Log in

No account? Create an account
USA, WTF? - Dave's Ramblings — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

USA, WTF? [Oct. 17th, 2009|04:26 pm]
[Current Location |Invercargill]
[mood |grumpygrumpy]

Back a few months ago when this whole "gay marriage" debate was going on, one of the popular comparisons to point out was with laws against miscegenation (which seem to have mostly disappeared by now, and, what do you know, the world hasn't ended after all. Funny that.) Of course this was framed more as a "look what other bizarre stuff people used to think would Destroy The Very Fabric Of Society and all that" commentary, because it's not the sort of thing any person in their right mind would actually believe any more (it is telling that even back when I still read Usenet - which my then provider finally dropped some time about eighteen months ago, and my current provider has never offered in the first place - only a tiny handful of loud-mouthed, content-free Usenet trolls bothered about "white superiority" and the "evils" of racial dilution).

Until earlier this week. I was really hoping that this would turn out to be a hoax. No such luck. I've seen it posted, referred to and linked to by enough reliable sources (friends, Boing Boing; even Wikipedia mentions it in their entry on "miscegenation").

So much Fail. He even trots out the old "I'm not a racist. I just don't..." line.

It's "for the children", of course. Because, in his bizarre universe, in-breeding isn't as bad for children as out-breeding is. Because a child of an inter-racial couple might end up growing up and going into politics. And then where would people be?

[User Picture]From: mthomas3
2009-10-17 05:14 am (UTC)
That's just... weird. I suppose we've progressed - he did say he didn't try to forbid them getting married at all, merely refused to perform the ceremony himself. But I thought Justices of the Peace were civil authorities, so more or less had to marry anyone who fulfilled the legal requirements. I could see a preacher refusing to marry a couple for wacky reasons -- marrying outside the religion or something.

LA does not have a reputation for being the most forward-looking of states. And it will all be in the ocean in another few decades anyway. You'd think, even in LA, he would have sensed that the social winds have moved along since 30 years ago. That's a special kind of oblivious.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: southerndave
2009-10-17 07:47 am (UTC)
I'm not sure how JPs work in America... here, they mainly seem to witness signatures and that sort of stuff. I don't know what the restrictions are on marriage celebrants, but they're a different group of people (although I don't think there's anything stopping a JP from also being a marriage celebrant).

The problem with LA falling into the ocean would be twofold: (1) I'm fairly certain I've got friends living somewhere near there and (2) I'd rather not think of the size of the tsunami that would cause around the ocean, particularly when I still haven't heard from George or his father as to whether their family are all accounted for.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2009-10-17 11:41 pm (UTC)
No tsunami to worry about; LA isn't going to fall.

The oceans are rising.

LA is very low-lying, and -- I forget the details, but they're in National Geographic somewhere -- the natural sandbars that used to keep the ocean waves from actively digging away at LA's shores are vanishing. Either humans removed them, because they interfered with shipping (oops), or hurricanes, or both. Anyway, the ocean waves that used to be stopped by those sandy islands are now sweeping in and chew, chew, chewing away at LA's always low shore.

We have notarys for signatures and stuff. I've only heard of JPs performing civil marriage ceremonies, here. I think they used to do other stuff... maybe they still do... I don't think my state has JPs, so I don't know what they do, outside of novels. In novels, they marry people. :>
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: alryssa
2009-10-17 11:54 am (UTC)
Yes, they are, and yes, they're legally obligated to fulfill their duties according to civil law, so their 'personal feelings' or opinions have no place in this arena. That is what the problem is here, and he's utterly failed to understand that. You cannot be a conscientious objector when you're a judge and pick and choose what parts of the law you're going to respect based on 'feelings'.

In fact, Judge Clay Land just reamed out our favourite crazymaker Orly Taitz for that same error very recently.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: southerndave
2009-10-17 07:54 am (UTC)
I'd hope so, although it doesn't seem to be a particularly quick process (it seemed to take forever for Jack Thompson to be disbarred, and, as far as I know, a certain lawyer apparently named after all those silly owl pictures on the Internet is still allowed to practice law somewhere, even though said lawyer shows no sign of being able to do law for real...)

And yeah, we've got our own local loons (I mention them occasionally; one particularly annoying one is no doubt furious with a certain committee in Norway because of how it's sabotaged his carefully constructed fantasy of racial superiority based on how "other people" don't win Nobel Prizes...) but they are generally just a bunch of rather sad, small-minded people.

I suppose that's one advantage of having less than two percent of America's population: having less than two percent of America's number of idiots...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dkphoenix
2009-10-17 02:42 pm (UTC)
It surprised me that this guy felt free to express his feelings, but it didn't surprise me too much that he had it, because I can remember when his attitude about biracial children was the one generally held by most people in this area - which is not too far from Louisiana. Most of my parents generation probably still feel that way, they just don't say it out loud.

Things have changed since then, but apparently, not completely.
(Reply) (Thread)