Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Marriage Refusal Questions Extent Of Government’s Right To Intervene In Personal Life

October 28, 2009 by  

Marriage refusal questions extent of government's right to intervene in personal lifeAs the fallout from the refusal by a New Orleans official to marry a interracial couple continues, the issue of the extent to which the state has the right to intervene in individuals’ freedom to marry a person of their choice is again gaining center stage.

Earlier this month, justice of the peace in Louisiana Keith Bardwell refused to issue a marriage license to a mixed-race couple on the grounds that such unions tend not to last and citing concern about children that may be born to the couple.

His decision has caused a firestorm of criticism, with accusations of racism and calls for the official to stand down.

"This is a clear violation of constitutional rights and federal and state law. … disciplinary action should be taken immediately, including the revoking of his license," said the state’s Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, quoted by CNN.

Meanwhile, the couple, which was married by another state official, is planning to sue Bardwell.

A refusal to perform an interracial marriage ceremony goes against the landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia in which the justices stated unanimously that the Constitution protects the individual’s freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race and this freedom cannot be infringed by the state.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19418452-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Marriage Refusal Questions Extent Of Government’s Right To Intervene In Personal Life”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Felicia Sinoradzki

    I’m a wedding officiant in Florida. As a Christian, if the law said gay couples could marry (which is not currently the case), I would have to say I cannot marry them because it is against my religious principles. I’ve married many interracial couples. Whether I agree with that or not is not up to me. But I will not marry two people of the same gender.

    • Ben Roos

      I agree with the original statement from Felicia and the replies. There is a story that a significant other (Whatever that means) was denied access to her girlfriend’s death bed because she was not related.
      I don’t know if any of you is single,I am, but it is more expensive to live alone than to share the rent, utilities and food with somebody else.

    • Robinlhood

      With the divorce rate at 50% or lower which includes Christians the arguement of the sanctity of marriage seems to be a very weak arguement. Why shouldn’t the same gender unions enjoy a loving relationship and also enjoy the sorrows of divorce. It is really just more money for the lawyers. You can find anything in the bible to justify what you want to. I feel the sanctity of marriage is long gone.

      • Fuzzy

        Same gender means, they are (WORD REMOVED). They are not upheld in the bible to be married. God does not allow (WORD REMOVED) marriages. That is totally against God, man. and humanity. That is not right…period.

        • Lynn

          But God DOES allow gay priests to run “His” churches?

          • American Christian

            Lynn says:
            October 30, 2009 at 12:45 pm
            But God DOES allow gay priests to run “His” churches?

            In reply to your post:

            God gives us free will. It doesn’t matter what your private sexual urges “are”, to be a Christian, it matters if you act on those urges. If you are a true Christian, you know what God’s word says. There’s no sense in arguing about it. Either you are, or you are not a Christian. I am not trying to agitate you in any way, I am just stating that facts are facts.
            Treat others as you would like to be treated.

  • Crawdadr

    Frankly I wish the state would stay out of the issue entirely. I don’t want my government involved with my religion. They have messed enouph stuff up.

  • David Carr

    The State is empowered to force an official to violate his conscience regarding marrige? Preposterous and evil!! The refused couple can go down the road to another jurisdiction and obtain the requisite, legal authorization. I oppose both racial discrimination (race is a figment of un-biblical, false thinking) and government coercion.

  • Native American 9

    That justice of the peace is a retro-idiot. An individual of colonial/confederate thinking.

    Everyone has the freedom to marry who the heck we want to, regardless of race. That guy is a perfect example of the ass-backward thinking that helped to “found” this great nation

    • Winginit

      You are the one with ass-backward thinking. The US Constitution is what allows you to even have the right to impose your opinion in this forum – our right to free speech is ass-backward? Our right to bear arms is ass-backward? Or right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness shall not be infringed because we have our wonderful founding fathers to thank!

      If you don’t like it here you can move to Mexico or France! STOP TRYING TO MAKE OUR COUNTRY A FAILED NATION! IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT HERE – LEAVE!!!

      • Bob C

        Thanks for standing up for this country. If president and his assorted gang of thugs, thieves, and commies don’t then we will have to.

      • denniso

        Down’right’ LOONEY lack of thinking,wingnut!!

  • Ralph

    It appears that two people were just wanting to sue someone. If they were truly wanting to be married there are hundreds of people in Louisiana that can perform a legal marriage. They were more than likely familar with Mr.Bardwells views and just wanted to create notaryity for themselves. With that type of beginning they may not last, because their agenda is wrong.

    • Winginit

      Exactly! Litigious people are always argumentative; that is indicative to me that their union will not last! They should count their blessings, have their honeymoon, have children and live their life together – THAT is MARRIAGE, NOT being OUT TO GET somebody for whatever reason they can muster. I bet they’d sue their doctor too if he told them their boo-boo wasn’t infected two days before it became infected because they didn’t care for it properly. Then again, maybe they shouldn’t have kids… they seem like they couldn’t handle telling them “no” you can’t…

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Anne

    What would President Obama say being that he is from an interracial marriage. He was embarrassed by his mother being white.

    • ROD OH

      And what particular FOX news segment did you acquire that amazing tidbit of “truth” from Anne?

      • Albert Nygren

        Someone said that Obama was embarrassed about his white ancestry and someone else replied, “On what Fox News segment did you”, hear that. Obama wrote in his book that he wished he could eliminate every bit of White blood from his body. Obama himself said that he wished he had no Caucasion ancestry.

  • C

    As a Christian, I do not support gay “marriages” because of my religious principles. That said, the question that needs to be asked is; Why must anyone get government permission to marry? That is what marriage license amounts to. Also, if you do some research on marriage licenses they were first introduced in the deep south after the democrats regained power after the Civil War with the purpose to stop interracial marriages.

    • denniso

      Good comment C..thanks!

    • American Citizen

      Throughout the ages, it’s always been understood that marriage is between a man and a woman. There must have been a good reason for that.

  • woodbutcher

    If 2 people really love each other and want to spend their lives together then no one should be allowed to stand in their way. as long as they are adults and of sound mind then it’s no ones buisness what they do in their own home. i think the only reason the govt does not want gays to marry is they dont want to pay out benifits to extra spouses. Also i dont see why a married couple should recieve tax cuts when they use more of the tax resources kids in schools etc. if any thing single men and women should be getting tax breaks because they dont have kids that use up extra tax dolars. if people want a family then fine pay for them . but for yrs now american single people have been carrying an extra tax burden. if you have no kids your taxs should be lower not higher.

    • Winginit

      I disagree 100%… if you have kids you should PAY MUCH LESS in taxes based on how many children you have, for the simple reason that you CREATED ADDITIONAL taxpayers.
      My other comment is: There are many children born out of wedlock, in case you haven’t read the news in the last 20 years… being married or single has nothing to do with having children, it’s about having sex, which to my knowledge is not yet required by permit only.

      • Robert

        Don’t be giving the Washington crowd any ideas. I can just see them passing a peter tax. As you grow old and bigger the government assesses you a larger tax. And who knows what they’ll think of for women.

        • Fed Up Gal in NM

          Robert,

          I absolutely agree with your opinion regarding TORT reform. Now, regarding your comment (28 Oct, 5:34pm) to Winginit……hmmmmmm…I’m at a loss for words (at this moment), but I am now concerned about these new taxes which appear to be in store for all us (sooner or later)…..LoL. How funny….and how sad!!!!!!!!!

          Fed Up Gal

      • BillyJ

        Winginit, you want me, who has no children, to pay schooling for yours through college years, in the hope that they survive and end up paying taxes? What happens if they are good for nothing drifters, or like the thousands who hide their tax portion in off shore accounts? Your logic is really far fetched. You had them, you support them, you certainly should not be granted a lower tax for producing an unknown source of revenue. I am already paying school taxes, college grants, and that seems like a social program that I shouldn’t have to contribute to. The Federal and state governments are making me underwrite your children which can produce the veritable deadbeat non-paying tax offender. Holy Cow lady, you are a little off the wall.

        • American Citizen

          There are also those of us who sacrificed to send our children to private schools and yet had to pay taxes to support the public schools even though our children didn’t use them.

          • eyeswideopen

            You think the woman above is right in thinking that she should get a bigger tax break for having children? You think I should support her children even more than I already do? If you sent your children to private schools, they were lucky kids, and I personally think you shouldn’t have had to pay other school taxes. I also don’t think that people without childrens should have to pay school taxes. But that is being part of a country, that is contributing to the civilization. Taxes are necessary in order to remain civil, so everyone pays a share.

          • libertytrain

            eyes, I have to disagree with you about the idea of childless people not having to pay school taxes – heard that often, particularly when I lived in Florida. I kind of think that the children are our future and it’s kind of a selfish idea — now you say you are childless (in one of your previous posts) but didn’t you post also that, you had a son/child killed in the war? Should we stop contributing to society’s well-being just because our children are grown? Maybe we are paying those school taxes as payback for our own school years – yes, most of our parents paid school taxes, yet doesn’t the circle continue? You’re kind of inconsistent in things, but, frankly, that’s your right. But it’s not correct to intensely attack those that don’t agree with your point of view – in my opinion.

          • eyeswideopen

            Liberty, I was trying to show Wingit, how stupid it was to want to pay less taxes because she had more children who would become tax payers. I firmly belive in everyone contributing to the good of society. Giving her example of someone who has no children, who could feel as though they shouldn’t be paying for hers. You should have children that you can support, to have more children to get a lower tax rate is ludicrous.

          • libertytrain

            eyes – the comment I responded to was one you addressed to American Citizen – not the one you had for Wingit – I didn’t find I had any interest in that one —

    • Ken

      And of course single people with no children also are not producing future tax payers that support the continued growth of society. In fact that is true with childless couples of any sort that don’t produce offspring.

  • Chris

    It seems to me that an official who is employed by the government is obliged to carry out the duties that are part of his job regardless of his personal beliefs.
    However, a minister, priest or other person who is not employed by the government should be free to fulfill his duties as he (or his religious organization) sees fit.
    Likewise, private businesses should be allowed to refuse work for any clients they wish. For example, a photographer should be free to decline work for a wedding for which he does not approve.
    If private citizens are at liberty to do as they wish, or marry who they wish, then private businesses and organizations should be free to perform services for whom they wish. Isn’t that the essence of liberty?

    • DaveH

      I agree completely Chris; well said.

      • ROD OH

        So Chris are you saying that restaurants should still have the “liberty” to not serve somone of a different color? I think racial discrimination laws were instituted because individual citizens , businesses, employers etc. just could not find it within themselves to police themselves against their own prejudices. And that has NOTHING to do with “personal liberty”.

        • American Citizen

          There are businesses and then there are businesses. I believe it’s the kind of business you are in whether you have to serve clients/customers or not. For instance, lawyers may take only certain kinds of cases and churches can make their rules for their members as can private clubs. Even restaurants can make rules before they’ll serve you, mostly for health reasons. For instance, you may not enter if you aren’t wearing shoes. The government is becoming more intrusive into our lives every day. It won’t be long before it’ll tell you on what day you can have a bowel movement. It already dictates the kind of commode you can have, supposedly to save on water. But sometimes you have to flush twice in order to completely clean the bowl. Not all government laws make sense.

        • American Citizen

          Too many people think they have a right to the job they want, even though they may not be qualified to do it. I believe a business has the right to hire the kind of employees it wants/needs. Skin color should not enter into it on both sides. If a person is qualified for the job, depending upon the kind of job, an employer may not discriminate. But sometimes gender does enter into the kind of employee wanted. A job that require a lot of physical strength should go to a man. A day care center will most likely want women employees as women are the nurturers as a rule. But a lot of jobs can be done by either men or women.
          And for those who work outside the home, those who work within the home also have important jobs, and wear many hats.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Brian F

    While I would love to see the gov’t get less involved in the everyday lives of Americans, the questions has to be ask, If the individual’s job is to state certify a marriage, and it is legal for couples of different races to be married, then why is that person still allowed to perform those duties? To me, that is paramount to a judge saying he knows something is legal, but he doesn’t agree with the law, so he is going to ignore the law and consider it illegal. Where will it stop?

  • Jim

    As I understand it, Mr. Bardwell did not forbid the couple to marry, he simply refused to do the wedding. Isn’t that his right as a human being?
    In my opinion we are making too much of this. I tend to agree with Ralph that this looks a lot like an opportunity to sue someone. It appears that they simply went to another official who gladly married them. Come on people, let’s use some common sense here. I’ve been marrying people for nearly 45 years and I’ve turned down the requests that went against my religious principles and best judgment. I’ve even given people names of officiants that I knew would marry them.
    We all have our convictions, and most of us are different.

    • http://theresasledge.buildblastoffsuccess.com Theresa

      Jim,
      Sir, I agree with you. I have been there and done that. Our rigths here (well, used to be) to act on our good conscience. This man’s conscience was based on data that does in fact prove racial inter-marriage does have consquences. Therefore, the couple should have just moved on and which they did and just kept the matter quiet. But oh no… let’s throw him under the bus, because I cry foul! People are just down right unreasonable in our culture today. Our public schools don’t teach the history and the laws of their own country. We have a very secular culture that is destroying our GOD given rights.

    • ROD OH

      No Jim, as apublic official he is NOT allowed to let his personal beliefs restrict his duties. He should step down from his duties. And there can NEVER be enough “made” about these types of prejudiced actions.

      • eyeswideopen

        I agree. Go find another job if you can’t serve without bias.

  • shannon853

    the main fact is the couple were married. it should be the right of the individual to follow his or her beliefs. wanting to sue him is like suing someone because you want them to rab a bank and they refuse. it’s also like finding a parking space. one doesn’t work out, so you go elsware. they easily found another to perform the wedding. so big deal.

    • Valter

      You say that, becouse it never happened to you !! It’s an American way of life to fight for their rights. So do you have an idea why people came to America? or why they left Europe at first hand?

      • Robert

        Free lunch. Answer your question?

      • American Citizen

        Oh, it happens more often than you think and it isn’t always about race. When I went to my church to ask to get married there, the priest didn’t consider me a member as we lived over the “parish line” even though I, my brother and sister went to school there. But our parents did pay tuition for us to attend school there. So my husband and I were married in his church.

        • eyeswideopen

          Wouldn’t Jesus be proud of the priest in that church? Sorry that happened to you.

          • libertytrain

            Eyes, sounds to me like they ended up being married in the church they wanted -

          • eyeswideopen

            Liberty, when she stated ” so we were married there”, is a statement of resignation. They did not get married in the church of their first choice.

        • eyeswideopen

          Liberty, the point is that when you are in a position that is licensed by a state, you cannot show prejudice. End of story.

          • libertytrain

            eyes, there are many times you know not what you speak and this is one of them. No one denied American getting married. She says he did end up performing the Sacrament of Marriage for them – In the Catholic Church, it is preferred you go to the Church in the area you live – the Parish your neighborhood falls in…it is preferred you support that Church – That Parish Family – That is why, when you opt, to say, get married at the Church your parent’s belong to, or maybe grew up in and schooled in, the priest needs to seek out permission to do that, usually from the other Church, sometimes from the diocese, sometimes his decision. No one was denying her the right to be married in the Catholic Church – Just perhaps, that particular Parish of the Catholic Church…And it is a Church – not the government. And this had nothing to do with prejudice — just neighborhoods. Perhaps you could discuss this with the Constitutional whiz-kid neighbor.

          • eyeswideopen

            liberty, If you are a justice of the peace, you cannot by law show a bias in whom you will marry.

          • libertytrain

            Eyes, If you choose to believe that — have at it, and try with your next marriage to get married in the Catholic Church (I’m using that Church as an example as it was the one originally commented about)….see how far you get and what kind of luck you would have in getting any one to support your claims of bias. Check around, see what you find.

          • eyeswideopen

            Liberty, what are you trying to say? I felt bad for her that her church made her go else where? What religious point are you trying to make?

          • libertytrain

            Eyes, you made the point, I’m trying to fix your inaccuracies.

          • eyeswideopen

            Inaccuracies in what? I made a statement about Jesus, and told her I was sorry she had to go throught that, and another statement about a justice of the peace not being able to show bias. What do you want to argue about? Or fix?

          • libertytrain

            eyes, your comment was:
            Liberty, the point is that when you are in a position that is licensed by a state, you cannot show prejudice. End of story.
            My point was that’s not correct. Nothing to fix.

          • eyeswideopen

            Ok, Liberty, if you are licensed by the state to perform marriages, you cannot show prejudice and say, I won’t marry you because I don’t like blonds. A judge cannot say, oh, you are an American Indian, I won’t hear your case. A resturant cannot refuse to serve someone based on their skin color. Doctors cannot refuse to see someone based on their race. If a state gives you a license to perform a specific function, you cannot show a bias and refuse to perform that function or service due to personal preferences. State licenses are issued to grant rights to specific individuals to give services to the general public, which does not allow you to discriminate against a certain catagory due to your own preference.

          • eyeswideopen

            Come on Liberty, what are you trying to fix?

          • libertytrain

            eyes, doesn’t matter anymore – you certainly know all the requirements about everything possible so I would not attempt to fix anything – you go on chatting up a storm – it’s ok.

          • eyeswideopen

            Libert, you obviously wanted to pick a fight, I just don’t know why you picked it over a simple statement of not being able to show prejudice?

          • libertytrain

            eyes, I’m so sorry that you consider this a fight. I didn’t —- just attempted to correct an error and you properly put me in my place by making me aware that you’re an expert in all that exists. Glad someone is.

          • eyeswideopen

            Liberty, you now sound like Dave and Jeff. You are being condescending, because you made a statement which you didn’t think through. I am not an expert, never claimed to be, just use facts, and the law to make points. I have made many comments that you could have jumped on and could have proven me wrong, however, I happen to sit on a state licensing board here in State of Florida, so I probably have been exposed to a litle more than you have reguarding licenses and the laws.

          • libertytrain

            Eyes, I am sorry you feel that way — I still believe you are mistaken that any Priest or Rabbi or other religious clergy has to marry anyone that stumbles into their church. But that’s me. However, I do not doubt that you have expertise in many things – we all do.

          • eyeswideopen

            Liberty, I see why you are confused, when I made statement about state licensing, I meant the justice of the peace cannot be predjuice. Churches can and will decide who to marry. They are not licensed by the state as the service is not a civil service performed. I did not elaborate enough when I made the statement. You thought I was referring to the church, I wasn’t, I was stating that the justice had to marry the young couple. I finally got what you were trying to do. Sorry, I missed your point. I do think it is sad that American was treated that way, especially after her parents had even paid for her schooling there. I will be more cautious when making short statements to make sure that I am more clear on my intent. Once again, thank you for persevering, I hate to be misunderstood. I was faulty in not clarifing my statement about the justice.

          • libertytrain

            eyes, I wasn’t confused. My discussion started with me saying the Priest didn’t have to marry the couple from a different parish –no matter how crummy we feel about it – You then took it to a different “governmental” direction. I said Church and government were not the same — I’m sorry if the explanation of the Catholic Church’s rights and choices with regards to granting permission to marry in a different parish than one belongs to wasn’t clear to you.

          • eyeswideopen

            Liberty, and your point being? I didn’t say anything to American except I was sorry she had to go through that aggraviation. And I don’t think Jesus would be happy with all the politics involved in religion. A Christian should be welcomed in any Christian church. How politican Christians have become.

          • eyeswideopen

            A church can decide who to marry, a justice of the peace cannot.

          • libertytrain

            eyes, thank you. That’s all I said. Never doubted the justice of the peace or government entities obligations.

  • Carol

    Unfortunately if this man has no other choice but to marry anyone who comes to his door he has to right or no right to refuse.

    By the law he has to according to what he signed when he started doing this job. He can’t bring is personal feeling in and sad but true.

    But if he had refused to marry other couples and there wasn’t a problem for the couples they just went somewhere else but now we have a black president all rules have changed and now he has to marry whom ever comes to his door whether he wants to or not.

    I couldn’t agree with more if I tried because it will the children that hurt because of mixture of blood and if that child needs a blood tranfusion or transplant it will be impossible to find an organ. That has already happen with Walter Payton they couldn’t find a liver to save his life and died because he was white/black and there was nobody out there that had the proper blood. There are so many other blood disorders that blacks as well as whites have that can be transferred to the children that could kill them and nothing could be done to save them but that is never said anywhere because they don’t want to be told the truth why blacks and whites should not marry and that is a fact.

    • ROD OH

      Carol, I am sorry to say it this way but I do not know how else to say it. I cannot believe that your type of ignorance, backwardness or whatever you want to call it, still exists in this country.

    • Lynn

      Oh wow Carol. You are a shining example of why it is every citizen’s duty to pay an Education Tax. Sadly, it appears that you wasted your community’s tax dollars, assuming you finished your education. Most people who have a very basic grasp of high school biology would know that your post is just plain ignorant.

    • Bernie

      Walter Payton died of a rare liver disease that quickly excluded the possibility of a transplant and probably contributed to his getting bile duct cancer on top of it. There is no scientific reason that mixing of “the bloods” would prevent a mixed race person from receiving adequate medical care. Most genetic disorders that are predominantly carried by one race would in fact have a diminished chance of appearing in a mixed race child because most of these diseases need two parents with the recessive gene to be present in order for the gene to be expressed.

  • DaveH

    I agree with the Justices advice, but if he is a government official it is really none of his business to impose his will on the couple. However, I don’t think a civil lawsuit is the answer. Maybe a criminal case could be brought if he wasn’t performing his appointed duties, and that only to remove him from his official job.
    I think an interracial marriage is indeed a huge step, as they tend to get flack from both sides, and marriage is hard enough without those added pressures. But only that couple should be involved in making that decision. That is what freedom is all about.

    • BillyJ

      Excellent point.

    • Fed Up Gal in NM

      Dave H,

      I could not agree more! You summed it up very nicely!

      Fed Up Gal

  • Darrell

    The word marriage comes from the bible and is defined as man and woman. So that’s it. They should call it a union, couple, but never marriage unless it is between man and woman. If this is the case, just throw out and outlaw the bible. We will then be a nation not under GOD. Just legal corporation, republician criminals.

    • John

      I’m sad to say the day is soon comming when the Bible will be outlawed, and there will be only government corruption led by Liberal criminals.

      • ROD OH

        That is conspiracy thinking and fear mongering at its worst, John. Our world doesn’t need any more of that type of emotional, skewed logic.

        • American Citizen

          All you have to do is listen to what the liberals say and do.

    • Lynn

      Hey Darrell… don’t get too choked-up about not being “one nation under God”. The US has only been “under God” since the separation of church, and state and schools got a little fuzzy in the 1950s when the phrase “… under God” was added to The Pledge of Allegiance.

  • Jay

    Wow,

    I have found a lot of ignorance on this page, and then I read Carol’s comment. Wow, can you be anymore misinformed and racist. There is no such thing as “black blood” or “white blood”, blood is classified by blood type (e.g. A, B, O) not by race, so before you go spattering off at the mouth with incomplete science, please excuse your self to the corner and put on your dunce hat and go play with your legos, yet that may be to difficult for you.

    • libertytrain

      Jay, good reply for the information – I think sometimes people forget – thanks.

    • DaveH

      Jay,
      Can’t you just make your comment without the name-calling and ridicule? If your point is valid (and it is) it doesn’t need to be laced with manipulative phrases.

    • Happy

      Thanks Jay.

    • American Citizen

      There are certain kinds of genes carried by certain races. For instance, sickle cell is carried specifically by blacks. Tay Sachs is carried mostly by the Jewish race, etc. Those are also facts.

      • Lynn

        Hey Americn Citizen… didn’t you ever watch M.A.S.H.? Klinger had sickle cell anemia and he certainly wasn’t black. Sickle cell anemia is common to Africa… and Greece, Turkey, the Arabian peninsula and the Indian sub-Continent. This makes your statement “For instance, sickle cell is carried specifically by blacks” completely and absolutely UNtrue.

  • Valter

    SO IN SHORT WORDS ( whetever you don’t want for you do not wish it upon at anybody )

  • American Citizen

    Most interracial marriages end in failure due to a difference in cultures. The children are of both races and often conflicted when they become older. That is evident in Obama’s case. There are such things as different races (although all human) just as there are bluebirds and redbirds. They are of the same species, yet stick to their own kind. The only animals that are of two different genre even in the same species are made by man, such as mules that are then sterile. God does have a plan for man and we do our own thing to our detriment.

    • Happy

      Do try to take a trip around the world and open up your horizon. My theme is Love makes the difference. Everyone can use some love. That why God sent His son-Jesus to die so that we could have ETERNAL live. EVERY ONE HAS RED BLOOD, AND MOST RESPECT LOVE.

      Take care,

      • American Citizen

        Just because you love someone doesn’t mean you have to marry that person. You will love many people even after you are married. That doesn’t mean you should betray your partner. I hope yours is successful. As I said, most fail because of cultural differences.

        • Lynn

          Ok… then how come same race marriages fail? And would it be possible for you to actually back-up your belief that most mixed-race mariages fail? Do you have any “FACTUAL” statistics that show mixed marriages fail more often than same-race marriages? DO you have any valid statistics to support that statement? Or is this the same kind of well researched claim as your “only blacks have sickle cell anemia” post a little while back?

    • ROD OH

      And Republicans wonder why they lost the support of the moderates….LOL

      • American Citizen

        For every problem government tries to solve, it creates two more.

      • Fed Up Gal in NM

        Dear…dear Rod,

        Please take a moment to read Dave H’s comment to Jay (28 Oct, 2:58pm) and at least try and follow his lead! Geeeeezzzz…like your subsequent comments put you on a higher or better pedestal????????? You could have easily made your point ( which as Dave said, was quite valid)….. and you would have come out smelling like a rose.

  • Robert

    Another reason we need tort reform. Not just in health care but everything. I’m sick and tired of the ambulance chasers and their low life racketeering. You know what they call a 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? Answer: A good start.

    • John

      AMEN brother. And, let’s add a bunch of politicians with them.

  • Happy

    I am surprised that there is a such thing as in Orleans official refusal to an interracial couple. Heh, I am an Asian, and I married to a western man.

    Right now we don’t need more problems but solutions. We have a pressing problem at hand -such as people without jobs. Let’s pray that people would get jobs to feed themselves and their family. Maybe it’s a reaching out time to help others in need.

    Good day!

  • DaveH
    • Lynn

      John Stossel raises some interesting points. Look at the famous people who came to the US to get medical treatment… weren’t they all millionaires? Wasn’t it also his point that capitalism makes for better medical profits which leads to better research? So someone gets to take advantage of you when you’re sick (or hold you hostage) so they can make a dollar? How much of that profit is plowed back into R&D and how much goes into some CEO’s pocket? Ooooh Canadians might have to wait up to a month for an MRI, or longer for other procedures… for NON LIFE THREATENING medical treatments. Canadians crossing the border to get US medical treatment are very rare. The actress who died from a head trauma on a Quebec ski slope!? That was yellow journalism at its worst! She was skiing at a resort 90 miles from the nearest big city hosptial. Just because a ski resort doesn’t have a helicopter doesn’t mean Canada’s healthcare is to blame. Besides, she refused medical attention on the slope. The Canadian system is far superior to the American alternative of having the value of your life determined by the size of your wallet.

  • Fed Up Gal in NM

    Dave H,

    Excellent example (Canadian type health care). I used to work in the medical field; worked in a few civilian hospitals and in a VA hospital. The VA hospital here in ABQ was pretty good (I think) compared to others…….but the red tape beauracay was frustrating to employees and to those being treated (waiting 4-10 hours in ER, lab or Xray….mainly because so many patients and so few staff). Thanks for sharing the video clip!

    Fed Up Gal

  • Albert Nygren

    There are more reasons to prohibit marriage between people of the same gender than religious ones. I worked as a Registered Nurse in psychiatry for 20 years. Homosexuality and Lesbianism used to be listed in the category of “sexual deviancy” by both the American Psychological Association and tha American Psychiatric Association.

    Same gender sexual attraction was removed as a psychological dysfunction for political reasons, not because some new information was discovered. Same gender sexual attraction is a very deep seated dysfunction in the normal psychosexual development of a child. I won’t go into the details as they are long and time consuming but suffice to say that what I say is obvious to anyone who really knows what psychosexual development entails.

    Two of the things that are needed in normal heterosexual psychosexual development is a father that is a good role model for the boy and a mother for the girl. For a child to have both “parents” be of the same gender as the child can cause many serious dysfunctions in the child.

    The normal family of a man for a father, a woman for a mother, and a marriage that lasts, are the bedrock of a society and a civilization. One of the reasons that we see such crime and violence in our society today is due to the breakdown of the family.Increasing the “normalcy” of same gender sexual attraction and all that goes with that, by normalizing “same sex marriage” increases the breakdown of the family and the eventual collapse of society.

    • Lynn

      What an utterly asinine post. You try to qualify your opinion by mentioning that you were a Registered Nurse. Nice try. Were you involved in any clinical research or did you just handout meds, restrain patients and empty bedpans? Being an RN does not make you an expert. You may have some anecdotal experience, but anecdotal research is never considered as qualified research or factual.

      You say “homosexuality and lesbianism USED to be considered a deviancy”? You say “same sex attraction was removed as a psychological dysfunction for political reasons…”? You know the Bible used to say the sun revolved around the earth. The Constitution used to refer to “free persons” and “three fifths of other persons”. Sometimes written words that are considered to be important and are considered to be the “gospel truth” are later found to be just plain wrong.

      Then you make some bizarre leap of logic. You say “Two of the things that are needed in normal heterosexual psychosexual development is a father that is a good role model for the boy and a mother for the girl.” Are you saying single mothers (and single fathers) can’t raise a heterosexual child? Where did your statement come from? Is there a scientific report (something from this decade) that you can cite?

      You say same sex marriage will lead to the eventual collapse of society? That’s rather dramatic. I think the only thing same sex marriage will collapse is your narrow-minded world view… which I’m guessing is heavily based on that book that claimed the sun revolves around the earth.

      • Albert Nygren

        Lynn, you are mistaken about many things. I won’t try to have a rational discussion because your memo seems highly emotional, hate filled, and irrational. For your information, no where in the Bible does it say that the sun revolves around the earth. Until Galileo. everyone thought the sun revolves around the earth because to the eye, it seemed that way.

        The Church did for a time say that Galileo was wrong because Jesus was crucified on earth and they thought it would be improper for the earth to revolve around the sun. Later they realized their mistake and said so.

        I said that Homosexuality and Lesbianism used to be considered a sexual deviancy. When I took my abnormal psych class at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee in 1967, that was how they were listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual that psychologists and psychiatrists that they make their diagnoses from. That is just a fact, not my opinion.

        You say that I may have some anecdotal knowledge but no statistical knowledge base on scientific studies. 1st, you don’t know that. 2nd, if you knew about statistics and about scientific studies, you would know that scientific studies have to have certain methodologies to have the results be valid. It is impossible to do scientific research using those methodology because there are ethical limits to what you can do with people.

        Also, you should be aware that people who know about statistics know that they can be twisted around to seem to prove anything you want. That’s why they may have this as an aphorism: In a descending order, there are: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

        Also the latest research shows that it is very hard for a single parent of any gender raise children due to their subconscious need for role models.The people who did this research concluded that they were wrong when they said that having parents that argued was worce than having parents that were divorced. For this reason they encouraged married people to stay married, even if they were unhappy in the marriage because it was so important for the children

  • s c

    From the lack of feedback, it seems safe to say this is anything but a ‘hot’ topic. I believe it’s best to keep matters simple, as this tends to put politicians in their place (unnecessary, unwanted, and useless).
    The basic issue in this has a one focal point. That is, at the heart of every political issue is the government’s attempt to be a “substitute” for God (i. e., somehow, government can do it ‘better’).
    Pick a topic, and this is the beating heart of the matter. Topics that are based in morality, in particular, are matters in which government is trying to flex its muscle by controlling every man, woman and child.
    Isn’t it peculiar how the government is so adept in trying to muscle its way into EVERYTHING? Isn’t it amazing how so many people can be so stupid, when they think government has nothing to do with moral issues? People, either LIVE AND LEARN, or REFUSE TO LEARN AND SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES.
    KNOW YOUR ENEMY.

  • G. Murphy

    Right state – wrong city. This did not happen in New Orleans. Please get your facts straight.

  • Tim Fleischer

    It is ironic that you guys are discussing “marriage” on the website of a man who abandoned his wedding voews by having repeated illicit affairs and only resigned the Speaker of the House position when he was outed for those multiple, multiple affairs.
    You Family Values crowd are a hoot!

  • Bernie

    Look, this guy is a government employee. Denying or passing legislature against interracial marriage has been illegal since Loving V. Virginia. It is not his call to make choices on things like this, it is the law. If his beliefs interfere with his ability to perform his duty as a justice of the peace, he should (and I think has) resign. That’s it. Period.

  • http://www.worldreports.org/news m2o

    I hope by now this Justice of the Peace in Louisiana Keith Bardwell is removed. I hope this couple did start a lawsuit.
    Divide & conquer, kill all love on planet earth = is their agenda.
    Now, let’s all kill them with LOVE. It will 100% kill them, because
    it is most alien to greed & power. They will choke on it for sure.
    We got the POWER, the power of love.

  • Albert Nygren

    Eyes wide open says that a Justice of the Peace has to marry anyone because he is licensed by the state. He goes on to say that Priests and Protestant Ministers can refuse to marry people because they aren’t licensed by the state. Yes they are or they can’t marry people.

  • Ken

    It seems to me that since the couple has been able to get married in Louisiana by another State Official, that their civil rights were not violated by the state. Does the Supreme Court ruling actually force an individual to perform a marriage ceremony against their own beliefs when the ceremony can be performed by another individual who holds no such beliefs? Don’t we expect judges to recuse themselves from a case where a conflict of interest might occur based on prejudice or personal involvement? Why should this Justice Of The Peace not be allowed the same ability to deny getting involved in a case they have a prejudicial belief about?

  • ScottC

    If I were a state official, I would grusingly marry homosexuals if the state law allowed such “unions.” If I were not a state official neither Hell, highwater, nor Barrack could force me to do so. I might not resign my state job if I needed the money badly enough. I have the right to my private convictions but the state has the last work on my official actions. Just as the state cannot force me to act contrary to my private convictions, I cannot force the state to allow me to violate state convictions as specified in state policy. To do otherwise would be to mimic Madison and invite civil unrest.

  • Albert Nygren

    This is an old thread so no one may see this but just in case. I speak as someone who is 68 y/o and who worked as a Registered Nurse in psychiatry for the last 20 years of my work life.

    A human being has needs, water, food, shelter, and human companionship. These are needs that are built into us and cannot be changed or legislated away. A person deprived of these needs will die. Whether you believe in God and that God designed these needs into us or you are an atheist and say that evolution caused these needs makes no real difference because these human needs are there, no matter how they got there.

    Human beings start out as babies and develop into adults over about 20 to 25 years. There is psycho-social development (how a person develops the skills to relate to others)There is also psycho-sexual development (how a person sees themselves and reacts to others as a sexual being).

    I’l1 talk in terms of boys but the same is true of girls. Normally, a boy has a same gender father that is not such a bad role model so that the boy can accept his maleness. He also has an opposite gender mother that is nurturing enough so that the boy can develop, at first non sexual attraction and later in puberty, sexual attraction in girls.

    This boy becomes a normal hetero sexual male. If the father is so bad that the boy cannot accept his maleness he develops gender dysphoria, sees himself as a woman in a man’s body and is sexually attracted to males. It can also happen that the mother is so bad of a role model that the boy becomes so fearful of women in general that he is full of rage towards women and becomes sexually attracted to males.

    As a society we have to have as a norm (with fairly strong taboos) that men marry women and vice verse. The family is the basic building block of society and everyone; mother, father, child, get many needs met in that normal family. The tragic increase in crime and social unrest that we currently experience is due to the breakup of the family.

    That’s why the issue of same sex marriage has nothing to do with fairness, personal rights, or the government keeping their noses out of our personal business; all things that I highly value. It has to do with normal human development, the needs of family members and the needs of society to have stable families.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.