# Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License in Louisiana **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 15, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961 "2009-10-15T22:45:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/41 "2009-10-17T11:14:47Z")
Are you guys really confident that he is subject to criminal (and not merely civil) liability? Seems like the kind of thing us non-lawyers could easily be confused about, and AFAIK none have checked in yet. I don’t recall ever hearing about someone having criminal charges brought against them for this sort of thing. > [@Love Rhombus](#): > > Could someone clarify something? In the first version of the incident, it says he refused to marry a gay couple. Later he talks about race? Was it an interracial gay couple or am I missing something? **Cat Fight** in Post #3 was drawing a parallel, replacing all reference to interracial couples in the linked article with references to same sex couples. Except she missed one reference at the end, making the post really confusing for those who hadn’t clicked on the link in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/42 "2009-10-17T11:27:40Z")
Danke. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/43 "2009-10-17T14:02:56Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > Are you guys really confident that he is subject to criminal (and not merely civil) liability? Seems like the kind of thing us non-lawyers could easily be confused about, and AFAIK none have checked in yet. I don’t recall ever hearing about someone having criminal charges brought against them for this sort of thing. > [@Title 18](#): > > ``` > For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. > > ``` > > TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 > > ``` > Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; > > ``` Our friend the JP is a local official. He is acting under the color of law. That much is obvious. Now, _is_ he depriving them of a right? He’s refusing to carry out his duties as a official, that much is true, making it.. what, malfeasance? But I don’t know if he’s depriving them, just denying them. On the basis of race. I’m not sure if it really is covered by 18:242. I may be wrong. On the other hand, violating a constitutional right on the basis of race certainly _should_ be horribly illegal in several ways, I figure. The sumbitch _should_ go to pound me in the ass prison. But I’ve never seen it happen in freedom of speech cases, either. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/44 "2009-10-17T18:00:42Z")
> [@](#): > > **jtgain** : You think that every white father in the south would have no objection to his daughter marrying a black guy? Do you think that all white fathers in the South must be of one mind? ---
**Author:** ![Kolga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@Kolga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolga)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/45 "2009-10-17T18:06:31Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > You think that every white father in the south would have no objection to his daughter marrying a black guy? I’m still waiting for an explanation of what this statement has to do with anything else being discussed in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/46 "2009-10-17T19:25:46Z")
> [@Kolga](#): > > I’m still waiting for an explanation of what this statement has to do with anything else being discussed in this thread. Post #23. I said that on re-read it was a bad example. I guess my point was that even in the year 2009, there are many people who are against interracial marriage. This JP is one of them. And while that sure as shit should make him lose his office, I can’t see putting someone in jail for feeling this way. There are many, many people; more than we all probably know, who agree with the views of this JP. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/47 "2009-10-17T19:49:35Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I guess my point was that even in the year 2009, there are many people who are against interracial marriage. This JP is one of them. And while that sure as shit should make him lose his office, I can’t see putting someone in jail for feeling this way. There are many, many people; more than we all probably know, who agree with the views of this JP. No, you can’t be put in jail for your beliefs. You _can_ be put in jail for your _actions_. This JP could be the most racist SOB in the county, but as long as he followed the law in his role as a public servant, nobody would care. It’s the fact that he denied the couple their marriage license on the basis of their race that’s the issue, not the prejudice itself. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/48 "2009-10-17T20:04:12Z")
It’s a good thing that we live in a country where certain rights are protected even when a majority of the people think those rights should be denied. In this case the Justice of the Peace was paid by the government to issue marriage licenses to those who qualified by law. He can’t discriminate by race. That is a civil rights violation. Sometimes I think a civil rights violation is even worse than some criminal violations. A man stole my wallet once and because he did it with a gun, he got sent to prison. The violation of the civil rights of these two people was the greater offense. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/49 "2009-10-17T20:44:15Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Post #23. I said that on re-read it was a bad example. > > I guess my point was that even in the year 2009, there are many people who are against interracial marriage. This JP is one of them. And while that sure as shit should make him lose his office, I can’t see putting someone in jail for feeling this way. There are many, many people; more than we all probably know, who agree with the views of this JP. It is most certainly reasonable to take criminal or other legal action against an official who, in an official capacity acts on said views. Jailing this sad bastard for his views is not the bloody question. Jailing or fining said person for using his state power in a discriminatory manner banned by law, well, there he has put the State at the service of racism. In the year 2009 that should be severely punished. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/50 "2009-10-17T21:51:31Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Post #23. I said that on re-read it was a bad example. > > I guess my point was that even in the year 2009, there are many people who are against interracial marriage. This JP is one of them. And while that sure as shit should make him lose his office, I can’t see putting someone in jail for feeling this way. There are many, many people; more than we all probably know, who agree with the views of this JP. To expand on what **Wmfellows** says, and to agree with him, while I wouldn’t advocate imprisoning this guy, I would strongly argue that this kind of misfeasance in office ought to lead to a criminal penalty, of at least (1) removal from office, and (2) a fairly substantial fine. Firstly, you should realize that a criminal penalty doesn’t equal prison. It can be a fine/probation. Also, from a practical standpoint, I don’t know if a civil suit can remove the JP from office–while I assume a criminal prosecution can. To my mind, the difference between criminal and civil that matters here is that civil suit= fixing an injury to an individual by making the individual whole, whereas criminal prosecution= fixing an injury to the state, or to the public, by punishing the wrongdoer and making a statement about the rule of law. In simple terms, as I have implied, I don’t see what the JP did as just causing a private injury to the couple in question. It’s a threat to the rule of law (a state official refusing to abide by the highest law of the land, the Constitution of the United States), and disregard for his responsibilities as a state officer–misfeasance in officer. (As a officer of the state, the JP isn’t just legally obligated to follow the law–he has a duty to uphold the state and federal constitution–and his discriminatory actions are direct violations of the fourteenth amendment, conditioning a privilege given by a state actor on race). So I think the justification for criminal punishment is that this is an offense against the state, not just against the couple involved, and that it ought to be punished as such. Also, remember that a civil suit only happens if the couple in question wants to sue, and if they have the money to sue (or if they find someone to take the case pro bono–which is almost certainly true here). Private individuals shouldn’t bear the cost of preventing official discrimination (both in terms of money, and the time and effort required to manage and prosecute a lawsuit)–the prevention of official discrimination shouldn’t depend on the victims’ willingess to sue, and the willingness of some civil rights lawyer to take the case pro bono. I also think that a statement should be made–that the state will not let this kind of racism stand, nor will it permit its officials to discriminate in their official capacity. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2009, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/51 "2009-10-18T11:24:40Z")
How about this. Let’s say that a person is a doctor employed by the state in a rural clinic. A woman comes to him and asks for an abortion. He says that he is personally against abortion and that she should go see a different doctor. Since abortion is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and the doctor is employed by the state, should he be charged with depriving her rights under color of authority? I guess the distinction that I see is that this JP didn’t deny them the right to marry. He simply said that he, personally, wouldn’t perform the ceremony because of his own misguided thoughts on interracial marriage. If he was the only person in the county authorized to perform marriages then perhaps it would be different. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2009, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/52 "2009-10-18T11:57:29Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > How about this. Let’s say that a person is a doctor employed by the state in a rural clinic. A woman comes to him and asks for an abortion. He says that he is personally against abortion and that she should go see a different doctor. > > Since abortion is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and the doctor is employed by the state, should he be charged with depriving her rights under color of authority? Yes, and he should lose his license to practice medicine if he is unwilling to do his job. And the same goes for the pharmacists who refuse to give women birth control because it offends their misogynistic religion; they should either do their job or be forced out of the profession. These are people who want to go back to the “good old days” where you could put up signs denying service to blacks or Irish or Jews and get away with it. That’s unacceptable. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2009, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/53 "2009-10-18T13:13:12Z")
If I refuse service to blacks, I’m discriminating them due to their race. If I refuse service to whites, I’m discriminating them due to their race. If I refuse service to Asians/Arabs/Indians/Chicanos/etc or any mix thereof, I’m discriminating them due to their race. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2009, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/54 "2009-10-18T13:35:42Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > The sumbitch _should_ go to pound me in the ass prison. I completely agree with the rest of your post; however, it would be grand if we could all get away from this crap regarding prisons and prisoners. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/55 "2009-10-18T14:27:15Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > How about this. Let’s say that a person is a doctor employed by the state in a rural clinic. A woman comes to him and asks for an abortion. He says that he is personally against abortion and that she should go see a different doctor. > > Since abortion is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and the doctor is employed by the state, should he be charged with depriving her rights under color of authority? The distinction between your hypothetical and this case is that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey prohibit a state placing an undue burden on abortion. They do not create an affirmative obligation on the part of a state to provide abortion. So there is no constitutional violation when a state-employed doctor doesn’t offer abortions. On the other hand, the fourteenth amendment does prohibit a state from discriminating–by mandating all people receive equal protection of the laws. When a state official treats people differently on the basis of race, it’s a violation. The real equivalent hypothetical would be a state MD that only offered abortions to white couples. > [@](#): > > I guess the distinction that I see is that this JP didn’t deny them the right to marry. He simply said that he, personally, wouldn’t perform the ceremony because of his own misguided thoughts on interracial marriage. If he was the only person in the county authorized to perform marriages then perhaps it would be different. I don’t know why you’re having such trouble with this–Let’s ignore the right to marriage (to the extent one exists). For the purposes of argument, let’s imagine there is no such right. That doesn’t make this JP’s action OK. The most important right the JP denied was not the right to marry (even though the couple wanted, and didn’t get a marriage license). The undisputed constitutional right that was clearly violated here was the fourteenth amendment right to equal protection under the laws–in commonsense terms, the right to be free from official discrimination. A state official doesn’t get to treat people differently on the basis of race–regardless of whether the thing being denied to individuals of one race are marriage licenses, or whether it’s a driver’s license, or the store in the state house basement not selling to white guys. Or, let’s try this. The store in the bottom of the state house, owned and operated by the state, won’t sell to white people. Is there no constitutional violation because I can get a snickers bar across the street? (Because that’s what your argument would say). The fact that, in this case, the racial discrimination had the effect of denying this couple a marriage licence is more or less immaterial to the constitutional violation the JP committed. He violated the constitution because he discriminated on the basis of race. The fact that they could get married by some other guy doesn’t change the fact that they have a constitutional right not to have the state, or its agents, discriminate against them on the basis of race (and hence deny them the equal protection of the laws) ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/56 "2009-10-18T15:28:02Z")
There’s a distinction that both **jtgain** and those explaining equal protection to him fail to make. There are decisions, including most of those made by judges, which are magisterial (in the specialized sense of the word used in law), to be given or denied in the good judgment of the state official. But there are other, non-discretionary duties. Take a college registrar as a good example. He is not obligated to send out a Ph.D. degree simply on someone’s request for one – his mastery of his subject, his dissertation, etc., must have been reviewed and approved by others before any certification of a degree may be sent out. But if a student has been admitted and has paid the appropriate fee, the registrar is not permitted to deny him a Student I.D. card simply because, e.g., he objects to his being transgendered. It’s a duty of the position; his choices are to do what his job requres, obtain a change in job description to remove the requirement, or resign his job. A clergyman has discretion in whether or not he will officiate at a wedding, according to the terms for his church and his personal standards and judgment. So, presumably, do other non-government officials given the right to solemnize marriages – from sea captain (if there are still jurisdictions accepting such marriages) to Elvis impersonator. But a public official’s job in issuing a marriag license or in solemnizing a marriage is not a discretionary one. His or her duty is to satisfy him/herself that all legally-mandated prerequisites for the license or the taking of vows (age 18 or with consent, unmarried, blood test or waiting period if called for by state law, proper fee for license paid, etc.) have been complied with, and then issue the license or officiate at the wedding. Like the registrar, his choices are to do the job, to petition the legislature that the job requirements be changed, or to resign. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2009, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/57 "2009-10-18T15:34:23Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > There’s a distinction that both **jtgain** and those explaining equal protection to him fail to make. There are decisions, including most of those made by judges, which are magisterial (in the specialized sense of the word used in law), to be given or denied in the good judgment of the state official. But there are other, non-discretionary duties. Take a college registrar as a good example. He is not obligated to send out a Ph.D. degree simply on someone’s request for one – his mastery of his subject, his dissertation, etc., must have been reviewed and approved by others before any certification of a degree may be sent out. But if a student has been admitted and has paid the appropriate fee, the registrar is not permitted to deny him a Student I.D. card simply because, e.g., he objects to his being transgendered. It’s a duty of the position; his choices are to do what his job requres, obtain a change in job description to remove the requirement, or resign his job. > > A clergyman has discretion in whether or not he will officiate at a wedding, according to the terms for his church and his personal standards and judgment. So, presumably, do other non-government officials given the right to solemnize marriages – from sea captain (if there are still jurisdictions accepting such marriages) to Elvis impersonator. > > But a public official’s job in issuing a marriag license or in solemnizing a marriage is not a discretionary one. His or her duty is to satisfy him/herself that all legally-mandated prerequisites for the license or the taking of vows (age 18 or with consent, unmarried, blood test or waiting period if called for by state law, proper fee for license paid, etc.) have been complied with, and then issue the license or officiate at the wedding. Like the registrar, his choices are to do the job, to petition the legislature that the job requirements be changed, or to resign. True, but the thing is that even discretionary duties of state officials (ignoring things like the civil rights act, which extends such obligations to private individuals) cannot be conditioned on race absent being narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest (such that it satisfies strict scrutiny). The fact that a duty is discretionary or non-discretionary is of no import when a state official denies that discretion on racial grounds–the fourteenth amendment, and the legislation under it, simply and explicitly forbids the exercise of discretion on the grounds of race—an official may be able to refuse to perform a discretionary duty for no reason at all, but he can’t refuse to perform one on the grounds of race. Now, it’s different if you’re not a state official. Then, the fourteenth amendment itself is no bar to discrimination–the key is civil rights legislation, which I’m not up to date on. But in the case of a state actor acting in his official capacity, it’s simply untrue to say he can discriminate in performing his discretionary responsibilities on the basis of race. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2009, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/58 "2009-10-18T15:35:25Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > \*\*\* It’s a duty of the position; his choices are to do what his job requres, obtain a change in job description to remove the requirement, or resign his job\*\*\* Well said. I can’t understand why so many people seem to fail to grasp this point. The Justice of the Peace has a **duty** , and this one is not fulfilling his duty. In fact, he’s refusing to do his duty. Therefore he should be relieved of said duty. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2009, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/59 "2009-10-18T15:43:13Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > Well said. > > I can’t understand why so many people seem to fail to grasp this point. The Justice of the Peace has a **duty** , and this one is not fulfilling his duty. In fact, he’s refusing to do his duty. > > Therefore he should be relieved of said duty. Exactly. But I disagree that he should be allowed to retire. At the very least, he should be fired for cause–because, as you say, he has a duty, and is refusing to do it. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2009, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961/60 "2009-10-18T16:04:03Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > I completely agree with the rest of your post; however, it would be grand if we could all get away from this crap regarding prisons and prisoners. It’s not a reference to wishing he was raped, it’s a reference to Office Space, meaning hard, federal time. As opposed to country club prison time or local time. Edit: worfin: I think that knowingly and with careful consideration, not fufilling one’s duty as a representative of the government, should be considered up there with being bribed, say. I mean, it’s just me, but that’s pretty much the definition of being corrupt, isn’t it? I say that jail time should be an outcome. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/513961.md?page=4)