Louisiana judge denies marriage license to interracial couple

[merithyn]

It is Alfred Kinsey who came up with the 10% by conducting a "study" which consisted of interviewing his friends.  The only thing he proved was that he had a lot of gay friends.  The 10% is thrown around by the gay lobby a lot because they of course want to inflate their importance.

From surveys I've seen the percentage is 2-4%, depending on how you ask the question (about 2% outright admit in being gay, while another 2% claim to be bisexual or having "experimented" wirh gay sex).

According this this report, an estimate of 5% is closest:

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000491_gl_partner_households.pdf

And there are quite a few other studies that range from 4% to 13% based on a quick check on Google. (Based on numbers alone on the 2000 Census, the number would be 4%, though, as you said, the way the question was worded was fairly confusing.)

And I did say roughly. 

[Jaron]

5% is not roughly 10%.

[sbr]

When I read the thread title I was OUTRAGED^TM.  After the first sentence I was all fired up and ready to call him out as a bigot and racist and DEMAND EQUALITY.

Then I finished the article and saw that he had refused to sign marriage licenses before, and the couple was married by another JoP, in the same parish, for the same price, and very likely on the same weekend they had intended in the first place.  While I am not arguing the law, this just seems much ado about nothing.

I am white, grew up in the suburbs, and was raised in a very upper middle-class home.  I am about the least oppressed person you will ever meet, I also despise racists and bigots of any sort.  To me this seems like one of those occasional instances of "racial injustice" that is going to be blown up into more than it really deserves; every time the race card is played out of turn it devalues it the next time a legitimate injustice happens.

[garbon]

Regardless, that someone should follow their moral conviction instead of pandering to vociferous whining is an outrage. 

Moral conviction? How can you have a moral conviction that Americans of different "races" shouldn't intermingle when we've been intermingling since the beginning?

[derspiess]

This is obviously bullshit as gays can't marry. Stupid comment to make by the ACLU.

FWIW the ACLU (to which I donate  ) is a strong supporter of gay marriage equality and of gay rights in general.

Tell them to stop ignoring the 2nd Amendment at your next meeting

[Jaron]

This is in fact not "NOTHING".

Because I can walk across the street and buy groceries in another store doesn't justify the first to put up a "No niggers" sign.

He needs to lose his position and be made an example of. There is no need to destroy the man personally but there is no room in America for racist filth like this to be in positions of power with authority over other peoples lives.

[Lettow77]

 The man stood on his principles. He is obstructing nobody; I find it admirable.

But then, I would. I dont automatically assume someone having opinions on race other than radical egalitarianism makes them a monster.

[garbon]

When I read the thread title I was OUTRAGED^TM.  After the first sentence I was all fired up and ready to call him out as a bigot and racist and DEMAND EQUALITY.

Then I finished the article and saw that he had refused to sign marriage licenses before, and the couple was married by another JoP, in the same parish, for the same price, and very likely on the same weekend they had intended in the first place.  While I am not arguing the law, this just seems much ado about nothing.

I am white, grew up in the suburbs, and was raised in a very upper middle-class home.  I am about the least oppressed person you will ever meet, I also despise racists and bigots of any sort.  To me this seems like one of those occasional instances of "racial injustice" that is going to be blown up into more than it really deserves; every time the race card is played out of turn it devalues it the next time a legitimate injustice happens.

That is totally true, since he has done it many times = NOT A PROBLEM!

[garbon]

But then, I would. I dont automatically assume someone having opinions on race other than radical egalitarianism makes them a monster.

I think of them like the religious, its cute that they have such wild imaginations.

[Jaron]

The man stood on his principles. He is obstructing nobody; I find it admirable.

But then, I would. I dont automatically assume someone having opinions on race other than radical egalitarianism makes them a monster.

There is nothing admirable about this, retard. He IS obstructing somebody, the article made that clear enough. Yes, people are entitled to their own opinions about race. If it bothers you so much, don't date or marry outside your own. You can absolutely NOT prevent others from doing so based on YOUR convictions. The fact I'm even having to argue this with you guys is really disgusting.

[PDH]

That's it. It is time to blow up Louisiana. Then California.

[Jaron]

[Caliga]

Tell them to stop ignoring the 2nd Amendment at your next meeting

This is the only item on their platform that angers me.  I'm not a fan of their affirmative action stance but it doesn't bother me as much.

[Monoriu]

This is in fact not "NOTHING".

Because I can walk across the street and buy groceries in another store doesn't justify the first to put up a "No niggers" sign.

He needs to lose his position and be made an example of. There is no need to destroy the man personally but there is no room in America for racist filth like this to be in positions of power with authority over other peoples lives.

I agree with this

[grumbler]

Interesting that the judge would make this argument in the year that the first "mixed-race" President was inaugurated. 

Obama needs to have Bardwell, Humphrey, and McKay come to the White House for a beer.  That should get him the NPP for next year as well.