What Age Are We Living In?

This isn't new news anymore, but it is definitely still worth commenting on...

Louisiana JP Refuses Interracial Couple Marriage License...I think my heart stopped when I first read that headline.

Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana JP recently refused to marry an interracial couple. He states that in his experience, these types of marriages do not last long, and the offspring of such relationships are accepted by neither the black community nor the white community; therefore his decision is made solely with the best interest of any future children in mind. I quote him as saying, "I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put the children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves. In my heart I feel the children will suffer later." He says that if he does it for one couple, he must do it for them all because he "treats everyone equally." How noble! ...Can you hear the sarcasm?

I am beginning to feel a little overwhelmed as I sort through all the things wrong with that; however, I will start with the one thing no one can argue against. As a Justice of the Peace, he took an oath to uphold the law. He didn't swear to go by the law unless he didn't agree with it, he didn't promise to follow the law whenever he felt like it, he made an oath to uphold the law at all times, in all matters and in all decisions he makes.

It wasn't all that long ago that what he did was perfectly within the law, in fact it was the law. Pace v. Alabama (1883) confirmed as constitutional the Alabama law that prohibited white persons and non-white persons from marrying, cohabitating, or procreating. On March 20, 1924 the Racial Integrity Act was passed requiring our race to be recorded at birth, and it took the Pace v. Alabama precedent one step further by making the marriage between a white person and a non-white person a felony. However, in 1967 Loving v. Virginia overturned Pace v. Alabama and ended ALL race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

So I must ask myself, "What age are we living in?" It's not 1883, 1924 or even 1966...it is 2009. It is 2009 and there is a Justice of the Peace who has been allowed to break the law and infringe upon the Civil Rights of others without consequence for the past 34 years. Bardwell argues he did not prohibit the couple from marrying, but instead sent them away to get married somewhere else, and that his constitutional rights protect him from having to go against what he feels is acceptable or unacceptable. It is perfectly fine for him to feel or think anything he chooses...we are in America, that's what it's all about, but when he swore to uphold the law, he also swore to never allow his conflicting personal beliefs to interfere with that. It is obvious that he takes neither promise seriously.

I pondered why this man's actions are just now coming to light. By his own admission, he has refused others. Why did they lay down and take it? Why didn't they stand up for themselves? Why didn't they tell someone, anyone, that could help them do something about it? WHY? It is worth the hassle, it is worth the time. It doesn't matter that they were able to go somewhere else and get married, that's not the point. The point is that they never should have had to go somewhere else. Then it all started to make sense to me when Bardwell made his next comment. He mentioned that the Attorney General told him years ago that he would eventually get into trouble for not performing interracial marriages. That's it! Maybe those other couples did tell someone. Maybe they told the wrong someone, a someone like the Attorney General who saw injustice and didn't do anything about it. Maybe they didn't stop at telling one someone, but told another and another, and no one helped. Maybe they didn't know where else to go. Some people have written-off the entire situation by saying, "Oh, it's the South, they are still like that down there. That's just the way it is." Last time I checked we had a Civil War and when the Union won we agreed to unite under one set of laws. So, how is it that the South can act like it's 1860 and others can think that is acceptable?

(Long Sigh)

As for not wanting to place any future children into a bad situation they did not ask for...50% of all marriages in the United States end in divorce, regardless of race. Not a good situation. If there is such concern over whether or not the marriage will last, why not conduct extensive premarital counseling for all couples; those who do not pass, do not get married or recommended to anyone else to marry. But that still doesn't satisfy the problem. 40% of births in 2007 were to unwed mothers, and that number is on the rise. Marriage is no longer a prerequisite for child-bearing. How can he control that?

Even more importantly, where are the background checks, drug tests, personal references, employment checks, et cetra? Shouldn't he make sure no one is a sex offender, or a criminal? What if future children are sexually abused or a parent goes to prison? Not a good situation. What if they are drug addicts or alcoholics? What if the children are neglected, abused or becomes addicts themselves? Not a good situation. What if the couple can't hold down jobs or refuse to work? What if the children wind up homeless? Not a good situation. The list can go on and on, and none of it has anything to do with whether or not the parents are of two different races. By the way, what does society think children growing up under any of those circumstances? Are they accepted? Rejected? Ignored? Are they outcasts? Looked up to? Fall along the wayside? It's obvious he isn't treating all couples equally, and he is most certainly not treating all future children equally. Weren't the children supposed to be his biggest concern?

Society as a whole is a lot more accepting of mixed-race children than he seems to be. Well, he is in the South, and that's just how it is down there. Just kidding! He needs to wake up and see that the nation is moving forward and leaving him behind. Society elected a mixed-race man into the highest office of the United States Government. How much more accepting can it get?

Widget

Real Heroes

So many times I read the news and see public figures or large organizations get rewarded for acts that many times are not even as noble as those of many ordinary people. The only reason they get acknowledged is because they are already in the public eye. This nation, and the world as a whole, is full of people who are worthy of praise for their efforts to help humanity. In light of the recent Nobel Peace Prize incident, I am even more excited to see that CNN has found a handful of ordinary people who are doing truly extraordinary things and impacting lives. These are the real heroes...cast YOUR vote today, so we can see an honor go to someone who actually deserves it.

Nobel Peace Prize?

On Friday, October 9, 2009 it was announced that President Obama would receive the Nobel Peace Prize. "For what?" you may ask. I am still trying to figure that one out. The official website of the Nobel Foundation states that Obama was chosen "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

There are numerous things wrong with this pick, and if I chose to go into them all, this would be the never ending blog...I don't think you'd like that very much. However, there is something inherently wrong with the explanation given by the Nobel Foundation. THAT, I will explore. Here we see the word "efforts." No, it's not just "efforts" it is "extraordinary efforts." Let's run with that...

President Obama is considered worthy of receiving such an honor because he has made an extraordinary effort to pursue a desired outcome. Fantastic! So, where are the results? I have yet to see them. Anyone can try to do something with all their might. Does that necessarily make them worthy of an honor? Or better yet, such a prestigious honor as the Nobel Peace Prize? I can make an earnest attempt daily for the rest of my life to shove my foot into a baby shoe, and I will never succeed. Does the mere fact that I tried so relentlessly make me worthy of honor? Actually, it may make me worthy of a mental institution, but that is beside the point.

I know the Peace Prize is a little more debatable that the awards for Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine and Literature...the Peace Prize brings with it much more subjectivity than the others. So, let's just say it is okay to give the honor on account of efforts with no regard to results. I understand that there may be instances in which even I would agree with giving the honor based on efforts alone. So let's put that aside for now.

What's wrong with it now? I'm glad you asked.

I must go back to the beginning, where the Nobel Prize was born. Upon his death in 1896, Alfred Nobel stated in his will that 94% of his assets be liquidated (today's US dollar equivalent of $186 Million) and placed into safe securities. The interest accrued yearly would be "annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." He went on to say the interest is to be divided into five equal parts and awarded as prizes in each of the five areas we see it awarded today.

The key phrase here is "during the preceding year." Although it has been almost a year since President Obama was inaugurated, there are some issues here. We all know that a Presidential Candidate's sole purpose in life for approximately two years prior to Election Day is to campaign; from Election Day to Inauguration Day is time to prepare oneself to step into position as President; and Inauguration Day is January 20th. What we don't all know is that the deadline for Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize is February 1st. With that being said, President Obama was in fact left to make an extraordinary effort for a whopping 13 days (that includes Inauguration Day and Nomination deadline) before he was nominated. Last time I checked, 13 days was a far cry from a year. Evidently, the Nobel Committee (responsible for evaluating nominees) doesn't have any regard for the rules. I can't say for certain what they have done in the past, but they are definitely going rogue with this one.

Even our own President and recipient of this prestigious prize knows he does not deserve it. In his acceptance speech he stated that he views the decision less as a recognition of his own accomplishments and more as "a call to action."

That leads me to my final thoughts...What's the agenda here? Who is behind this? What do they hope to accomplish?

Michael Jackson's final resting place?

In the days since Michael Jackson's passing, there has been quite a stir about a number of topics. During the post funeral days, I have heard things like, "Where is his body now?" "Where will his final resting place be?"

So this is my two cents...

In November of 2007, the Neverland Ranch was foreclosed on for $23 Million. It has been sitting on the bank's books ever since as they have been unable to sell it. Michael Jackson's body should by buried onsite, and the ranch opened up as a museum. The did it for Elvis...they call it Graceland. Why can't they do it for Michael? That would be a great way for the investors to start making some of their money back. Otherwise, they will not see a dime of it, the building will fall into ruins and they will lose any chance they have to recoup their losses. This will also help stimulate the suffering local economy as it will provide jobs and add to the flow of money.

People will travel from all over the world to see it! I don't know why anyone else hasn't suggested this already...