Louisiana JP Refuses Interracial Marriage License

[Jimmy Snyder]

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

I disagree. In my opinion, it has to rise to the level of action taken. You can't tell what other people notice unless you see them act on it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

Racism usually means that one sees one race as either superior or inferior or is otherwise possessed of intolerance for certain races. Being against interracial marriage does not necessarily treat race inequitably. Though I would agree that in general it helps reinforce a racist ideology.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Being against interracial marriage does not necessarily treat race inequitably.

This was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1883 in the case of Pace vs Alabama, which upheld a conviction for interracial sex. They ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex was not a violation of the equal protection clause because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex. I have taken this from the wiki article I linked to above. I consider it a smarmy way to justify racism.

 

[Jasongreat]

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.

I think that it did mention in the article that he has been running unopposed all these years, so IMO the fault lays with the citizenery for not vetting their choice properly, not with the judge that is acting in a way he believes is just.

 

[Evo]

I think that it did mention in the article that he has been running unopposed all these years, so IMO the fault lays with the citizenery for not vetting their choice properly, not with the judge that is acting in a way he believes is just.

He's not a judge, he's basically no more than a court clerk. It seems this couple is the first to complain, so no one knew. And now that he's been reported, the people want him out. It's not a case of the public knowing what he was doing and condoning it.

 

[Jasongreat]

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

If that's an order, I refuse. If it is a friendly request, I would be glad to but I will need some help since I didnt realize I was doing anything wrong until this mention by you. Just send me a PM telling me what I am doing wrong and how to correct it and it will cease.

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.

It seems to me the order has become backwards from what it was originally. The founders ideas were revolutionary since they felt all power came from the bottom up, that is the people gave the government the power they could use. While other modes of government up until that time felt that rights flowed from the top down, that is the only rights the people had was what the government said they were entitled to. Our Federal government was set up to insure individual rights by protecting each state from foreign or domestic(other states) usurptation of their rights. Not until our Federal government was switched to a national government by lincoln did the central government get so involved. While I agree that race discrimination isn't right the national government doesn't feel that way, it seems to me that they believe that discrimination is a valid way to better society.

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.[/

QUOTE]

IMO it is absolutely impossible to represent everyone, but you can represent the majority and the best that could be acheived is a super majority but never everyone however the smaller the number you are working with the easier a bigger percentage would be and that is why I believe local governments are better equiped for making the laws that pertain to behavior. I agree completely with your statement about people not voting on rights however that is not the country we are living in right now(the bigger the national government gets the worst it is), it seems that is all we do anymore is vote away other peoples rights. I think in most cases a judge has to have legal training(a lawyer), but this JoP is only a pseudo judge and that is why JoP's have a very limited selection of cases they can hear. I think what you said about voting for judges is true, look at the supreme court, our founders felt the same way it seems. So even though what the JoP did was wrong IMO it is more the fault of the system(voting for judges) or the citizenery(voting without vetting) than it is him since he was following his conscience according to him(trying to save mixed race kids the torment). I did see a show once where the were interviewing mixed race kids and a lot of them said it was worse than being a pure race because they were outcasts everywhere. They didnt fit in with the white kids, or the black kids since they were essentially both but at the same time weren't one or the other.

 

[Zantra]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Let's assume that we take his statement at face value. It's still both immoral and illegal for him to deny an application even IF he has good intentions.

People want to focus on his justification but it's not a justification at all. It's still someone overstepping their bounds to impose their beliefs and will on someone else. Even if interracial children DO have a difficult time, it's simply racism vieled in misplaced altruism. It's this type of persistent behavior that holds society back from true integration. People have moved from blantant racism to passive aggressive racism for the greater good. "oh it's in their best interests not to do this", while deep down someone's whistling dixie and flying the confederate flag in their heart.

I think we have another generation or two before we can completely eradicate this kind of thinking. Still too many "good ole boys" around remembering the "gold old days".

 

[Monique]

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 if both partners have red hair, their kids would have a 100% chance of also getting red hair and being the outcasts of society.

The only way we can safe the fate of these children is to let them form their own social group (it will contribute to heterogeneity as well), I say: from now on we should only allow people with red hair to marry with a spouse with red hair. Other classes of hair color won't be allowed to marry until the offspring of redheads have reached a critical mass of acceptance.

 

[qspeechc]

My mother is black and my father is white, and I would pretty much agree that I don't fit in anywhere. Not with the white people, not with the black people, not anywhere. But that's no reason to prevent inter-racial marriages. The fact that I don't fit in anywhere probably is mostly my fault, or maybe people really are racist like that, I don't know, anyway, you can't make inter-racial marriages illegal. It is a right to marry whoever you like. The government or anyone else shouldn't be telling you who you can marry (well, within reason, I mean you can't marry children or animals. Homosexual marriages are fine).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My mother is black and my father is white ...

If you are not already married, then you are going to face a problem. Mr. Bardwell won't marry you to anybody.

 

[BobG]

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.

You're correct about Justice of the Peace in general. There aren't very many states that still have JoP and they have authority over minor civil matters in the states where they do.

Louisiana is an exception to a certain extent (in fact, Louisiana tends to be the exception to many things commonly related with the 20th century). Their Justice of Peace are actually elected. You have to have a high school diploma and be able to read and write in English to be eligible to run for Justice of the Peace (that's a pretty high standard considering a high school diploma is not required to run for governor - or pretty low when compared to the requirements for a judge in the city court).
http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/Portals/0/elections/pdf/QualificationsRev.9-09.pdf

They still only have authority for minor civil matters. They're almost to judges what teaching assistants are to teachers.

http://www.courtreference.com/Louisiana-Courts.htm

Louisiana Justice of the Peace Courts
Justice of the Peace Courts have limited civil and criminal jurisdiction that may vary by court.

Criminal cases generally handled by Justice of the Peace Courts include preliminary hearings for most criminal cases and litter violations, and may include other types of violations and non-felony criminal cases.

Justice of the Peace Courts share limited jurisdiction over some civil cases with District Courts, including some general civil cases within financial limits.

Justice of the Peace Courts do not have jurisdiction over certain types of cases, including probate matters, cases where the State or political subdivision is a defendant, cases where title to real estate is an issue, and other types of cases as defined by law.

 

[BobG]

If you are not already married, then you are going to face a problem. Mr. Bardwell won't marry you to anybody.

Actually, Mr. Bardwell referred them to the 6th Ward's Justice of the Peace, Terri Crosby, who did sign the marriage license.

What the JoP did was wrong, but don't blow it out of proportion to suggest he actually prevented people from getting married.

In his own frame of reference, he probably considered his actions similar to pharmacists that refuse to administer prescriptions that violate their own personal religious or ethical beliefs (not that that is necessarily an acceptable practice, either - if your beliefs conflict with your profession, it might be a good idea to change professions).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Actually, Mr. Bardwell referred them to the 6th Ward's Justice of the Peace, Terri Crosby, who did sign the marriage license.

No, he didn't refer them.

No one told Humphrey she and her boyfriend could not get married, Bardwell said. He said his wife even suggested she see Justice of the Peace Terri Crosby of Tickfaw, which Humphrey said she did and Crosby agreed to sign the license.

http://www.hammondstar.com/articles/2009/10/15/top_stories/8847.txt"

 

[ideasrule]

Even if interracial children DO have a difficult time, it's simply racism vieled in misplaced altruism. It's this type of persistent behavior that holds society back from true integration. People have moved from blantant racism to passive aggressive racism for the greater good. "oh it's in their best interests not to do this", while deep down someone's whistling dixie and flying the confederate flag in their heart.

If you start with the assumption that this "racism vieled in misplaced altruism" is not true altruism, then explain away the factual accuracy of the "racist" arguments by saying they're whistling dixie "deep down", you've made your assumption unfalsifiable. No experiment in the world can disprove your notion that despite showing no signs of racism, despite using factually valid arguments for the greater good, and despite having black friends, people like Baldwell are actually racist.

 

[Virtuous]

What I don't understand is why this method has been used for so long? I apologize I am ignorant, isn't there a separation from state and religion? How is that marriage has anything to do with the church? It would make far more sense to have government deal solely with legal issues since they create the rights and such. Once that process is done it's up to the couple as to how they like to celebrate their "unity". Same respects, it's up to the church or organization as to whether they will allow said celebration. There will never be a perfect system that makes everyone happy but that's the most logical way to go about it, I am surprised it's still the way it is.

 

[Mattara]

What I don't understand is why this method has been used for so long? I apologize I am ignorant, isn't there a separation from state and religion? How is that marriage has anything to do with the church? It would make far more sense to have government deal solely with legal issues since they create the rights and such. Once that process is done it's up to the couple as to how they like to celebrate their "unity". Same respects, it's up to the church or organization as to whether they will allow said celebration. There will never be a perfect system that makes everyone happy but that's the most logical way to go about it, I am surprised it's still the way it is.

Church/State separation is mostly on paper.

 

[Hurkyl]

It's still both immoral and illegal for him to deny an application even IF he has good intentions.

What are you talking about? Denying marriage licenses when there's good reason his duty. The controversy is because people believe the reason wasn't good.


I agree that the person in the opening post is a likely either stupid or a racist in the negative sense. (Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity)

The thing that frightens me is that people seem to have forgotten why racism was generally a bad thing. Some people aren't objecting on the grounds they think the JOP is prejudiced, nor are they objecting on the grounds they think the JOP used race inappropriately in decision making -- they're objecting simply because the JOP mentioned race at all.

 

[Monique]

No experiment in the world can disprove your notion that despite showing no signs of racism, despite using factually valid arguments for the greater good, and despite having black friends, people like Baldwell are actually racist.

He discriminates based on race without looking at the individuals, how would you call that? How do you call someone who has a problem with people from interracial descent and thus wishes that they do not exist? Someone who thinks in black and white? Would racialist or racial separatist be a better description?

 

[ideasrule]

He discriminates based on race without looking at the individuals, how would you like to call that?

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.

I call it treating people of different races differently. If I buy sunscreen for my white friends but not my black friends, that would be treating the races differently, but not unfairly. Racists, by definition, believe that one race is superior; believing that two races are different isn't enough.

 

[Monique]

I call it treating people of different races differently. If I buy sunscreen for my white friends but not my black friends, that would be treating the races differently, but not unfairly. Racists, by definition, believe that one race is superior; believing that two races are different isn't enough.

Sorry, my post-edit crossed with your reply. To repeat:

How do you call someone who has a problem with people from interracial descent and thus wishes that they do not exist? Someone who thinks in black and white? Would racialist or racial separatist be a better description?

 

[BobG]

What I don't understand is why this method has been used for so long? I apologize I am ignorant, isn't there a separation from state and religion? How is that marriage has anything to do with the church? It would make far more sense to have government deal solely with legal issues since they create the rights and such. Once that process is done it's up to the couple as to how they like to celebrate their "unity". Same respects, it's up to the church or organization as to whether they will allow said celebration. There will never be a perfect system that makes everyone happy but that's the most logical way to go about it, I am surprised it's still the way it is.

Why a justice of the peace can sign a marriage license? A justice of the peace is a government position, not a religious one. If the couple were getting married in a church, then a preist/minister/rabbi etc would be signing the license.

Or do you mean you don't understand why all marriages don't use this method? Why the government allows religious officials to sign government documents?

Or do you mean you don't understand why the government cares about marriages at all?

Or did you feel it was essential to make a remark about separation of church and state, whether or not it was actually relevant in this case? (Which is okay, by the way - I mean, after all, how many forum members does it take to change a light bulb? )

 

[Zantra]

What are you talking about? Denying marriage licenses when there's good reason his duty. The controversy is because people believe the reason wasn't good.

Notice I said intentions.. his intention was to block a marraige based on reasons that were racially motivated and arguably inacurate. He doesn't LEGALLY have the right to deny an application based on racial criteria, which he did, and admitted to it. Therefore, his denial was wrong legally, and it was outside of his moral bounds to decide what was in the interests of that couple's unborn children.

If you start with the assumption that this "racism vieled in misplaced altruism" is not true altruism, then explain away the factual accuracy of the "racist" arguments by saying they're whistling dixie "deep down", you've made your assumption unfalsifiable. No experiment in the world can disprove your notion that despite showing no signs of racism, despite using factually valid arguments for the greater good, and despite having black friends, people like Baldwell are actually racist

He stated that the reason for denial was based on the ostracization faced by their children based on them being mixed. That is discriminatory, and that is factual. I think based on those statements the most logical conclusion is that he holds racial biases. So my statements don't disprove anything. His arguments are not factually valid- it's an assumption fueled by prejuidice. I have not heard of him having black friends, but being friends with another race does not automatically disqualify him from being racist.

And all of that aside, it's not within the bounds of the law.

 

[Zantra]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/interracial.marriage/index.html

So he doesn't even acknowledge his behavior as wrong. Sad.

 

[Evo]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/interracial.marriage/index.html

So he doesn't even acknowledge his behavior as wrong. Sad.

He's obviously truly ignorant. It's sad that there are still people that think this way.

He needs to be removed, that kind of ignorance has no place in an official capacity.

 

[lisab]

But if both partners have red hair, their kids would have a 100% chance of also getting red hair and being the outcasts of society.

The only way we can safe the fate of these children is to let them form their own social group (it will contribute to heterogeneity as well), I say: from now on we should only allow people with red hair to marry with a spouse with red hair. Other classes of hair color won't be allowed to marry until the offspring of redheads have reached a critical mass of acceptance.

ahahaha...nice. That would make a great science fiction plot ...RedWorld.

But if they are isolated from the rest of society, there would have to be some way to deal with people like Statutory Ape, who would be drooling at the gates of their secluded society.

 

[rootX]

Denying marriage licenses when there's good reason his duty.

What could be a good reason that is not covered by the law? I am having a hard time understanding whether his duty is to make sure to deny marriage
1) that is not legal
or
2) that is not good for both individuals

 

[Moonbear]

Why a justice of the peace can sign a marriage license? A justice of the peace is a government position, not a religious one. If the couple were getting married in a church, then a preist/minister/rabbi etc would be signing the license.

Um, you need to get a marriage license BEFORE you're allowed to get married at all, even in a church. The church would then sign the marriage certificate that says you did the deed, not the license that says you're allowed to do it legally.

 

[mgb_phys]

his intention was to block a marraige based on reasons that were racially motivated and arguably inacurate. ... Therefore, his denial was wrong legally, and it was outside of his moral bounds to decide what was in the interests of that couple's unborn children.

Laws banning mixed marriages have held up in court before - on the 'interesting' legal justification that since they treated the black and white people involved equally (badly) they weren't racial discrimination

 

[turbo]

Um, you need to get a marriage license BEFORE you're allowed to get married at all, even in a church. The church would then sign the marriage certificate that says you did the deed, not the license that says you're allowed to do it legally.

The anti-gay marriage bloc applying pressure here in Maine is lying about this basic reality. Church ceremonies cannot legally marry two people, absent years of cohabitation and commingled recourses that might be construed as a common-law marriage.

I have two cousins and a nephew that are gay. One is in denial (too Christian to commit) and the others are in committed relationships. Why can't they be allowed visitation rights with their partners in medical crises, be allowed to share resources like married couples can, etc? This country needs to establish federal marriage guidelines that allow any two individuals to bond with one another and share their lives. Different race? Different sex? Same sex? Why does it matter? If two people want to commit to each other and share their lives together, who else should be able to intervene? In this state the state has come down on the side of inclusion, and the Catholic church and some well-funded out-of-state allies are buying all kinds of ad-time to prevent that.

 

[Evo]

Laws banning mixed marriages have held up in court before - on the 'interesting' legal justification that since they treated the black and white people involved equally (badly) they weren't racial discrimination

Do you have the link to that? In the US, states have a say, but since 1967, it has been unconstitutional to prevent interracial marriage.

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

 

[mgb_phys]

Do you have the link to that? In the US, states have a say, but since 1967, it has been unconstitutional to prevent interracial marriage.

Yes it was Loving v. Virginia I was thinking of - but the SCOTUS over-ruled them.

 

[lisab]

Yes it was Loving v. Virginia I was thinking of - but the SCOTUS over-ruled them.

Ironic case name.

 

[Evo]

Yes it was Loving v. Virginia I was thinking of - but the SCOTUS over-ruled them.

I'm afraid that you are misinformed.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the court, both races were treated equally, because whites and blacks were punished in equal measure for breaking the law against interracial marriage and interracial sex. This judgment was overturned in 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, where the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

 

[mgb_phys]

Where did the Supreme Court reverse their decision,

I meant the state supreme court upheld their own law (no surprise) on the basis that as long as you were nasty to both black and white it wasn't discrimination.
And then the supreme court told the state to go and sit on the naughty step.

 

[Evo]

I meant the state supreme court upheld their own law (no surprise) on the basis that as long as you were nasty to both black and white it wasn't discrimination.
And then the supreme court told the state to go and sit on the naughty step.

LOL

The states versus the US is a bizarre and confusing thing. I don't think states should be able to do their own thing, as it is often misguided, short sighted and serves the priviledged few.