huh? shades of segregation...

[Mike70]

take a gander at this story from louisiana. a justice of the peace has taken upon himself to refuse marriage licenses to mixed race couples.

:stunned:

i utterly fail to see how, in any way, this is anyone's business other than the couple involved, who are 30 and 32 years old.

this is indefensible. the supreme court ruled over 40 years ago that the govt. has zero right to prevent marriages of mixed race couples, see loving v. virginia (1967).

i'll even throw in the courts decision in that case for good measure:


Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8310509.stm

[SymphonicX]

That's f**kin disgusting.

It still shocks me to see after all the fighting and death humanity can still show signs of such unabated bigotry. Where do these people come from!?

Hopefully this guy will be "defrocked" (or de-robed, whatever applies) immediately and all "bans" that he has dealt out to couples be lifted. I can see a hefty compensation claim arising from this...if this is allowed to be enforced it MUST be an infringement of SOME part of the Geneva convention - at least?!

[Mike70]

Hopefully this guy will be "defrocked" (or de-robed, whatever applies) immediately and all "bans" that he has dealt out to couples be lifted. I can see a hefty compensation claim arising from this...if this is allowed to be enforced it MUST be an infringement of SOME part of the Geneva convention - at least?!


this guy is an asshat, pure and simple.

as for the geneva convention or any other international agreements, i don't know, don't care and they'd have zero effect in this case anyway. american law is the only thing that matters in this issue. besides, you won't find many courts in the US referring to international laws in precedents. that's pretty taboo over here. however, this is a pretty clear violation of the 14th amendment and the supreme court's decision in loving v. virginia.

[SymphonicX]

So you're saying that US gov generally turns its nose up at international law or just when applied to domestic issues? You're right it is a domestic issue, maybe I was being over dramatic - but one's first reaction to these things is sometimes to cry "that's a human rights abuse!!" without really thinking that first and foremost, it violates the law and moral grounding of that particular area FIRST.

[darth los]

Since you've been referring to the Loving case i thought I'd post one of my briefs on the subject so people can get an idea of what one of the landmark cases in this countries history is about.



Case Heading- Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 388 U.S. S.Ct. 1817 (United States Supreme Court, 1967)

Parties- The Lovings are the plaintiff- appellees and the Commonwealth of Virginia are the Defendant- Respondents.

Procedure- The Circuit Court of Caroline County sentenced the Lovings to one year in jail for violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriage, but suspended the sentence for 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the state and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. The Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the lower courts decision. It is now being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Facts- In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a Negro woman, and Richard Loving a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after they returned to Virginia and made their home in Caroline County. At the October term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with Violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. On January 6, 1959, the lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings not return to Virginia together for 25 years.

Issue- Whether a statutory scheme adopted by the state of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holding- The Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny"... and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. These convictions must be reversed. It is so ordered.

Reasoning- There is no reasonable state objective that can hope to be accomplished by the implementation of this policy. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving non- white persons shows that the racial classifications made here are designed to maintain white supremacy.


:cool:

[Mike70]

So you're saying that US gov generally turns its nose up at international law or just when applied to domestic issues?

domestic issues. you will not find many, if any, references to international law in american judicial decisions. the only place you will find such precedents is in the supreme court or one of the higher federal courts that deal with issues that involve several countries and international agreement.

state courts generally don't do it and there is a good reason for it. american courts are not bound by the decisions of other jurisdictions. the courts in texas can decide something and it has zero force in any other state. state courts do consider precedents of other states at times though, esp. in appeals cases where it might touch on larger, constitutional issues.

[darth los]

domestic issues. you will not find many, if any, references to international law in american judicial decisions. the only place you will find such precedents is in the supreme court or one of the higher federal courts that deal with issues that involve several countries and international agreement.

state courts generally don't do it and there is a good reason for it. american courts are not bound by the decisions of other jurisdictions. the courts in texas can decide something and it has zero force in any other state. state courts do consider precedents of other states at times though, esp. in appeals cases where it might touch on larger, constitutional issues.


Just for the record you hit the nail on the head with that one.

If i didn't know better I'd say you were a law student as well.

At the very least you're a citizen who knows the law as should every American. It's a tragedy that's not the case though.

Half of the reason people get screwed by the system is that they are ignorant to the way it works.


:cool:

[SymphonicX]

A reason why people call the US a collection of 50 countries I guess...

[Mike70]

A reason why people call the US a collection of 50 countries I guess...

that is an excellent way to look at it in a lot of ways. the states are pretty much independent and pretty much look to their own affairs. most americans have very little contact with the fed govt. outside of federal tax time. almost everything else is handled by the individual states, actually in most cases, it's the counties in each state that you deal with most.

---------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------



If i didn't know better I'd say you were a law student as well.



i must be developing a brain disease because i've been seriously considering going to law school. i have to decide if i'm up for, at nearly 40, a life change that big.

[darth los]

i must be developing a brain disease because i've been seriously considering going to law school. i have to decide if i'm up for, at nearly 40, a life change that big.


It'll change your life man and you'll see why it is that i go about analyzing situations like this and others the way i do. I was trained that way. lol


If you want to do it or not just don't look back on your life with any regrets, it's actually not that hard man.


But you definitely seem to have an aptitude for it. If you ever need any advice on how to break in just give me a p.m.

:cool:

[SymphonicX]

i must be developing a brain disease because i've been seriously considering going to law school. i have to decide if i'm up for, at nearly 40, a life change that big.


Do it!!!!!!

I think around your age I will make a mad dash for a different career...something altruistic....

[MikePizzoff]

What the fuck? This isn't 1943. I guess this means my girlfriend and I could never have our marriage in that part of Louisiana!

[acealive1]

fuckin horrible!!!

[kortick]

He didnt say they couldnt get married.

What he did was choose not to perform the
ceremony and refered them to another JOP who
would.

Thier rights were not truly violated, they are
still able to marry, he just failed in his duty as
a public official to perform his services.
For which I am sure he will be stripped of his office.

Thier right to marry was never in jeopardy,
only to be married by this particular person.

And it is Louisiana. God u people dont really
think redneck racial behavior doesnt exist anymore?

You really aren't all that shocked by this are you?

Hopefully they are married and happy and he is
now in the living hell of media spotlight.

[SymphonicX]

some christian woman in the UK refused to marry a gay couple off the back of her beliefs...can't remember what happened to her though...

[Mike70]

the justice of the peace involved in the story has resigned his position.

i find his argument that "mixed-race children were not readily accepted by their parents' communities", to be unconvincing. children, in my experience, are loved by their parents and grandparents no matter what. a child is completely and utterly blameless of the circumstances of its birth. this is something that i think most people realize and accept. the ones who don't realize this aren't worthy of our contempt and should be ignored.

frankly, i don't care about the circumstances of a kid's birth. they are all equally worthy of love and support, because if we fail them in that, what are we left with?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8341556.stm

[deadpunk]

Mixed children are such a commonplace sight these days, I can't believe anyone could even believe such an argument could hold water.

Leave your personal beliefs at home...