Posted on 10/15/2009 3:01:31 PM PDT by TornadoAlley3
I thought the point of going to JP was because they DIDN’T care who they married.
“They reprint FReeper comments at the HuffnPuff Post?”
Everyone does...even the MSN crowd...it’s become a pastime for the elites...
Ditto on your comment.
Private decisions can “discriminate” - make moral value judgment choices between different individuals, but the government may not.
other than the fact that there is no moral reason to refuse to conduct an inter-racial marriage. Any minister of any faith is mentally bent if he uses that reason.
There are two types of people in the world...good and bad. If one of the parties is bad, then that is a good moral reason to refuse to perform the ceremony.
Please post the Biblical junction against this that would give the preachers and ministers the moral right to stick their nose in air on this. I can't recall it.
Let's say, for example, that two lesbians came to a conservative church and wanted the minister to perform a marriage ceremony. If the church is against gay marriage, the minister has every right to refuse to perform the service because the wedding would, in its execution, carry the implied endorsement of the church.
While that's an extreme example, I've known many churches that require counseling for prospective couples before they will agree to perform the ceremony because they believe that a marriage should follow the principles set forth in Scripture. If, in the minister's judgement, the couple seems too immature or has other issues that don't reflect a Christian lifestyle, they'll refuse to perform the service.
It doesn't mean the couple can't get married. It just means the couple can't get married *at that church*.
The JP is different. He's a civil servant. He has to marry any couple that meets the qualifications set forth by the state, not those that fit his own religious beliefs. See the difference? The minister is the official of a religion. The JP is the official of the state.
Well, there is one outstanding bad example...
Does he discrimate against any people that are not the same race or is he only a black and white bigot?
David Dukeite in office?
They have never been problematic; the problem only comes when bigots make someone else's relationship their business.
That’s what made, and still less frequently makes, interracial marriages problematic. I didn’t think I’d have to state the obvious, but so be it.
The military used to require pre-marital counseling and permission from one’s commander and perhaps even still do, particularly between citizens and non-citizens; this JP isn’t the only one who makes a relationship his business. I don’t agree with what this man did, but if he’s a man of conscience, I support his right to act upon his principles (and suffer reasonable consequences), especially as he did no harm to the couple. His constituents will take care of the situation.
It speaks volumes about you though, standing up for a racist acting "upon his principles".
Jeez, if he wants to "act upon his principles", he can do it on his own time. Send him back to his porch to yell at the colored folk.
Thankfully people like you are not in charge. FreeRepublic scares me sometimes. 99% of the time we're a bastion for freedom, and then every now and then people like you show up longing for Jim Crow.
JPs are not paid by the taxpayers to perform wedding ceremonies; it is not a required duty. He did not prevent their marriage and even arranged for someone else to take care of them; he simply could not take their money to do something he didn’t agree with. Perhaps you could dredge up an ounce of understanding on that point, even if you don’t agree with his reasoning, as I don’t (and stated so previously, although you chose to ignore that in favor of throwing a Jim Crow accusation at me).
Beware of a surfeit of righteous indignation based on how you think an anti-racist should respond to a situation; it can mask a form of political correctness while it stomps all over freedom of conscience.
I'm not so sure that's correct. A JP must issue a marriage license but I don't think they must officiate.
And despite the wording of the article, my understanding is that the JP simply refused to sign the marriage license (something that can be done by a JP, any other judge, ministers, etc.). I'm not certain anyone has an obligation to officiate your wedding.
This doesn't mean he's not an idiot. I just don't think he's legally wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.