This story is appalling! The year is not 1960 but 2009, and yet this couple has to search for another Justice of the Peace to marry them because they were denied their right to marry based soley on the color of their skin? I believe the state of Virginia, in Loving V. Virginia, resolved this many years ago, who would, or could, imagine such blantent racism still existed today.
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) — A justice of the peace in Louisiana who has drawn widespread criticism for refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple says he has no regrets about his decision.
“It’s kind of hard to apologize for something that you really and truly feel down in your heart you haven’t done wrong,” Keith Bardwell told CNN affiliate WAFB on Saturday.
Bardwell, a justice of the peace for Tangipahoa Parish’s 8th Ward, refused to issue a marriage license to Beth Humphrey, 30, and her boyfriend, Terence McKay, 32, both of Hammond.
“I’m not a racist,” Bardwell told the newspaper. “I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house. My main concern is for the children.” Bardwell, stressing that he couldn’t personally endorse the marriage, said his wife referred the couple to another justice of the peace.
If it’s against a persons conscience there is nothing that can/should be done.
I’m going to have to disagree PWC. As is spelled out ably by a Louisiana attorney in this article:
http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=11329561
the judge took an oath to uphold the state’s constitution and laws. The marriage he was asked to perform was wholly legal. If his conscience bothers him in regard to interracial marriage he should not be a judge, since La. law requires he carry out those duties without bias.
Imagine, PWC, if you went to register to vote and a registrar whose politics were the opposite of yours in Va. said it was a matter of conscience not to register you. She knew, after all, that you would be voting for all kinds of things she was appalled by. So even though you were a resident citizen, were not a felon or anything else that excluded you, etc. etc., her conscience said that because you were a dyed in the wool conservative and would damage society by your voting, she would not register you. That of course would be highly unethical since her fiduciary duty was to register you, if you qualified, or to resign.
It isn’t the realm of medicine, where conscience clauses actually exist in law.
I’m curious, do you think, for example, that a hotelier in Louisiana would also have the right to deny the couple a room for the night on the basis that his conscience objected to interracial marriage? I could certainly see that excuse being given. However any hotelier who refused on those terms would breaking the law.
It would have been at least honest of this JOP to admit he’s a racist rather than making easily refutable arguments about interracial couples and mixed race children. I am curious if he applies his rational to all mixtures of races, or just to black and white.
Eek. I meant rationalE.
The judge is against interracial marriage, not against any individual race, so he isn’t a racist in the ‘pure’ sense. Granted he is required to perform the marriage, but I think some other term needs to be applied in this case. In the end it would be interesting to see if the marriage lasts more than a year. If not, then perhaps he had a valid point after all.
I’ve spent my share of time in Louisiana. That place is different. People talk about the “deep south”….well folks, Louisiana is the “deep south”. I’m not defending anything here, but they do things different in that state.
SA, I was basing my sense of his racism on more than his position on marrying interracial couples. I could be wrong, but his defensive statements about how he allows black people to use his bathroom hint at a certain attitude that I find all too historically familiar. In any case, as you point out, he is required to perform the marriage.
I also disagree with you regarding whether or not he will have a valid point if the marriage fails. First, his whole emphasis was on the children. Second, lots of marriages fail. Isn’t the statistic 50% or more in the United States. How exactly would the interracial nature of this one be isolated as the variable? I guess you would also have to answer why race is valid to single out when other factors are causing a breakup of half or more of marriages in general. This couple has the right to succeed or fail like anyone else.
SR, If you read news coverage of this from LA and read the comments, you will find lots of native Louisianans as appalled at Bardwell as outsiders are. Plus this couple are both from Hammond, La. (population close to 18,000). Finally, Louisiana has a non-white Republican governor.
None of this should matter though. The only thing that matters is that he has no business doing his job if he won’t do his job.
Wow …
Well to keep it in perspective, it’s an anomoly.
I agree with you 100%, Rick. Another anomaly!
There was a judge pleasing himself with a penis pump during arguements in murder cases a few years ago. Doesn’t mean we have a penis pump epidemic either.
Hum. You are going to have to point out to me where anyone here has suggested an epidemic. Oh, and thank you of reminding me of that incredibly disgusting case. Sigh.
Btw, that judge did 20 months on a 4 year jail sentence! He also soon racked up a drunk driving charge after release.
seems to me like it is very similar to a Pharmacist denying to fill a valid medication for a person – like birth control pills.
Leila, it doesn’t make you laugh a little bit to imagine a murder trial going on and the soft sound of a penis pump being audibly heard, and ignored by all onlookers, while the judge is looking ahead and manipulating himself? As someone who has issues with authority figures, I do find the story amusing.
Kudos so Gov. Jindal for calling for this man to be dismissed immediately.
I am stunned that the first comment, or any comment on this thread would be defending justice of the peace who is clearly a bigot. There is no longer any political advantage to bigotry in government, thus, I suggest that people who call themselves “conservative” hold their tongue when issues like this arise. You do more damage to the party than you know.
That would be kudos TO Gov. Jindal of course.
Opposition to interracial marriage is founded in supposition of racial superiority. This is yesterday’s voodoo.
@Second-Alamo
I have to say, Mr. Alamo, this was a disgraceful comment. I wish you would post such sentiments elsewhere. That last sentence is probably one of the more offense ones I have read on this blog OR the other one.
offensive, that is.
I agree completely LBH. I thought you were better than that Second Alamo, I really did.
Leila,
Your posts have been excellent, thank you!
Rick.
Not sure why you posted that story here, it isn’t a joke that a couple went to get married and were denied their rights based on race.
Anonymous took the words right out of my mouth. It does remind me of not filling an rx for birth control pills. Then don’t take a job as a pharmacist!
It doesn’t matter what the JP approves of or doesn’t approve of. Obey the law. Loving vs Virginia settled who can marry. It doesnt matter if the guy is a racist or not. Again, obey the law. Wouldn’t this be the very person who would stridently be shrieking, RULE OF LAW!
Funny how many people mean that expression for everyone but themselves.
On the face it seems similar to the pharmacist types. But it isn’t really because conscience clauses have been introduced into medicine because of the abortion issue. The question just becomes if they can be extended to pharmacists in these cases (a matter of a lot of debate) and in some states, they have been!, *by law,* specifically for pharmacists. I don’t like it, but I do see it in legal terms as a different matter.
It is also a different matter if, for example, a Jewish and Catholic couple are refused marriage by a rabbi and priest. But Bardwell cannot call on any of the mitigating circumstances of the above examples. He is someone who has *civil* power and swore an oath. End of story.
Rick, there is a world of judicial misconduct out there. I just have to marvel that that is the one story you thought of! I don’t say it isn’t amusing in some way, but my disgust just overwhelms any amusement. Plus I agree with Elena it is out of context here.
It’s hard to pick and choose which laws judges, healthcare professionals, law-enforcement officers and the like should follow blindly, and which ones, out of whatever motivation (conscience, moral objection, personal aesthetics, whatever) they should rebel against. And which reasons are most legitimate? Certainly, all of the above professions have been called to action in acts of violence, including evil medical experimentation, unjust beatings, and even genocide, because in many cases the law told them to do so.
Where do you draw the line on individual conscience and choice in any profession? I think it’s a very difficult and slippery-slope kind of question.
Giving someone birth control pills isn’t the same as abortion unless of course you are Bob Marshall. There should be no conscience clause. If you cannot fill a prescription prescribed legally by a doctor, don’t be a pharmacist.
If you can’t marry people who are legal to marry, don’t be a JP.
Speaking of that subject, right now, gays cannot marry in most states. I expect within 5 years that restriction will be lifted similar to Loving vs Virginia, as a civil rights issue. Any predictions here?
“Not sure why you posted that story here,”
Judicial misconduct and behavior out of the mainstream.
“it isn’t a joke that a couple went to get married and were denied their rights based on race.”
My wife and I are a mixed couple. Let’s not pretend though that this example of one idiotic bigot is a major injustice, I’m sure they can get married a few miles down the road. It’s an example of one judge being way out of touch and holding values that are extreme, and if this is the worst thing that he ever accomplished then we’re all lucky.
Interesting comparison M-H.
In principle, I believe that government should not be in the business of telling people who they can love, who they can marry, or whether they ought to have families.
But we are a democracy, and our laws can and probably should be a reflection of our sentiments as a people, including some of our prejudices. Bans on interracial marriage were struck down by the courts before the majority of Americans were ready to accept as much (and some are obviously still catching up to the rule of law).
It is hard to see bans on gay marriage in the same light, but I am beginning to see that gay marriage is an inevitability given the constraints our Constitution applies when it comes to majorities deciding to deny equal protection under the law to minorities.
In the past I have taken a lot of heat for saying “I hope it happens after I die.” I never meant that in a mean-spirited way, only that gay marriage is going to be a big change in the world I thought I understood. I know it will happen, but I don’t exactly look forward to it. That’s all I was saying.
But I have come around to changing my mind about that too. One reason is that I now think it will be soon, and I’m in no hurry to die.
LBH, how does it hurt you one way or the other?
While I might not like who gets to marry as part of my own value system, it sure doesn’t hurt me one way or the other.
I just don’t think it is up to the government to decide who can enter a civil union and who can’t. We assume marriage is for love. It doesn’t have to be. Marriage is what we make it. Actually, it is simply a contract.
“I am beginning to see that gay marriage is an inevitability given the constraints our Constitution applies …”
I don’t agree. I think it’s inevitable because the opposition to it is stupid.
As far as activist courts enacting gay marriage, it’s obvious to me that the Constitution is not involved whatsoever with marriage. This is a function of the states. Barring a constitutional convention, the Federal Government should not be able to tell any state that they have to allow gay marriage, nor that they must bar it (“Defense of Marriage” act).
So yes it has started happening and in all likelihood it’s not going to stop. Fine with me.
But it won’t happen for a while in this state, 60% or so of us apparently voted against it a few years ago. Which I do find amazing. Oh well it took a few thousand years, given the proclivity of humans to invest themselves in leaders and religions, to figure out that the earth orbits the sun rather than the sun being carried around on ropes by angels as the Church taught at one point.
I think it will be a Supreme Court decision. It is a civil rights issue. And I think it is going to be decided within 5 years.
Just my prediction.
We can’t have a patchwork of laws. That’s my word of the week. We are a nation, not a collection of states, each doing their own thing.
We don’t limit our courts to interpreting the Constitution? You want justices to invent stuff (to an even greater degree than they already do?).
That type of judicial activism does happen. I think that use of our government to tyrranize the citizenry is a bad idea though. We ahve laws; let’s stick to them.
My guess is that within 5 years more States have legalized marriage, but not all. Increasingly, more and more gay people are married.
I understand the Civil Rights analogy/issue. I accept the similarity. However, marriage is not mantioned within the Constitution. Let’s leave it to states.
Will this possibly create confusion, and debate over the meaning of marriage? Maybe, but it’ll resolve itself. Don’t use the courts to cram this down everyone’s throats when so many are opposed to it, and enable political backlash. It is already the cxase that the 2004 election probably swung on this issue. If 60% of the idiots we live with oppose it, and the Constitution says nothing about it, let it be for now.
I’m pretty sure those 60% are being stupid, but not comfortable with my government playing God and deciding “right” from “wrong” ad hoc.
We voted on it a few years ago, I voted “yes” to gay marriage in Virginia, I’m content to keep voting on it every so often.
Ask that great Republican Abraham Lincoln about states rights. They barely exist after the civil war.
Rick said:
Minorities also must be protected from the will of the majority. Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass if gays marry or don’t. I do see it as a strong civil rights issue. One group of people (heterosexual couples) are given a right that others (homosexual couples) are denied.
The constitution doesn’t say jack about marriage. In fact, it doesn’t say jack about school desegregation. All Supreme Court rulings are judicial activism, otherwise, the cases wouuldn’t be heard before the court. ‘Jusicial activism’ is just a right wing buzz word for a decision the right doesn’t like.
Rick, it shouldn’t be up to you or to me if gays can marry. What possible stake do either of us have? Should we be allowed to say if schools should be desegregated? How about lunch counters? Can we decide who can sit at them? Are these issues that should go to referendum?
AMEN!
You get towards something that I think is worthy of discussion.
On the whole, looking back four decades later, was school disegregation done well, or badly?
Would race relations be better or worse if the courts hadn’t rather brutally enacted forced busing?
Back on gay marriage, I guess it’s just a question of whether one feels “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” encompasses marriage. I’m comfortable saying it encompasses equal access to public schools, but not a marriage liscence. Although I strongly feel that it’s an inequity, and a prejudice, not to let gay people marry in a given state, that it’s a small enough one that we can wait for society to catch up and meanwhile for gay people to cross state borders to marry at will.
Alternately, the government forces this even when most people are against it. This will foment anti-gay prejudice that doesn’t need to be fomented and make this another issue for the two parties to play tetherball with for decades, like abortion and like illegal immigration is becoming. better to work within a constitutional framework and let common sense take its course, I think. Homophobia runs deep but it is not localized the way racism was in the South. It is being overcome and obsolesced as we speak.
I’m optimistic enough to think that gay people don’t need Big Brother holding a whip to the populace’s throats to be accepted eventually and for the phobia about them marrying disappearing.
From this Pollyanna-ish perspective I wonder too if forced school busing actually accomplished anything, or if we might be as far along today without it.
So many topics, so little time….I was always opposed to forced school busing. It is an issue unto itself. Can we shelve it to another time and just stick to school desegregation? That is enough on one’s plate.
I think it was clumbsy and awkward and probably done the only way possible. The hurry up and wait was not an approah that would have ever affected any change. I can say honestly that I bet any amount of money someone wants to put on the table that it would not have happened without the Supreme Court ruling. Ever known an old segregationist? I don’t mean the bubbas that took blacks out and lynched them. I mean the nice college educated kind?
As for gay prejudice–There is plenty of that out there and it will not change either. Here’s the problem with the state’s rights marriage. You get married in Mass. and move to VA. You aren’t married and have not one legal right afforded a married couple. Back to square one seems to be ringing in my ears.
I only know a few ramifications of not being a married couple…like being able to make medical decisions, having a family trump the domestic partner’s wishes…I am sure our contributors know a lot more than I do.
People ought to be able to marry who they want to marry.
Rick, your big brother holding the whip analogy falls short because we are assuming the general population has to accept something. I am trying to figure out what they have to accept. There are gay couples. That is not going to change. The only impact on anyone is the gay couples. I cannot see, for the life of me, how it has any impact on me.
Now I am sure there will be gay haters running over here for the duration of this thread harping on the evils of being gay. Some moron from somewhere talked about the diseases gays have. Well, now lets see, how is marriage going to spread disease? The last I heard, monogamous relationships cut down on the spread of stds.
It is disappointing that Bardwell isn’tr challenged on his idea that he’s not a racist. He says he doesn’t treat black people differently, but if this potential groom wasn’t black, Bardwell would have happily married him to the potential bride. That’s racist.
Moreover, I encourage news media outlets to discuss this further by featuring healthy, hapy multi-ethnic people who value their mixed heritage. Bardwell is essentially dismissing this group of multi-racial people as an abomination–a group who can’t possibly be proud and happy about their mixed ethnicities. Let’s challenge that assumption to deconstruct his racial stereotyping and essentialist approach to viewing people of different ethnicities!
“You get married in Mass. and move to VA. You aren’t married and have not one legal right afforded a married couple. ”
Not true. A marriage in one state is accepted in another. I was married in a state we’ve never lived in (Maryland).
My understanding is that a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts will get you the “benefits” associated with marriage, everywhere. Hence the hubub about a “Defense of Marriage” act in Congress.
“The only impact on anyone is the gay couples. ”
And homophobes. Of which there are many. I repeat, this was the issue that was considered to have swung Ohio to Bush in 2004.
Leila
If the Registrar referred me to someone else who could register me to vote than I would be fine with that.
PW Conservative,
Clearly, you must be missing the point.
Rick, I don’t think that is true with gay couples. It should be, but it isn’t.
After doing some research, I think you’re right Moon-howler. Sorry for spreading misinformation.
Even so, given that most Americans are opposed – http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/samesex.marriage.poll/index.html – I don’t believe it would be good for anyone, save our exploitative political ruling class, if activist courts forced the issue. I’d rather see it fought out on the legislative front.
I used to think judicial activism could be a good thing. The way the illegal immigration issue has played out has changed my mind. I’m not at all comfortable with the idea of a handful of ivory-tower elitists who are accountable to no one steering the nation’s direction.
Normally I’d comment; however, LBH and M-H already expressed my sentiments (plus a couple I wish I had thought of).
LBH, I assume you’ve read the book with the same name and your handle is an endorsement? I’m a big fan of Scarborough as he best captures most of my political philosophy. If, not… never mind. Still a great handle.
Oh, – get over yourselves! Last time I checked, it was still the United States of America – with free speech attached. I thought all you two wanted to do was get married and be together – well, you have that what you wanted. No go have your life and leave this judge to do his. By the way, I WAS in an interracial marriage, and all that held us together was the awesome sex. Once that was “old”, he “went through changes.” So, there you go, first hand experience.
I do suppport repeal of the “Defense of Marriage” act that prohibits any Federal benefits (Social Security for example) going between gay partners. That’s just bigotry. Bigotry that passed Congress, and was signed by President Clinton. And that Congress has no stomach to attack now. Yes these ivory-tower elitists who claim they can deal with illegal immigration (via Amnesty) and health care (via some huge overhaul agreed to by lobbyists concerns) can’t even grow the sack to stand up against this idiotic law.
I could imagine DOMA being found unconstitional. It’s only as far as the idea of the courts forcing individual states to perform gay marriages that I object to.