Louisiana JP Refuses Interracial Marriage License

[Ivan Seeking]

HAMMOND, La. - A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.

...'I feel the children will later suffer'. Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said...

Apparently that would include the child of a mixed marriage who now resides in the White House.

 

[theCandyman]

Wow, what a dumb reason. I'm half Irish and half Filipino but I've never had any problem getting along with my friends with either background.

 

[Pinu7]

Direct citation appreciated.

 

[Astronuc]

Direct citation appreciated.

Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_on_re_us/us_interracial_rebuff

NEW ORLEANS – A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.
. . . .

 

[Mattara]

I don't get why people are upset about this; it is pretty much equivalent what is happening with refusing to marry gay people. They are just protecting the sanctity of marriage.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Those black people he speaks of are already mixed. I'm sure he is too.

 

[waht]

that's what happens when one group of people tells another group how to behave or else...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

All marriages are mixed.

 

[Topher925]

All marriages are mixed.

Does that make all divorces singular?

 

[mheslep]

Why is the government in the business of granting marriage licenses to begin with? Legally, partnering up or whatever the state calls it should be the same legal process as changing your name, and no more. Maybe the state has some interest in the case of disease or such, but even that's more of an individual issue than marital. The societal issues should be handled by other non-governmental institutions. That is, get your 'partner' license from the government and then get married in a church if you want, with the government having no say about the latter. That way the Justice O' t Peace in La could stick to traffic court.

 

[Astronuc]

Marriage is a civil contract with many legal ramifications. Property and estate rights are a big part of marriage.

 

[turbo]

There is no surprise from this quarter. Having worked in the deep south doing consulting work, I have had to deal with racial prejudice. When I hired on with GP, I was the industry specialist for pulp and paper, and my project manager (who took care of addressing our new division's needs with company resources, etc) was a very personable, talented black man who had formerly been an engineer in the Navy's nuclear sub program. We generally traveled as a team, and whenever we did projects in the south, the dynamic was interesting. Even in cities like Atlanta (that had black mayors during that period) we had to be careful to stay in "safe" places and eat in chain restaurants with decent policies (not Denny's for sure).

In mills in south Georgia and Alabama, I saw black people being denigrated and called names by white workers. In one particular mill in Alabama, I found a lot of potentially serious errors in the new process-control software for a power-boiler upgrade (serious, as in blowing up a high-pressure boiler and killing people). My on-site manager did a great job documenting my changes, revising the training manuals, and making sure that the materials were delivered on-time. The next year, the division manager got an ultimatum: Send me and ONLY me to troubleshoot and document the automation of the mill's second power boiler and we would get the project with no bidding. Otherwise, GP would have to bid against other companies to get the work. The lead engineer on the first project was pretty ticked about having a black guy working in his office for a whole month, and GP asked (required) me to take the project without my field manager in order to get the work, because the mill manager had given us a bunch of favorable recommendations with other mills.

 

[turbo]

Marriage is a civil contract with many legal ramifications. Property and estate rights are a big part of marriage.

Property and estate are pretty big ones, but perhaps the most heart-wrenching are personal. If a person falls ill, and their family doesn't like the fact that they are involved with a same-sex partner, they can (legally) deny the partner any say in treatment, ongoing care, etc. They can even deny the partner visitation rights in the hospital at a time when it is critical to both.

 

[Astronuc]

Property and estate are pretty big ones, but perhaps the most heart-wrenching are personal. If a person falls ill, and their family doesn't like the fact that they are involved with a same-sex partner, they can (legally) deny the partner any say in treatment, ongoing care, etc. They can even deny the partner visitation rights in the hospital at a time when it is critical to both.

True - it's the custodial rights which can be critical and heart-wrenching. Besides property and estate are liabilities/legal accountability.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not sure, but I think the old problem of kissin cousins may be part of the issue.

That is to say that it is illegal to marry your sister, first or second cousin, etc.

 

[jobyts]

I've seen lot of people supporting same sex marriage, but against polygamy. I do not understand the logic.

 

[Evo]

That is to say that it is illegal to marry your sister, first or second cousin, etc.

A lot of famous people have married their first cousins, Einstein, for one. His second wife Elsa, was his maternal 1st cousin and his paternal second cousin.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A lot of famous people have married their first cousins, Einstein, for one. His second wife Elsa, was his maternal 1st cousin and his paternal second cousin.

As far as I know: The reason that we have laws against that is to avoid producing children who have disorders related to inbreeding. The degree of separation required varies a bit according to the State.

 

[Evo]

As far as I know, the reason that we have laws against that is to avoid producing children who have disorders related to inbreeding.

Seems it's legal to marry your first cousin in quite a few states. Surprising.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is all going by memory from many years ago, but my impression has always been that the degree of separation has increased over just the last fifty years or so. Even when my dad was a kid living in South Dakota, it was common to marry a cousin. And it was tough not to because there were areas along the Black Hills where EVERYONE was a relative.

 

[Sorry!]

Wow this is disgusting. Not surprising though. My girlfriend is black... she's African from Ghana... I do admit that us walking down the street does bring in some odd looks... surprisingly I've noticed it's mostly from black females. But for a JUDGE to say these things... come on, really? That's totally ****ed up.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Seems it's legal to marry your first cousin in quite a few states.

Like the old joke: "Honey, if we get divorced, will we still be cousins?"

 

[lisab]

Wow this is disgusting. Not surprising though. My girlfriend is black... she's African from Ghana... I do admit that us walking down the street does bring in some odd looks... surprisingly I've noticed it's mostly from black females. But for a JUDGE to say these things... come on, really? That's totally ****ed up.

I agree...it's absurd to think a person in an office of power can still hold these views in 2009. And the judge's quote made my eyes roll:

I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way.

I think every time I hear "I'm not racist," it's followed by a racist statement.

 

[Evo]

Like the old joke: "Honey, if we get divorced, will we still be cousins?"

Vanadium, you always crack me up!

 

[Saladsamurai]

So what is going to happen here? I know no one can actually answer that. But, what does the law state? Can he actually keep the two from marrying for that reason?

Will the judge suffer an legal ramifications?

He should be hanged.

 

[jobyts]

As far as I know: The reason that we have laws against that is to avoid producing children who have disorders related to inbreeding. The degree of separation required varies a bit according to the State.

The law may have originated from some religious/cultural reasons. The genetic issue is a modern justification of the law.

 

[Sorry!]

I think every time I hear "I'm not racist," it's followed by a racist statement.

It's true... I mean like I don't really care if racist exist or racism is still around in society. I don't think that problem will be solved for MANY, MANY years... probably centuries of human development. The fact that this person has the position he holds and carries out the law based on the views HE holds... rediculous.

 

[ideasrule]

None of the posts in this thread talked about whether the judge's claims are factually inaccurate. (I know Ivan mentioned Obama, but he can hardly be representative.) Is it true that "most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society"? If it is, I don't see anything wrong with the judge's decision. Children are human beings; they deserve the best possible life and the highest possible chance of having a promising future. If a child of a mixed couple is going to be ostracized, he/she should be spared the suffering and not be born in the first place.

I know it's easier to sympathize with a mixed couple who have names, lives, and feelings than with children yet to be born, but it's not as if those children won't one day have names, lives, and feelings and be capable of suffering.

 

[mgb_phys]

As far as I know: The reason that we have laws against that is to avoid producing children who have disorders related to inbreeding. The degree of separation required varies a bit according to the State.

On that basis shouldn't mixed marriages be compulsory?
The best way to reduce genetic disorders would be for people to marry as far from their own racial group as possible.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The law may have originated from some religious/cultural reasons. The genetic issue is a modern justification of the law.

If true, genetic disorders could ultimately be the original motivation for any religious laws.

Funny, I don't remember any specific statements in this regard from my own religious upbringing. Surely this is specified somewhere in the Old Testament, but then I often got lost in all of the begats.

Edit: Oh yes, there is a section that says who cannot have sex with whom, or what. I believe that is where homsexuality is specifically forbidden as well.

 

[Evo]

None of the posts in this thread talked about whether the judge's claims are factually inaccurate. (I know Ivan mentioned Obama, but he can hardly be representative.) Is it true that "most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society"? If it is, I don't see anything wrong with the judge's decision. Children are human beings; they deserve the best possible life and the highest possible chance of having a promising future. If a child of a mixed couple is going to be ostracized, he/she should be spared the suffering and not be born in the first place.

So people that are ugly or poor should not have children?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So what is going to happen here? I know no one can actually answer that. But, what does the law state? Can he actually keep the two from marrying for that reason?

Will the judge suffer an legal ramifications?

A L.A Senator has already called for him to be fired, or something along those lines. It would seem that he is in direct violation of a Supreme Court decision. Since he took an oath to preserve the Constitution and enforce the law, he is in violation of that oath.

See the appropriately named "Loving vs Viginia" decision

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

 

[ideasrule]

The law may have originated from some religious/cultural reasons. The genetic issue is a modern justification of the law.

Contrary to what religious people may say, religious/cultural values often arise from practical considerations, not the other way round. Murder is condemned by the ten commandments not because God condemned it, but because society tended to function less effectively when violent than when peaceful. With incest, ancient people might have noticed that inbreeding led to genetic problems and considered these problems a warning from God to not mate with their relatives. So the question is: did the ancients know about inbreeding problems?

 

[Sorry!]

None of the posts in this thread talked about whether the judge's claims are factually inaccurate. (I know Ivan mentioned Obama, but he can hardly be representative.) Is it true that "most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society"? If it is, I don't see anything wrong with the judge's decision. Children are human beings; they deserve the best possible life and the highest possible chance of having a promising future. If a child of a mixed couple is going to be ostracized, he/she should be spared the suffering and not be born in the first place.

I know it's easier to sympathize with a mixed couple who have names, lives, and feelings than with children yet to be born, but it's not as if those children won't one day have names, lives, and feelings and be capable of suffering.

I think that mixed people in our society have no problems being accepted. In fact they get MORE acceptance than non-mixed people. I remember in high school there would be groups of blacks and groups of whites there were also brown people and asian people... Of course they would talk and possibly hang out once in a while but the 'tight' groups of friends were mostly based on race. The mixed people could freely go between the groups and be accepted. If I (a white person) was to go and chill with a huge group of black friends I would most likely not be accepted...

Secondly I remember a teacher of mine explaining why people in the world think Canadian women rank among the sexiest women in the world. It had to do with a mixture of races... a particular person from a particular race will look for particular qualities in another person that they find attractive in order to pick out potential mates. These qualities would be mostly found in the persons own race. So when there are mixed babies they share qualities from both races and now have a larger variety of people who are attracted to them. Try and find mixed people who aren't great looking lol.

 

[ideasrule]

So people that are ugly or poor should not have children?

Kids of ugly parents are not necessarily ugly. As for poor parents, if they can't properly provide for their children's needs, they certainly shouldn't have children.

 

[Chi Meson]

Justice of the peace? Who the black cares? That's nothing more than a Notary Public. Take a fee, emboss a piece of paper. What a waste of air.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Justice of the peace? Who the black cares? That's nothing more than a Notary Public. Take a fee, emboss a piece of paper. What a waste of air.

Yes, who cares about open discrimination by public officials. Why waste the power of the media and use it to right a wrong?

Isn't there a football game or something more important to cover?

 

[Sorry!]

Justice of the peace? Who the black cares? That's nothing more than a Notary Public. Take a fee, emboss a piece of paper. What a waste of air.

Well I certainly feel I care about what these nothing more than Notary Public people think. Are we instead supposed to sit back and allow open discrimination by public officials? I don't understand.

 

[ideasrule]

I see knee-jerk accusations against the judge and nothing else. Is he a known racist? Are the concerns he cited valid? Did he do anything that suggests racism besides refusing to marry interracial couples? (To Sorry!: what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Can anyone support/refute?)

 

[jobyts]

If true, genetic disorders could ultimately be the original motivation for any religious laws.

Googling pointed me to something called Westermarck effect.

I did not think it was genetic reasons for the root cause of the religious taboo of the incest relationships. If it was for the medical reason, the ancients would have first tabooed child marriage.

 

[lisab]

I don't know why so many posts seem to be seeking justification for this Justice of the Peace's actions.

Marriage between cousins, viability and/or quality of life of children born from a union of two people...all completely irrelevant. His job requires him to uphold the law, no? Is this marriage illegal? No, it isn't! Race is not considered in granting marriage licenses, yet that was his reason for refusing to carry out his duty.

He didn't do his job. It's very clear cut...it's not up to him to make what he thinks is a "moral" decision. His job is to marry people who 1) want to marry, and 2) can legally marry.

He has shown a serious lack of judgement and also a serious lack of understanding of the requirements of his job, and he should be removed from that position.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As far as I know: The reason that we have laws against that is to avoid producing children who have disorders related to inbreeding. The degree of separation required varies a bit according to the State.

The rationale is incorrect. Inbreeding requires several generations to create genetic anomalies and the most common are higher infant mortality rates and lower fertility so it sort of corrects for itself.

If you look up the wiki on incest/inbreeding there it discusses the interesting theory that it is based on families negotiating bonds with other families through arranged marriage. If a child takes a mate in its own family it prevents the family from using the child for beneficial arrangements with other families.

I see knee-jerk accusations against the judge and nothing else. Is he a known racist? Are the concerns he cited valid? Did he do anything that suggests racism besides refusing to marry interracial couples? (To Sorry!: what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Can anyone support/refute?)

People don't need to be married to have children. The judge can not prevent anyone from having children. All he would be doing is making their children both mixed and bastards.

 

[Andre]

He didn't do his job. It's very clear cut...it's not up to him to make what he thinks is a "moral" decision. His job is to marry people who 1) want to marry, and 2) can legally marry.

He has shown a serious lack of judgement and also a serious lack of understanding of the requirements of his job, and he should be removed from that position.

Absolutely, isn't there higher level fundamental legislation that forbids selective application of rules based on race, religion, etnicity, etc?

 

[Monique]

Seems it's legal to marry your first cousin in quite a few states. Surprising.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm

Actually the genetic risk for offspring of cousins is much smaller than generally perceived.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/uxwm5qr18j5lgrdt/?p=afb2f4aef3fb4fd4a7a7907f1204d36a&pi=1

Thirty states in the United States have laws against cousin marriages. The pro-
hibitions against cousin marriages are not based on empirical biological research
or genetic theory (Ottenheimer, 1996).

[..]

Romantic relationships between cousins are not infrequent in the United
States and Canada, and these unions are preferred marriages in many parts of the
world. The offspring of first cousin unions are estimated to have about a 1.7–
2.8% increased risk for congenital defects above the population background risk
(Table III). There is an approximately 4.4% increased risk for prereproductive
mortality above the population background risk, some of which include major
congenital defects. The risk for an adverse health outcome is greatest in the 1st year
of life. The risk of an adverse health outcome in the pregnancy from an incestuous
union is difficult to quantify because of ascertainment bias in all published studies.
The risk for adverse medical outcome in the offspring of incestuous unions is
probably in the range of 7–31% above population background, the risk being
greatest in the 1st year of life (Table IV).

There is a great deal of stigma associated with cousin unions in the United
States and Canada that has little biological basis.

 

[Chi Meson]

Well I certainly feel I care about what these nothing more than Notary Public people think. Are we instead supposed to sit back and allow open discrimination by public officials? I don't understand.

By the way, I was referring to the "Justice" as a "waste of air." JoP's are NOT judges, they are private citizens with a plaque.

But are they really "Public Officials"? Is this guy appointed? Elected? It might be different there, I suppose, but around here ANYone can be a "justice of the peace." Take a quick test, get a certificate, sign a pledge and now you can marry people. You can find a JoP and NP at any bank or legal institution, since secretaries often get this certificate to cut through minor legal business quickly. When I see people who have this title as their job, it brings up this irrational fury.

The concept of this position is absurd and that's the source of my irritation: How can this legal "position" that requires the least amount of preparation and education get the same title as being on the highest court in the land? An entry-level secretary at a semi-reputable law firm must need greater knowledge of law than is necessary to be a JoP. Why do societies still feel that a JoP is needed for marriage? Just go to city hall if you don't want to do the church thing.

The hooplah over this idiot with an embosser only lends credibility to his "position" which makes some people feel much more important than they actually are.

Again, if it is different there, and the people can't go next door to the next guy with a stamp, then there is a problem that needs to be corrected. Otherwise, he should wallow.[/rant]

Edit:
I suppose if this "hooplah" moves society toward ending this absurdity as a whole, then it's for the better. Silver lining, folks, silver lining.

 

[Astronuc]

Man's halt of interracial marriage sparks outrage
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091017/ap_on_re_us/us_interracial_rebuff

NEW ORLEANS – Louisiana's governor and a U.S. senator joined Friday in calling for the ouster of a local official who refused to marry an interracial couple, saying his actions clearly broke the law.

Keith Bardwell, a white justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish in the southeastern part of the state, refused to issue a marriage license earlier this month to Beth Humphrey, who is white, and Terence McKay, who is black. His refusal has prompted calls for an investigation or resignation from civil and constitutional rights groups and the state's Legislative Black Caucus.

Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal said in a statement a nine-member commission that reviews lawyers and judges in the state should investigate.

"Disciplinary action should be taken immediately — including the revoking of his license," Jindal said.

. . . .

I believe the state reserves the right to regulate contracts like marriage within their borders. The Federal government ensures, in theory, that the state, or county/town/city governments therein, do not discriminate against individuals.

Certainly there is a religious component to marriage, which is based on the individuals involved.

It's interesting to see the debate about State's rights/jurisdiction vs Federal jurisdiction in light of the context of a local JoP who willfully discriminates based on peoples' race. Of course, biracial couples can choose an alternative.

 

[WhoWee]

Justice of the peace? Who the black cares? That's nothing more than a Notary Public. Take a fee, emboss a piece of paper. What a waste of air.

My thoughts exactly. The guy has a podium and was speaking from his (local) limited experience. I'm sure we can find MANY other examples of "preaching" from the bench if we (wanted to) waste time/effort trying.

 

[Pinu7]

I see knee-jerk accusations against the judge and nothing else. Is he a known racist? Are the concerns he cited valid? Did he do anything that suggests racism besides refusing to marry interracial couples? (To Sorry!: what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Can anyone support/refute?)

Whether or not the judge was "factually right", it was still beyond his authority to use this reason(constitution anybody?). To NOT believe that the motive is racist is ridiculous.

 

[ideasrule]

If JP's are supposed to be mindless clerks obliged to marry everybody that requests it, then yes, this mindless clerk happened to overstep his authority. If JP's are allowed to use their judgement and deny to marry unsuitable couples, I don't see anything wrong with this person's actions. In either case, the only valid accusation against him is that he overstepped his authority, not that he was racist (which there is no evidence of).

 

[Sorry!]

If JP's are supposed to be mindless clerks obliged to marry everybody that requests it, then yes, this mindless clerk happened to overstep his authority. If JP's are allowed to use their judgement and deny to marry unsuitable couples, I don't see anything wrong with this person's actions. In either case, the only valid accusation against him is that he overstepped his authority, not that he was racist (which there is no evidence of).

I hope your just attempting to play devils advocate here and you don't ACTUALLY believe this non-sense your throwing around.