Louisiana JP Refuses Interracial Marriage License

[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.

 

[Mattara]

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

Stunning. Religious laws have historically been to preserve the population and ban the "dilution of pure blood", which would generally increase the frequency of genetic disorders.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

I once found myself in a rather suprising argument with a very liberal friend of mine who was against interracial/cultural marriage. She was not at all racist. She was actually very fond of other cultures and concerned about the dilution and subversion of other people's cultures through homogeneity.

To believe that this man could not in fact have some sort of altruistic if misguided motivation because he's a white man in the south is rather bigoted in and of itself.

 

[Evo]

The guy was quoted as saying "I let black people use my bathroom". Definitely considers blacks as being equal to whites.

 

[Monique]

I once found myself in a rather suprising argument with a very liberal friend of mine who was against interracial/cultural marriage. She was not at all racist. She was actually very fond of other cultures and concerned about the dilution and subversion of other people's cultures through homogeneity.

To believe that this man could not in fact have some sort of altruistic if misguided motivation because he's a white man in the south is rather bigoted in and of itself.

He's breaking the law, if he doesn't want to marry 'interracial couples' he should not be a JP. It is a nice philosophical argument that you want to maintain racial heterogeneity, but that does not work in this modern world. By condemning 'interracial marriage' he is contributing to the stigma, if he would really want to help these people he should encourage them to marry. I'd also like to know what it means to be 'interracial', does it depend on how strong the difference is between the color of the skin? Clearly the case is ridiculous.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The guy was quoted as saying "I let black people use my bathroom". Definitely considers blacks as being equal to whites.

I am sure that there was plenty of context for that quote as well. Reporters are well known for being thorough and honest when quoting people who are the subject of sensational news stories.

While I can agree that this certainly smacks of racism and that the likelihood that he is racist may be fairly high I find the assumption that to think otherwise is ridiculous to be as inappropriate as this mans assumption that people should not have interracial children.

He's breaking the law, if he doesn't want to marry 'interracial couples' he should not be a JP. It is a nice philosophical argument that you want to maintain racial heterogeneity, but that does not work in this modern world. By condemning 'interracial marriage' he is contributing to the stigma, if he would really want to help these people he should encourage them to marry. I'd also like to know what it means to be 'interracial', does it depend on how strong the difference is between the color of the skin? Clearly the case is ridiculous.

Conclusions must love to be jumped at. If you had read my previous post you would see that I agree that this man has no right to prevent these people from marrying. My issue is with people assuming that he is obviously a racist. Maybe he is and it obviously looks bad but we know him even less than he knows the poor couple he refused to issue a marriage license. If people want to decry bigotry they ought to leave their own preconceived notions at the door. I'm really truly disgusted by bigotry no matter what form it comes in. I'm only consoled by the fact that most people seem to be merely misguided or generally thoughtful people who are the victims of social programming which prompts them to certain impetuous conclusions rather than actual hateful scumbags.

 

[Mattara]

He's breaking the law, if he doesn't want to marry 'interracial couples' he should not be a JP. It is a nice philosophical argument that you want to maintain racial heterogeneity, but that does not work in this modern world. By condemning 'interracial marriage' he is contributing to the stigma, if he would really want to help these people he should encourage them to marry. I'd also like to know what it means to be 'interracial', does it depend on how strong the difference is between the color of the skin? Clearly the case is ridiculous.

To be fair, it isn't really a tenable philosophical argument either.

 

[Evo]

I'm only consoled by the fact that most people seem to be merely misguided or generally thoughtful people who are the victims of social programming which prompts them to certain impetuous conclusions rather than actual hateful scumbags.

It is obvious that this man's personal opinions, beliefs, misconceptions, etc... are preventing him from carrying out his job. He needs to be removed.

 

[Monique]

I wonder, does he also refuse to marry people with red hair or freckles?

Kids with red hair or freckles tend to be teased in school so he should at all cost prevent them from being born

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is obvious that this man's personal opinions, beliefs, misconceptions, etc... are preventing him from carrying out his job. He needs to be removed.

I agree. Marriage licenses are outmoded to begin with. A contract between two persons should not require a judge or justice of the peace to sanctify it. In this capacity he is more or less acting as a notary public and as a public servant should have no authority to interfere in the process.

 

[ideasrule]

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

Sorry, but I believe it 100%. Nobody has yet given any evidence that this JP is racist, so I'll continue to assume that he denied to marry the couple because of the reasons he stated.

 

[lisab]

I wonder, does he also refuse to marry people with red hair or freckles?

Kids with red hair or freckles tend to be teased in school so he should at all cost prevent them from being born

Ah but, as I'm sure your'e aware, it's a recessive trait...redheads can "pop up" unexpectedly in families that haven't seen a redhead in many generations! Banning redheads from marrying wouldn't prevent them from being born. Well not for a while, at least .

But seriously, as far as I know, a JP must carry out their duty without judgement. This guy clearly won't do that, so he has to go.

 

[Evo]

Sorry, but I believe it 100%. Nobody has yet given any evidence that this JP is racist, so I'll continue to assume that he denied to marry the couple because of the reasons he stated.

Doesn't matter what his reasons are, his job is to marry the people that request it. His job does not allow for personal opinion, he's a public servant. He has refused to do his job.

 

[lisab]

Sorry, but I believe it 100%. Nobody has yet given any evidence that this JP is racist, so I'll continue to assume that he denied to marry the couple because of the reasons he stated.

OK, for the sake of argument, let's assume he's not racist.

But people who want to marry, and who can be legally married to each other...those people have a right to be married - period. If the JP's excuse for not marrying this couple was "The moon is in the wrong phase," he would still be guilty of not carrying out his duties. When it comes to marrying people, a JP is a rubber-stamp bureaucrat, not a sentinel posted at the gates of matrimony.

Edit: Evo said basically the same thing, but she said it more succinctly, faster, more compactly, and with fewer words

 

[Jasongreat]

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

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.

How can the states have a right to regulate if the regulation is conditional on the central governments ok? It seems to me that they only have an imaginary right to regulate, since it ultimately depends on the central governments concurrence to have any affect. One thing I am having trouble answering is, since it was the states that gave birth to the central government how can the central government now have total control of what happens in the states? It seems to me it is kind of like an employer hiring an employee and then allowing the employee to tell the employer how to run things.

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.[/

QUOTE]

The JoP in the article has been voted in by the community he is serving for the last 34 years, and in that time no one has even thought bad enough of what he is doing to run against him nor has anyone in the community tried to have him removed. In the article it states that since he was voted in it is his duty to represent every one in his area, I would argue that it is his duty to represent those that voted him in and it seems they have been content with what he was doing or he wouldn't have served for 34 years. By using the authors line of reasoning I guess we will be seeing tax breaks coming from democrats and gay rights legislation coming from republicans, although I won't hold my breath till that happens since I understand that people that are voted for are serving the voters that voted for them and not the ones that didnt.
This kind of situation is the whole point of the states right argument, a locality can vote to run the locality any way it seems fit but it will be contained to that locality allowing people to leave and find another locality that believes similarily as they do. When the discrimination comes from the central government, where are they going to go? Affirmative action is a racist law(promotes one race over another based on nothing but race) and it is a product of the central government so it affects everyone in the US, yet this judges actions only affects a very small segment of one state, leaving the majority of the state un touched as well as the other 49 states. So which is the better option, neither will completely eliminate discrimination, locallized discrimination or nationalized?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ah but, as I'm sure your'e aware, it's a recessive trait...redheads can "pop up" unexpectedly in families that haven't seen a redhead in many generations! Banning redheads from marrying wouldn't prevent them from being born. Well not for a while, at least .

I would certainly rue the day that redheads and freckles were made illegal. They're so damn sexy.

But seriously, as far as I know, a JP must carry out their duty without judgement. This guy clearly won't do that, so he has to go.

A justice of the peace is a sort of judge and so he has authority to pass judgment. Its the peculiarity of laws which require marriage licenses which land couples who wish to get married before JoPs. In this particular capacity he should have no authority to deny a license unless some law or other is being broken in which case he is free to 'judge' this application invalid, the same as any notary public its more of a responsibility than an authority. He is obviously not basing his decision on any law though so it should not be proper. I am unaware of the laws for the particular area and what is or is not expected of JoPs there. Apparently in certain states a JoP can refuse to marry same sex couples even though it is other wise legal. This seems like a politically motivated exception though and really oughtn't hold up to a logical and consistent application of law. While a notary in some states may be contracted for hire, and so legally allowed to refuse to do business with whom ever they choose, any public servant in this capacity should not be allowed the ability to make such choices.

 

[Evo]

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



How can the states have a right to regulate if the regulation is conditional on the central governments ok? It seems to me that they only have an imaginary right to regulate, since it ultimately depends on the central governments concurrence to have any affect. One thing I am having trouble answering is, since it was the states that gave birth to the central government how can the central government now have total control of what happens in the states? It seems to me it is kind of like an employer hiring an employee and then allowing the employee to tell the employer how to run things.


QUOTE]

The JoP in the article has been voted in by the community he is serving for the last 34 years, and in that time no one has even thought bad enough of what he is doing to run against him nor has anyone in the community tried to have him removed. In the article it states that since he was voted in it is his duty to represent every one in his area, I would argue that it is his duty to represent those that voted him in and it seems they have been content with what he was doing or he wouldn't have served for 34 years. By using the authors line of reasoning I guess we will be seeing tax breaks coming from democrats and gay rights legislation coming from republicans, although I won't hold my breath till that happens since I understand that people that are voted for are serving the voters that voted for them and not the ones that didnt.
This kind of situation is the whole point of the states right argument, a locality can vote to run the locality any way it seems fit but it will be contained to that locality allowing people to leave and find another locality that believes similarily as they do. When the discrimination comes from the central government, where are they going to go? Affirmative action is a racist law(promotes one race over another based on nothing but race) and it is a product of the central government so it affects everyone in the US, yet this judges actions only affects a very small segment of one state, leaving the majority of the state un touched as well as the other 49 states. So which is the better option, neither will completely eliminate discrimination, locallized discrimination or nationalized?

A JOP position is so low, that unless the guy was a convicted pedophile, it's unlikely that any notice would be taken of him. He probably ran unopposed all of these years and no one specfically "voted" for him, they just went down the line of people on the ballot. It wasn't that they specifically voted for him, he was automaticcaly voted in.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You need to learn to use the quote function properly Jason. ;-)

How can the states have a right to regulate if the regulation is conditional on the central governments ok? It seems to me that they only have an imaginary right to regulate, since it ultimately depends on the central governments concurrence to have any affect. One thing I am having trouble answering is, since it was the states that gave birth to the central government how can the central government now have total control of what happens in the states? It seems to me it is kind of like an employer hiring an employee and then allowing the employee to tell the employer how to run things.

It is a hierarchal order. The Fed is to insure the general rights and welfare of the population as a whole leaving further specification of circumstance to lower levels in the hierarchy. I would say that not allowing discrimination based on race is sufficiently generalized and promoting of the general welfare and rights of all citizens to fall in the domain of the federal government.

The JoP in the article has been voted in by the community he is serving for the last 34 years, and in that time no one has even thought bad enough of what he is doing to run against him nor has anyone in the community tried to have him removed. In the article it states that since he was voted in it is his duty to represent every one in his area, I would argue that it is his duty to represent those that voted him in and it seems they have been content with what he was doing or he wouldn't have served for 34 years.

He must represent everyone not just those who voted for him. And the opinion of voters should have nothing to do with anyone's rights in regard to their own person life such as whom they choose to marry. A judge is a judge and must only and always uphold the law equitably. He is not a politician. This was actually the subject of a book by Grisham, who is from Louisiana, lamenting the political nature of the life of judges who are elected to the bench in places like Louisiana.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves. I feel the children will later suffer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/16/louisiana-bardwell-interracial-marriage-licence"

Mr. Bardwell is the JP in question. He dispenses or denies his services on the basis of race. That makes him a racist.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Based on this Supreme Court case, I think that the JP's action leaves him vulnerable to a lawsuit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia"

 

[Hurkyl]

Mr. Bardwell is the JP in question. He dispenses or denies his services on the basis of race. That makes him a racist.

If you want to get technical, simply noticing someone's race makes you a racist.