Posted on 10/15/2009 3:01:31 PM PDT by TornadoAlley3
Hammond, Louisiana--A justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple last week because of concern for the children who might be born of that relationship.
Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace for Tangipahoa Parish’s 8th Ward, also said it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
“I’m not a racist,” Bardwell said. “I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house. My main concern is for the children.”
Beth Humphrey, 30, said she and her boyfriend, Terence McKay, 32, both of Hammond, intend to consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.
Humphrey said she called Bardwell Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She said Bardwell’s wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples.
“I simply can’t believe he can do that. That’s blatant discrimination,” Humphrey said.
The Louisiana American Civil Liberties Union and the Tangipahoa Parish Chapter of the NAACP agree.
Louisiana ACLU Executive Director Marjorie R. Esman said Bardwell’s refusal to sign the license is both “tragic and illegal.”
Pat Morris, NAACP Tangipahoa Parish chapter president, said she was shocked to hear that the choice of a spouse is still an issue in Tangipahoa Parish.
Humphrey, a Covington native, said she was discharged from the military over a year ago. McKay is originally from Franklinton. They met where she works, she said.
The couple had planned to go to South Carolina for the wedding, where they would be married in a traditional ceremony by her brother, who is a youth minister, Humphrey said. But McKay lost his job, and by the time he was re-employed he was unable to get off for the wedding.
They decided to go ahead and get married here “to make it right before God,” she said.
“We decided on a very short, simple ceremony with a couple of my friends as witnesses,” she said. “Later, when he got some time off, we would go to South Carolina for the traditional ceremony, although we would actually already be officially married.”
Toward the conclusion of her conversation with Bardwell’s wife, Humphrey said she was asked if this was an interracial marriage. Humphrey told her it was.
“I have no idea why she asked me that,” Humphrey said. “I suppose she asks everyone that question.”
Humphrey said the wife told her that Bardwell does not do interracial marriages.
“I don’t understand this because he is an elected official and discrimination is against the law,” Humphrey said.
Bardwell, who is handicapped, said he has been a JP for 34 years and has never had opposition, but this is his last term.
According to the Secretary of State’s elected officials database, his current term will expire Dec. 31, 2014.
Bardwell said from his experience, “99 percent of the time” the interracial couple consists of a black man and white woman.
“I find that rather confusing,” he said.
He said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. Bardwell said he came to the conclusion that most black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society.
“Yet, the children are innocent. They had nothing to do with that,” he said.
In many cases, he said, the grandparents or a relative ends up with the children.
“I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”
He said if he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all.
“I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.
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.
Bardwell said a justice of the peace is not required to conduct a marriage ceremony and is at liberty to recuse himself “from a marriage or anything else.”
He said the state attorney general told him years ago that he would eventually get into trouble for not performing interracial marriages.
“I told him if I do, I’ll resign,” Bardwell said. “I have rights too. I’m not obligated to do that just because I’m a justice of the peace.”
JPs do not get paid for performing marriages, although the couple may give a “gratuity,” he said.
“I’m not trying to mistreat anyone. I’m just trying to treat everyone equal,” he said.
Esman said it is indefensible for this issue to arise in 2009. No one in Tangipahoa Parish or anywhere else should have to submit to judicial approval of their choice of a spouse.
This has been the law for over 50 years, she said. In 1963, in the case Loving vs. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot prohibit marriages simply because of the race of the spouses.
“The government cannot discriminate based upon race, which is what is happening here,” Esman said. “The choice of a spouse is deeply personal, and the government simply cannot prevent you from marrying the person you love, based upon skin color.”
Bardwell’s decision and his position are wrong, Morris said.
“I think he went a little too far this time,” she said. “What does it matter if one is black and one is white. It’s their decision, their lives. “
According to the clerk of court’s office, getting a marriage license is a relatively easy process. Application for the license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period, although this can be waived by the judge, JP or minister.
The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.
A certified copy of their birth certificate and Social Security care are required. No blood test is required in Louisiana.
The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed within the State of Louisiana. Once it is signed by the minister, JP or judge, the original is returned to the clerk’s office. A certified copy is made and sent to the couple, and the original is put on file.
I thought the point of going to JP was because they DIDN’T care who they married.
“They reprint FReeper comments at the HuffnPuff Post?”
Everyone does...even the MSN crowd...it’s become a pastime for the elites...
Ditto on your comment.
Private decisions can “discriminate” - make moral value judgment choices between different individuals, but the government may not.
other than the fact that there is no moral reason to refuse to conduct an inter-racial marriage. Any minister of any faith is mentally bent if he uses that reason.
There are two types of people in the world...good and bad. If one of the parties is bad, then that is a good moral reason to refuse to perform the ceremony.
Please post the Biblical junction against this that would give the preachers and ministers the moral right to stick their nose in air on this. I can't recall it.
Let's say, for example, that two lesbians came to a conservative church and wanted the minister to perform a marriage ceremony. If the church is against gay marriage, the minister has every right to refuse to perform the service because the wedding would, in its execution, carry the implied endorsement of the church.
While that's an extreme example, I've known many churches that require counseling for prospective couples before they will agree to perform the ceremony because they believe that a marriage should follow the principles set forth in Scripture. If, in the minister's judgement, the couple seems too immature or has other issues that don't reflect a Christian lifestyle, they'll refuse to perform the service.
It doesn't mean the couple can't get married. It just means the couple can't get married *at that church*.
The JP is different. He's a civil servant. He has to marry any couple that meets the qualifications set forth by the state, not those that fit his own religious beliefs. See the difference? The minister is the official of a religion. The JP is the official of the state.
Well, there is one outstanding bad example...
Does he discrimate against any people that are not the same race or is he only a black and white bigot?
David Dukeite in office?
They have never been problematic; the problem only comes when bigots make someone else's relationship their business.
That’s what made, and still less frequently makes, interracial marriages problematic. I didn’t think I’d have to state the obvious, but so be it.
The military used to require pre-marital counseling and permission from one’s commander and perhaps even still do, particularly between citizens and non-citizens; this JP isn’t the only one who makes a relationship his business. I don’t agree with what this man did, but if he’s a man of conscience, I support his right to act upon his principles (and suffer reasonable consequences), especially as he did no harm to the couple. His constituents will take care of the situation.
It speaks volumes about you though, standing up for a racist acting "upon his principles".
Jeez, if he wants to "act upon his principles", he can do it on his own time. Send him back to his porch to yell at the colored folk.
Thankfully people like you are not in charge. FreeRepublic scares me sometimes. 99% of the time we're a bastion for freedom, and then every now and then people like you show up longing for Jim Crow.
JPs are not paid by the taxpayers to perform wedding ceremonies; it is not a required duty. He did not prevent their marriage and even arranged for someone else to take care of them; he simply could not take their money to do something he didn’t agree with. Perhaps you could dredge up an ounce of understanding on that point, even if you don’t agree with his reasoning, as I don’t (and stated so previously, although you chose to ignore that in favor of throwing a Jim Crow accusation at me).
Beware of a surfeit of righteous indignation based on how you think an anti-racist should respond to a situation; it can mask a form of political correctness while it stomps all over freedom of conscience.
I'm not so sure that's correct. A JP must issue a marriage license but I don't think they must officiate.
And despite the wording of the article, my understanding is that the JP simply refused to sign the marriage license (something that can be done by a JP, any other judge, ministers, etc.). I'm not certain anyone has an obligation to officiate your wedding.
This doesn't mean he's not an idiot. I just don't think he's legally wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.