Morning outrage, anyone?

[novapsyche]

Interracial couple denied marriage license: Louisiana justice of the peace cites concerns about any children couple might have

My response: Loving v. Virginia (1967), biatch.

Edit: pgdudda wrote about this in his LJ, too. I left a comment there.

Comments

[pgdudda.livejournal.com]

AMEN.

(And probably the best - and most succinct - response I've seen.)

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Part of me fears that judges will try to join pharmacists who can ignore portions of the law to which they personally object.

Judges don't get to their spots in society without knowing about landmark cases. This man had to have known he was breaking the law.

[jojomojo.livejournal.com]

I don't think they'd get very far trying that, fortunately. Theoretically you can choose your pharmacist (of course, in some rural areas you practically can't). You're not supposed to be able to choose your judge, for obvious reasons, so a judge can't argue 'well, they can pick someone else who's ok with it'.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

For a marriage license, the judge's signature seems almost a formality. Indeed, the couple did see another judge in order to marry. People elope all the time, also--so one is not required to see the judge in one's vicinity.

However, if you are the judge who is so petitioned, you should follow the law and not let your biases cloud your judgments. His refusal to marry this couple (as well as three others, based on another report I'd heard) should in fact be seen as evidence toward his removal. Impartiality is essential to justice; that includes one's own views. The law is the highest authority.

[pgdudda.livejournal.com]

"...ignore portions of the law to which they personally object."

We must be channeling each other or something, because I was just mentioning the same problem to someone else when discussing this...

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Ugh, just ugh. I can't believe humanity remains this stupid.