Opposing Views: NEWS:Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By Justice of Peace

Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By Justice of Peace

By Opposing Views Editorial Staff , To Protect and Serve Opposing Views - October 16, 2009

Comments(28) | (0)

TANGIPAHOA PARISH, Louisiana --- A justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish is under heavy criticism -- including calls for his resignation -- after he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple.

"He's an elected public official and one of his duties is to marry people. He doesn't have the right to say he doesn't believe in it," Patricia Morris, president of the NAACP branch of Tangipahoa Parish, said Thursday. "If he doesn't do what his position calls for him to do, he should resign from that position."

According to CNN, the demands for Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace for Tangipahoa Parish's 8th Ward, to step down came after he refused to issue a marriage license to Beth Humphrey, 30, and her boyfriend, Terence McKay, 32 (left), both of Hammond.

"I was just really shocked, because he's an elected official," Humphrey said.

Bardwell told Hammond's Daily Star newspaper he wouldn't issue the license because he was worried about children who might be produced from such a mixed-race relationship. In addition, Bardwell said, in his own experience, most interracial marriages don't last.

"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."

"We would like him to resign," the bride said. "He doesn't believe he's being racist, but it is racist."

Should the justice of the peace resign for "not doing what his position calls for him to do"? Or does the justice have a right to make a stand based on his moral convictions, even if many don't agree with those convictions?

Photo Credit: WAFB

Regarding Article

NEWS:Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By Justice of Peace

This is a joke right?

Of course the misinformed fool should resign.

- Doublecheck October 16, 2009 10:22AM

Reply to this Recommend (2)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Misinformed?
  
  He'd have to be living in a hole 1,000 feet deep to have any reason to think this is OK. He's a moron and a racist . Like you said, he should resign. He has no place anywhere in the criminal justice system.
  
  - LagerHead October 16, 2009 10:29AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (2)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Absolutely

Absolutely he should resign. Or rather, lose his job. It's not up to him to inflict his version of "morality" on his fellow citizens. Just like the public officials in Iowa who don't want to follow the law and issue marriage licenses to gay couples should resign or be fired.

They aren't ministers and the couples are not applying for sacramental marriage from a church . They're applying for civil marriage from the state, and civil marriage codes are the determining factor, not someone's religious beliefs, or rather, racial/sexual-orientation prejudices. Churches can deny sacramental marriage to whomever they please. The government dispenses CIVIL marriage, which should be open to all citizens equally.

- Babaroni October 16, 2009 11:31AM

Reply to this Recommend (2)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Absolutly he is racist!
  
  This has got to be a joke! Did Bardwell's marraige to a mail-order-bride not work out? I can't imagine on what other personal evidence he could possible be basing his statement, "in [my] own experience, most interracial marriages don't last."
  Babaroni, I just want to reiterate you statement that civil marriages are dispensed by the government - not places of worshipor religious institutions."
  
  Bardwell is dead wrong. The U.S. resolved this issue in Loving v. Va. (388 U.S. 1), where the Court found that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violated the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause and deprived appellants of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
  
  - Bronwyn October 16, 2009 1:59PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
re: Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License

Medieval. Grossly ignorant.

GCK,

Georgia

- gck1938 October 16, 2009 1:29PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh! It is for the children!

The tired cry of the idiot: "Think of the children !"

"Bardwell told Hammond's Daily Star newspaper he wouldn't issue the license because he was worried about children who might be produced from such a mixed- race relationship."

Lets think about a prominent interracial child and how his life has been so difficult because of his mixed heritage. In fact, lets call him and ask....

Anyone know the phone number to the White House?

- SolarSanitizer October 16, 2009 3:55PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Art tho clean?

Using the success of a one armed fiddle player to laud on others to do the same is a product of ideology not practicality. To assume that because one person of mixed race becomes president that it is resonable that all can do the same is intellectually dishonest.

It would be a reasonable guess to say that 99% of racially mixed people, especially Negro/Caucasian, suffer ridicule, bigotry, etc... for most of their lives.

If one makes a bad judgement, as assumed the judge has, but for honest intentions on his part, why should he be maligned? Please, if any one here is pristine in his actions, step forward!

- dingo1 October 17, 2009 8:49AM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- I dont need to be clean
  
  I may have some feces on my shoes but that does not stop me from seeing and decrying that justice Keith Bardwell has it all over his face and hands.
  So I am NOT "pristine in my actions"! I am however an evil sinner and if there is one thing I can easily recognise..it's one of my sinning brethren!
  
  - seattlechris October 17, 2009 11:17AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- This is 2009.
  
  Most people accept mixed marriages, even in the south.
  
  - mike1948 October 17, 2009 2:47PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Source?
    
    I assume you took a poll ?
    
    - dingo1 October 18, 2009 4:19AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- I'm assuming you're sinless
  
  By this comment, and all of the other comments you've made attacking other people for their beliefs and actions.
  
  - quantummechanik October 18, 2009 12:57PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Be factual
    
    I have not attacked anyone, I simply have pointed out your inaccuacies and misdirections, eg; your current remark accusing me of attacking.
    
    - dingo1 October 18, 2009 6:44PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - You have a problem
      
      with us calling a racist a racist, using the "Let he who is without sin" analogy to get us to stop ripping on the racist dude.I'll cite "Please, if any one here is pristine in his actions, step forward!" It's the "judge not lest ye be judged" attitude, which is paradoxical enough because it judges the judgemental, but a quick look at some other posts...
      
      "Homosexuality is empirically a perversion"
      
      "Olbermann ands Maddow are the two most pathetic people on TV"
      
      "Perhaps "Blabber Mouth" is more fitting?"
      
      "might it ever see fit to recognize another perversion, pedophilia, and establish rights to accommodate these freaks of nature?"
      
      - quantummechanik October 18, 2009 8:36PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - epilogue
        
        I simply point out the factual empirical evidence, you seem to have a problem accepting fact and prefer to make philosophy the rule of order.
        
        If Rush is a racist , and you have the proof, present it, otherwise admit that you dislike Rush and prefer to defame him with rumor and hearsay.
        
        - dingo1 October 18, 2009 8:44PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Rush who?
        
        Limbaugh?
        
        Rush Limbaugh is CRAZY racist . Telling a black caller "Take the bone out of your nose and call me back"? Really racist.
        
        - quantummechanik October 18, 2009 9:03PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- overstep
  
  Even if he felt that they should not get married then he still had no grounds to refuse the marriage . It is his duty to uphold the laws, not his own opinions.
  
  - MrBook October 18, 2009 1:10PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Real time
    
    When was the last time you saw a judge or law enforcement official do as he should?
    
    - dingo1 October 18, 2009 6:41PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - It does happen
      
      Personally I have not been in front of a judge in many years... but the last time I was it was following a jury duty mix-up that turned out alright for me.
      
      Most judges and law enforcement officials do as they should, it is just the actions of a few (like this judge) that are out of the ordinary.
      
      Besides, even if every other judge out there violated their oath of office that would not mean that this judge should not be condemned for doing so.
      
      - MrBook October 18, 2009 7:43PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Consequences
        
        like all humans, choices are made for various reasons, the consequences of the decisions vary also. There are far more resons to be upset in this country than over a judges refusal to marry someone!
        
        In most states the act of performing a marriage is electrive on the part of the judge.
        
        - dingo1 October 18, 2009 8:22PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        upset?
        
        "There are far more resons to be upset in this country than over a judges refusal to marry someone"
        
        I'm hardly upset over it... though it seems like there are a good number of folks down in Louisiana who are upset ( this hardly helps Louisiana's image ).
        
        "In most states the act of performing a marriage is electrive on the part of the judge."
        
        can you cite that? Usually judges / JoP have the choice on performing marriages in general, but once having made that determination cannot pick and chose who they will marry.
        
        Further even if he could pick and chose which weddings to officiate he had already made that decision when this couple reached him... and was thus bound by law to carry out his legal duty as described in the laws of Louisiana.
        
        - MrBook October 18, 2009 11:53PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        except you are
        
        Wrong on every point; A JP has no statutoty or codified duty to marry, it is an absolute descretionary decision.
        
        There is no "citation" to observe other than in the prescription of what a JP "may" do as authorized by code, statute or ordinance.
        
        In my twenty + years of practice and in law school , I have never seen a code requiring performance of marriage by a judge of any level.
        
        In observation, you seem to be possessed with this miniscule event!
        
        - dingo1 October 19, 2009 12:02AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
Heil?

"Bardwell told Hammond's Daily Star newspaper he wouldn't issue the license because he was worried about children who might be produced from such a mixed- race relationship." ummm..... heil mein fuhrer? Guy sound's like Hitler, must...keep....aryian race....PURE.

- Dylandts October 17, 2009 10:21PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.