click here if you want to go back in time!!! :D

[ninwa]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26222241-401,00.html

AN interracial couple in Louisiana have been denied a marriage license by an official who considers their union morally wrong, according to local media.

[Collin Li]

This is what happens when I quit eRepublik and I'm no longer the Congressman of Louisiana...

[AppleXY]

Southern America has not evolved socially. Still stuck in the 1900s.

Racist f$%$%ks.

[wombifat]

This is how people in the future will see gay marriage...

[minilunchbox]

This is how people in the future will see gay marriage...

Sort of like how California allowed Gay marriage and then passed Prop 8 so all previous marriages are now defunct.

[ninwa]

Sort of like how California allowed Gay marriage and then passed Prop 8 so all previous marriages are now defunct.

I could see that as some kind of cruel twisted joke ... "HAHA GOT YOUR HOPES UP FOR NOTHIN' *tears marriage contracts*"

[wombifat]

This is how people in the future will see gay marriage...

Sort of like how California allowed Gay marriage and then passed Prop 8 so all previous marriages are now defunct.

actually all those marriages are still valid, and they can't pass laws to change that.

[ninwa]

Okay, I'm going to assume you're serious and not just trolling.

Isn't the purpose of marriage to ensure that people are more inclined to look after your joint children and stay in a relationship with further legal force behind the union? You can love all you want even if you are not married.

As there is no biological premise as far as I know for gay couples to have children - and any adopted will be exposed to a culture of prejudice against there parents and therefore likely harassed, teased etc (and thus more morally 'bad' for them to adopt in California - why should they get married legally anyway?

So infertile couples, old couples past reproduction age, etc. shouldn't get married either because they cannot have children?

Marriage is merely a symbol of a couple's commitment to each other. You're dictating whether a couple can get married or not based on whether your predictions of whether their children are going to be bullied.

That's like saying two African-Americans shouldn't get married in the Deep South because their children might be harrassed. Or that Aboriginals shouldn't have children because in some areas of Australia there is a culture of prejudice against them. Why should they have to pander to the outdated and bigoted views of other people?

If they aren't going to stay in a relationship hypothetical, then why are they getting married then either? Creates more bureaucratic work, hardship and is detrimental to the overall well being of society in the worst case scenario.

Who said they weren't going to stay in a relationship? If you want to talk about inability to commit to a relationship, may I direct you to Britney Spears' 55 hour marriage? Heterosexuals do not exactly have the best track record in this area. In 2007, 47 963 divorces were granted in Australia. 49.3% of those involved children. (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3307.0.55.001)

In your haste to "think of the children!" you appear to have overlooked this point. By your logic, heterosexual marriages shouldn't be allowed either, because it "creates more bureaucratic work, hardship and is detrimental to the overall well being of society". Not to mention the immense emotional hardship inflicted upon all those poor children caught in (heterosexual!) divorces!

In the best case scenario there are no benefits except somewhere it says they are married and can feel good about it (which they could do if they felt like feeling that way anyway).

The same can be said for heterosexual marriage, especially those which do not produce children.

There is a similar premise to why the mixed race couple should be denied marriage with exception to the biological argument.

I'm morbidly fascinated. What exactly is your argument here?

[Cthulhu]

Saying that there is no point in couples getting married if they are going to 'hypothetically' get divorced sometime in the future is a terrible argument. "Hypothetically" any married couple could get a divorce. Does that mean no one should get married just in case they get a divorce or that they shouldn't have kids? Your argument that they can love each other even if they aren't married is true. But if they have kids when they are not married and then break up in the near future after the child is born what happens to the child's well being then? perhaps we should put a ban on all non-married couples having children because the parents might split up one day and the child will be treated differently!

There are plenty of interracial couples that have had children and the children aren't teased or picked on because of who their parents are. There are no laws saying that two people of different races can't marry each other; maybe in the early 20th century there was but this is the 21st century and we don't have time for bullshit like this and people who aren't tolerant of other peoples life choices. If gay people want to adopt a child that is their choice and they should be allowed to o it.

Just because there are ignorant people out there who are not accepting of peoples sexuality and think that what they are doing is wrong is no the child's fault and I'm sure the parents will raise their child to understand that just because there are people out  there who think its wrong that two men or two women can be married and in a relationship doesn't mean that the child is different from anyone else. The same goes for interracial couples. The child still has two parents and if they get a divorce they should be treated just like any other child that has two parents of the same race or two straight parents.