• Cussane said on Oct 16, 2009....

  I just read the article on newsweek, what the JP said was "he, after consulting with members of the black community, white community and social services believed that a mixed race child is not accepted by either community and he would not perform a marriage that may in the future harm a child"
   
  The couple did state they were looking forward to having children, the JP didn't say they couldn't get married, just that he would not do it.
   
  Right or wrong the guy followed his beliefs instead of flip flopping like so many other public servants, kind of refreshing in a somewhat twisted way.
   
  And of course we will have the usual lawsuits, the only one that will win in this is the lawyers
   
  Cussane

• beyondtheveil said on Oct 16, 2009....

  It depends on the state, but in my area JP's are elected, are not required to have any legal training, and generally take cases of the more petty nature. Under these conditions I would imagine they could legally refuse any case they wished for their own reasons. I'm not saying this JP was right or wrong, only that it's probably best they have this latitude under the reality of their capability. 

• Eilan said on Oct 16, 2009....

  The US Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional, so it seems to me that the JP shouldn't be able to refuse to perform the marriage.  He's a public servant, not a servant of only the people he approves of.  And that whole "Won't someone think of the children?" argument is a load of crap.
  
  This isn't the same thing as a Catholic priest refusing to marry a Baptist couple, no matter how you want to spin it.

• superbozo said on Oct 16, 2009....

  Wonder what he'll do when they make gay marrige legal LOL
   
  I think anyone should have the right to refuse to do anything they disagree with. However in this case I'm not sure he has the right to refuse this task. Equal Opportunity Law kinda makes it illegal to refuse or deny someone because of their race.  A Justice of the Peace is governed by law and not their personal preference.

• curmudgeon said on Oct 16, 2009....

  Eilan - but since Catholic priests are legally licensed to perform weddings by the State, wouldn't their refusal to marry a couple on religious grounds also run them afoul of the law? Why should a Justice of the Peace be held to a different legal or ethical standard for performing the same task? In this case it's not about religion but social conscience.
  
  And it's not because either person was black or white, just the combining of the two that this person objects to.
  
  What if someone wanted you to perform a job that you, in good conscience (however you might define that) did not want to do, and held the threat of a lawsuit or termination of employment over your head? Would you just bend over and take it?
  

Comment on "Justice Refuses Interracial Marriage"

Currently tagged	racism marriage choice marrige (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment