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.