on:** November 07, 2009, 01:57:17 AM »

He's not forcing them to do a damn thing. Most likely they were already doing that anyway. They could have just gone elsewhere to get married if they wanted to. I'm NOT one who believes in mixed race marriages and personally it makes me sick to my stomach to see blacks and whites mixing. I tend to stop watching TV shows I otherwise enjoy over them mixing races on the shows.

If you like it so well so be it for you but not all of us feel that way. It's just one more disgusting thing that's leading to the ruin of this once great nation. It like NWO is just a part of satan's plan to tear apart the morals of this nation.

Swampman · « **Reply #26 on:** November 07, 2009, 02:14:58 AM »

What others do is their business and not mine. My youngest son married a black girl and she's about as good of a mother, wife, Christian, and person as I've ever met. Moses was married to a black woman, so I guess if God saw it as ok then who am I to judge.

Dee · « **Reply #27 on:** November 07, 2009, 02:28:44 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on November 07, 2009, 02:14:58 AM

What others do is their business and not mine. My youngest son married a black girl and she's about as good of a mother, wife, Christian, and person as I've ever met. Moses was married to a black woman, so I guess if God saw it as ok then who am I to judge.

On those rare occasions Swampy I sometime agree with you in part. In this instance I agree with EVEN SCRIPTURALLY. Moses not only married a black woman, but his brother Arron's wife condemned the marriage and was PUNISHED BY GOD HIMSELF, given leprosy, and banished from the tribe. MOSES HIMSELF, intervened to God on behalf of her, and she was restored fully.

The point is William, the man though an elected Justice of the Peace is NOT BOUND TO PERFORM MARRIAGES. You may shout that he is all you want but, he is not. He can refuse for a myriad of reasons, but he picked the wrong one publicly.
Instead of INSISTING THAT HE HAS TO just because YOU SAY HE DOES. Produce the law that says this. Myself and Mohawk have dealt with JPs, I extensively in the area of signing search warrants, and they do not even have to do that if they feel contrary to the document.

williamlayton · « **Reply #28 on:** November 07, 2009, 02:29:20 AM »

Well GB, they went to a JP not knowing of his prejudices--but beccause he was an elected official and able to issue marriage cirtifcates and perform the ceromony.
I still stand by the thought that a JP cannot deny what he law allows.

Dee
My thoughts are that they can legally be married. The JP can issue a marriage certificate and can perform the ceremony. Under what statute can he deny. You can shout he doesn't have too and demand I produce---I say that the law allows the marriage and you need to produce a statute that says he doesn't have too.
Does the constitution require equality under the law?
Blessings

Brett · « **Reply #29 on:** November 07, 2009, 07:04:50 AM »

The law may allow the marriage but there is nothing in the law that states that any particular JP has to perform the marriage. Your argument that just because something is legal means someone must do it is absurd. If it were a gay couple and it was against the JP's religious beliefs for same sex couples to marry would he and should he still have to do it? Does a JP's religious convictions get tossed out the window when he is elected?

The JP's mistake was in making his reason for refusing to marry them known. He could have easily said 'I don't have the time' or 'I have an other appointment' or 'something's come up and I have to leave', etc. 'you will have to find someone else to perform the marriage'.