Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License

[theogt]

Interesting. I didn't know that.

Probably because it's not true.

 

[theogt]

OGT- once upon a time those who spoke out against racism were treated the same way. They had a right then to speak what they believed. Just as those who disagree with things as they are now have a right to believe that way. Its called freedom of thought and belief. Maybe you need to do a little research on that right-one that is maybe not in the Consituition but has been upheld anyway.
Think THOUGHT POLICE and that is the road YOU are going down.

Burm, people are thrilled that we have to like people because its the law, not because we want to. Thought police dont scare people, they want that. They want people to tell them how to think, how to speak, how to act and WHO to like, who to hire and who you have to socialize with.

I will fully defend both of your legal right to be racist in belief.

I will also ridicule you for it.

 

[DallasEast]

Latest video: http://www.wdsu.com/video/21322987/

 

[Maikeru-sama]

The Marriage Certificate wasn't specifically created to prevent interracial marriage but I know it has been used by some unscrupulous people to prevent interracial marriage, similar to what this Justice of the Peace is doing.

 

[hairic]

Probably because it's not true.

Really? Must be a big coincidence then.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?pagewanted=all

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

Towards the end of the 19th century: That was after the Civil War amendments were passed.

Coincidental that as soon as slaves were freed, courts and state legislatures felt the need to inject themselves into the marriage game.

More sources: http://wps.ablongman.com/long_longman_lahdemo_1/0,8259,1546454-,00.html

1865: Mississippi Black Codes

Sec. 3....All freedmen, free negroes, or mulattoes who do now and have herebefore lived and cohabited together as husband and wife shall be taken and held in law as legally married, and the issue shall be taken and held as legitimate for all purposes; that it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free negro, or mulatto to intermarry with any white person; nor for any white person to intermarry with any freedman, free negro, or mulatto; and any person who shall so intermarry, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof shall be confined in the State penitentiary for life; and those shall be deemed freedmen, free negroes, and mulattoes who are of pure negro blood, and those descended from a negro to the third generation, inclusive, though one ancestor in each generation may have been a white person.

*** it: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=anti-miscegenation+laws

I don't really like how my memory works, but it came to me while brushing my teeth:

Black's Law Dictionary (don't remember which edition, 6th maybe 8th) defines a "marriage license" to be: A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry. Intermarry being interracial marriage.

 

[theogt]

Really? Must be a big coincidence then.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?pagewanted=all

Towards the end of the 19th century: That was after the Civil War amendments were passed.

Coincidental that as soon as slaves were freed, courts and state legislatures felt the need to inject themselves into the marriage game.

I think you need to re-read what you said. Because none of this proves what you said.

I wouldn't doubt that marriage licenses have been used in a discriminatory manner in the past. To argue otherwise would be ridiculous (although you don't even seem to be able to back that claim up), considering a marriage license is being used in a discriminatory manner the article at the center of this very thread.

But you claimed the marriage license was created for racial purposes. That simply isn't true.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Would it be so terrible if the government simply stopped recognizing marriage unions -- of any kind?

 

[hairic]

I think you need to re-read what you said. Because none of this proves what you said.

I wouldn't doubt that marriage licenses have been used in a discriminatory manner in the past. To argue otherwise would be ridiculous (although you don't even seem to be able to back that claim up), considering a marriage license is being used in a discriminatory manner the article at the center of this very thread.

But you claimed the marriage license was created for racial purposes. That simply isn't true.

I agree that I poorly worded my post. It would have been better to say enforced somehow rather than created. Because I believe marriage licenses go all the way back to medieval times.

 

[Hostile]

Would it be so terrible if the government simply stopped recognizing marriage unions -- of any kind?

Yes. I am quite proud of mine.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Would it be so terrible if the government simply stopped recognizing marriage unions -- of any kind?

Nope.

I think you still should be required to obtain a Marriage License for State and Government Reporting, but, it should just a formality.

 

[ShiningStar]

I will fully defend both of your legal right to be racist in belief.

I will also ridicule you for it.

So i dont want to kill the guy and im the racist? Wow, how is it begin brainwashed? Do you like being spoon fed your ideas, opinions, principles?

 

[theogt]

So i dont want to kill the guy and im the racist? Wow, how is it begin brainwashed? Do you like being spoon fed your ideas, opinions, principles?

Your posts are exceedingly difficult to decipher.

 

[ShiningStar]

Your posts are exceedingly difficult to decipher.

No, you are just warped.

 

[burmafrd]

the only one showing prejudice in this thread is OGT. Anyone defending that persons freedom of thought is a racist according to him. OGT=1984.

 

[Hoofbite]

I'd like to know where all of you were at when one of this site's own members, Bob Sacamano, was denied a marriage license for his inter-species relationship.

Speaking of, what happened to Bob? Been a while since he's been around.

 

[Cover 2]

Probably because it's not true.

:laugh2: Then I guess that's why I didn't know that.