It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
Louisiana Justice Quits after Interracial Wed Flap
Thursday, November 05, 2009 By Melinda Deslatte
Baton Rouge, La. - A Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to marry a couple because the bride was white and groom was black resigned Tuesday, after weeks of refusing to step down despite calls for his ouster from officials including the governor.
Keith Bardwell quit with a one-sentence statement to Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne and no explanation of his decision: "I do hereby resign the office of Justice of the Peace for the Eighth Ward of Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, effective November 3, 2009."
Gov. Bobby Jindal called Bardwell's resignation "long overdue."
Bardwell, who is white, refused to marry Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay.
When questioned, Bardwell acknowledged he routinely avoids marrying interracial couples because he believes children born to them end up suffering. In interviews, he said he refers the couples to other justices of the peace, who then perform the ceremony, which happened in this case.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said in an October interview with The Associated Press. "I think those children suffer, and I won't help put them through it."
J wrote: > It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he > held firmly to his [bigoted] >convictions. Although I personally disagree with > Keith Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were > misguided.
Not only misguided, but also illegal.
At least there's one less bigot holding public office.
-- Smiler The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: >It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held >firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith >Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
And yet you're defending his racism like the good little nazi turd that you are.
> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held > firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith > Bardwell, I understand his motivations;
Of course you do, "J Young/J Baker/Oreo"!
"America, with the exception of the jews and niggers, are not a nation of pigs." From: "J Baker" <b...@ass.com> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 00:18:20 -0500 Message-ID: <1f4mfa.u2b.17.1@news.alt.net> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
"q: what do a nigger and an apple got in commona: both look good hanging from a tree" From: "Oreo \(adh\)" <loosecan...@volcanomail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:18:43 -0500 Organization: Avengers Message-ID: <1kn0ck.8ph.17.1@news.alt.net> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
"All I know is that "J Baker" will be around a long, long time" From: "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> Subject: Re: How to catch a forging "J Young" Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:27:30 -0500 Organization: neverwrong.org Message-ID: <1fetv2.v2n.17.1@news.alt.net> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held > firmly to his convictions.
Just like any other job in the US, if you can't perform it, then you can be replaced. In this particular case, not only was he not performing his job, but he was violating state and federal law in refusing to perform it.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:09:17 -0500, in alt.atheism , "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> in <38vadd.gc8.1...@news.alt.net> wrote:
>It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held >firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith >Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
He broke the law. But, apparently, you think that it is OK to break the law if someone is sincere and holds to their beliefs. So, I gather, you would have supported him if he married a gay couple.
On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held > > firmly to his convictions.
> He refused to do his job. He lost it. > That's it, Junkie Young.
> PDW
This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi. In responding counter to those accusers, I will now no doubt be subjected to those same epithets. The lesson being, people need to ignore their own opinions and mimic the majority or else risk being lynched by them. It is indeed an interesting if not scary time in which to live.
Moderator wrote: > This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or > consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to > remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks > carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
"Defending a child's welfare" HA!
What a farce! First off, he was breaking the law. Second off, he was *imagining* that they wanted kids. Third off, "Nazi" features a capital "N."
> In responding > counter to those accusers, I will now no doubt be subjected to those > same epithets. The lesson being, people need to ignore their own > opinions and mimic the majority or else risk being lynched by them. It > is indeed an interesting if not scary time in which to live.
Again, he wasn't violating anyone's opinions: He was violating the law. He was also refusing to do his job. Next, in this day and age of tight budgets, why should the public have *anyone* on the payroll who is A) Not doing their duty, and B) Opening up the possibility of one heck of a lawsuit? Hmm...?
He was no different than a Postal worker who refused to deliver the mail. No different than a cop who refused to ticket someone for doing 75 in a school zone. No different than a 911 operator refusing to connect someone reporting a heart attack to the local hospital.
And since you expect to be called something... How about "pathetic"?
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Nice people have to be bastards every once in a while so that others can fully appreciate their gentle, loving nature. -- Dionisio, circa 1993
Dionisio wrote: > Moderator wrote: > > This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or > > consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to > > remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks > > carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
> "Defending a child's welfare" HA!
> What a farce! First off, he was breaking the law. Second off, he was *imagining* that they > wanted kids. Third off, "Nazi" features a capital "N."
> > In responding > > counter to those accusers, I will now no doubt be subjected to those > > same epithets. The lesson being, people need to ignore their own > > opinions and mimic the majority or else risk being lynched by them. It > > is indeed an interesting if not scary time in which to live.
> Again, he wasn't violating anyone's opinions: He was violating the law. He was also > refusing to do his job. Next, in this day and age of tight budgets, why should the public > have *anyone* on the payroll who is A) Not doing their duty, and B) Opening up the > possibility of one heck of a lawsuit? Hmm...?
> He was no different than a Postal worker who refused to deliver the mail. No different > than a cop who refused to ticket someone for doing 75 in a school zone. No different than > a 911 operator refusing to connect someone reporting a heart attack to the local hospital.
> And since you expect to be called something... How about "pathetic"?
No different than a politician who panders to special interest groups while ignoring the interests of the general public or special interest groups claiming progressive liberal philosophies while engaging in rampant and blatant nihilism to the detriment of the most vulnerable but no one’s calling either of them racists. ROFLMAO. BTW, no telemarketing calls please. We don’t have any money.
> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held > firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith > Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
> Louisiana Justice Quits after Interracial Wed Flap
> Thursday, November 05, 2009 > By Melinda Deslatte
> Baton Rouge, La. - A Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to marry a > couple because the bride was white and groom was black resigned Tuesday, > after weeks of refusing to step down despite calls for his ouster from > officials including the governor.
> Keith Bardwell quit with a one-sentence statement to Louisiana Secretary of > State Jay Dardenne and no explanation of his decision: "I do hereby resign > the office of Justice of the Peace for the Eighth Ward of Tangipahoa Parish, > Louisiana, effective November 3, 2009."
> Gov. Bobby Jindal called Bardwell's resignation "long overdue."
> Bardwell, who is white, refused to marry Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay.
> When questioned, Bardwell acknowledged he routinely avoids marrying > interracial couples because he believes children born to them end up > suffering.
Why would someone believe that unless they themselves would willingly heap abuse on children of interracial couples?
But on the other hand, children of interracial couples can grow up to be President of the United States.
Moderator wrote: > On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he >>> held firmly to his convictions.
>> He refused to do his job. He lost it. >> That's it, Junkie Young.
>> PDW
> This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or > consideration for the JP's reason and the OP's post. I'll have to > remember that considering a child's welfare is racist and risks > carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi. In responding > counter to those accusers, I will now no doubt be subjected to those > same epithets. The lesson being, people need to ignore their own > opinions and mimic the majority or else risk being lynched by them. It > is indeed an interesting if not scary time in which to live.
Too bad you ignored the actual reason he lost his job, i.e. he refused to follow the law.
> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held > firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith > Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided. > http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56690
If you're going to have "convictions" that are locked in cement, first make sure you understand what those convictions are, the full effects of those convictions, taken all the way to the end, are on others as well as yourself. Make darn sure you're informed (how many of us even watch the evening local and national news) fully from more than one source. Make sure you're willing to take both responsibility and action on the results of your convictions. -- http://folding.stanford.edu Save lives, visit today!
> On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > > It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held > > > firmly to his convictions.
> > He refused to do his job. He lost it. > > That's it, Junkie Young.
> > PDW
> This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or > consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to > remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks > carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The child's welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
> Dionisio wrote: > > Moderator wrote: > > > This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or > > > consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to > > > remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks > > > carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
> > "Defending a child's welfare" HA!
> > What a farce! First off, he was breaking the law. Second off, he was *imagining* that they > > wanted kids. Third off, "Nazi" features a capital "N."
> > > In responding > > > counter to those accusers, I will now no doubt be subjected to those > > > same epithets. The lesson being, people need to ignore their own > > > opinions and mimic the majority or else risk being lynched by them. It > > > is indeed an interesting if not scary time in which to live.
> > Again, he wasn't violating anyone's opinions: He was violating the law. He was also > > refusing to do his job. Next, in this day and age of tight budgets, why should the public > > have *anyone* on the payroll who is A) Not doing their duty, and B) Opening up the > > possibility of one heck of a lawsuit? Hmm...?
> > He was no different than a Postal worker who refused to deliver the mail. No different > > than a cop who refused to ticket someone for doing 75 in a school zone. No different than > > a 911 operator refusing to connect someone reporting a heart attack to the local hospital.
> > And since you expect to be called something... How about "pathetic"?
> No different than a politician who panders to special
Blah, blah, blah... When in doubt, go of on an tangental rant.
Jimbo wrote: > On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he >>>> held firmly to his convictions.
>>> He refused to do his job. He lost it. >>> That's it, Junkie Young.
>>> PDW
>> This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or >> consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to >> remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks >> carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
> Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as > yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The child's > welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
But, but, but EVERYONE knows mixed race children are disadvantaged. For a start, you can't become the President of the USA if you're from a mixed race family......
-- Smiler The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Jimbo wrote: > On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > > > It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held > > > > firmly to his convictions.
> > > He refused to do his job. He lost it. > > > That's it, Junkie Young.
> > > PDW
> > This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or > > consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to > > remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks > > carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
> Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as > yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The child's > welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here in Canada. lol
Moderator wrote: > Jimbo wrote: >> On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because >>>>> he held firmly to his convictions.
>>>> He refused to do his job. He lost it. >>>> That's it, Junkie Young.
>>>> PDW
>>> This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or >>> consideration for the JP's reason and the OP's post. I'll have to >>> remember that considering a child's welfare is racist and risks >>> carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
>> Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as >> yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The child's >> welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
> I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here in > Canada. lol
Are you claiming that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed-race couple because the official does not think there should be such marriages? I guess you are babbling. lol
> Moderator wrote: > > Jimbo wrote: > >> On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>>>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because > >>>>> he held firmly to his convictions.
> >>>> He refused to do his job. He lost it. > >>>> That's it, Junkie Young.
> >>>> PDW
> >>> This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or > >>> consideration for the JP's reason and the OP's post. I'll have to > >>> remember that considering a child's welfare is racist and risks > >>> carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
> >> Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as > >> yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The child's > >> welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
> > I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here in > > Canada. lol
> Are you claiming that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed-race > couple because the official does not think there should be such marriages? > I guess you are babbling. lol- Hide quoted text -
I'm not claiming "that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed- race" but more important, why would you take my word either way?
Moderator wrote: > On Nov 8, 1:54 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Moderator wrote: >>> Jimbo wrote: >>>> On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because >>>>>>> he held firmly to his convictions.
>>>>>> He refused to do his job. He lost it. >>>>>> That's it, Junkie Young.
>>>>>> PDW
>>>>> This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or >>>>> consideration for the JP's reason and the OP's post. I'll have to >>>>> remember that considering a child's welfare is racist and risks >>>>> carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
>>>> Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the >>>> as yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The >>>> child's welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
>>> I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here >>> in Canada. lol
>> Are you claiming that marriage in Canada can be refused to a >> mixed-race couple because the official does not think there should >> be such marriages? I guess you are babbling. lol- Hide quoted text -
> I'm not claiming "that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed- > race" but more important, why would you take my word either way?
I don't take your word. I thought that was clear. If you are not claiming that it is okay for an official to refuse to marry a mixed-race couple, what exactly do you think you are complaining about? The former judge has every right to not witness such marriages, but he cannot continue to be a judge. Is that too complex for you?
thomas p. wrote: > Moderator wrote: >> On Nov 8, 1:54 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Moderator wrote: >>>> Jimbo wrote: >>>>> On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because >>>>>>>> he held firmly to his convictions. >>>>>>> He refused to do his job. He lost it. >>>>>>> That's it, Junkie Young. >>>>>>> PDW >>>>>> This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or >>>>>> consideration for the JP's reason and the OP's post. I'll have to >>>>>> remember that considering a child's welfare is racist and risks >>>>>> carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi. >>>>> Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the >>>>> as yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The >>>>> child's welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's. >>>> I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here >>>> in Canada. lol >>> Are you claiming that marriage in Canada can be refused to a >>> mixed-race couple because the official does not think there should >>> be such marriages? I guess you are babbling. lol- Hide quoted text -
>> I'm not claiming "that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed- >> race" but more important, why would you take my word either way?
> I don't take your word. I thought that was clear. If you are not claiming > that > it is okay for an official to refuse to marry a mixed-race couple, what > exactly > do you think you are complaining about? The former judge has every right > to not witness such marriages, but he cannot continue to be a judge. Is > that too > complex for you?
Hey Thomas,
I'm wondering, if you don't take his word, in your previous question, what reason does he have that you will take his word for this next question of yours?
In other words, there's no need for you to ask so many questions, if you're not even going to believe the answer.
Indications show you are one terribly confused individual.
> thomas p. wrote: >> Moderator wrote: >>> On Nov 8, 1:54 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Moderator wrote: >>>>> Jimbo wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because >>>>>>>>> he held firmly to his convictions. >>>>>>>> He refused to do his job. He lost it. >>>>>>>> That's it, Junkie Young. >>>>>>>> PDW >>>>>>> This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or >>>>>>> consideration for the JP's reason and the OP's post. I'll have to >>>>>>> remember that considering a child's welfare is racist and risks >>>>>>> carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi. >>>>>> Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the >>>>>> as yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The >>>>>> child's welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's. >>>>> I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here >>>>> in Canada. lol >>>> Are you claiming that marriage in Canada can be refused to a >>>> mixed-race couple because the official does not think there should >>>> be such marriages? I guess you are babbling. lol- Hide quoted text -
>>> I'm not claiming "that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed- >>> race" but more important, why would you take my word either way?
>> I don't take your word. I thought that was clear. If you are not >> claiming >> that >> it is okay for an official to refuse to marry a mixed-race couple, what >> exactly >> do you think you are complaining about? The former judge has every right >> to not witness such marriages, but he cannot continue to be a judge. Is >> that too >> complex for you?
> Hey Thomas,
> I'm wondering, if you don't take his word, in your previous question, > what reason does he have that you will take his word for this next > question of yours?
What are you talking about? I really do not know.
> In other words, there's no need for you to ask so many questions, if > you're not even going to believe the answer.
> Indications show you are one terribly confused individual.
I may be incredibly naive in asking the following question, but I am going to try anyway. We disagree about a number of things. Why not discuss those things and drop the personal insults?
> Jimbo wrote: > > On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > > > > It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held > > > > > firmly to his convictions.
> > > > He refused to do his job. He lost it. > > > > That's it, Junkie Young.
> > > > PDW
> > > This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or > > > consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to > > > remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks > > > carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
> > Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as > > yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The child's > > welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
> I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here in > Canada. lol
Nothing in your link makes children the business of a JOP.
> On Nov 8, 1:54 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Moderator wrote: > > > Jimbo wrote: > > >> On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>> On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because > > >>>>> he held firmly to his convictions.
> > >>>> He refused to do his job. He lost it. > > >>>> That's it, Junkie Young.
> > >>>> PDW
> > >>> This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or > > >>> consideration for the JP's reason and the OP's post. I'll have to > > >>> remember that considering a child's welfare is racist and risks > > >>> carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
> > >> Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as > > >> yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The child's > > >> welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
> > > I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here in > > > Canada. lol
> > Are you claiming that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed-race > > couple because the official does not think there should be such marriages? > > I guess you are babbling. lol- Hide quoted text -
> I'm not claiming "that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed- > race" but more important, why would you take my word either way?- Hide quoted text -
Then what was your point, other than to prove your idiocy?
|
