Heat Builds in Interracial Marriage Denial

Calls Intensify for Firing or Resignation of La. Justice of the Peace Who Wouldn't Marry Black Man, White Woman

(CBS)  Calls have been intensifying for the firing or resignation of an official who refused earlier this month to marry an interracial couple.

Keith Bardwell, a white justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish in southeastern Louisiana, wouldn't issue a license to or preside over the nuptials for Beth Humphrey, who is white, and Terence McKay, of Hammond, La., who is black.

The two were later married by another area justice of the peace.

Bardwell, who's held his post more than 30 years, says interracial marriages are wrong, it's his right not to perform them, and the children of such unions face problems down the road.

The American Civil Liberties Union in Louisiana and the Center for Constitutional Rights and Justice say Bardwell should quit immediately, as does the Hammond chapter of the NAACP.

CBS News legal analyst Lisa Bloom called for Bardwell to be canned, saying on "The Early Show Saturday Edition" that Bardwell's actions are "blatantly" illegal.

McKay told David Spunt of CBS affiliate WAFB of Baton Rouge, La.,
that Bardwell's stand is "disheartening.

"Seriously, it's 2009 and we are still dealing with a form of racism," said McKay. "He's saying that 99 percent of [interracial marriage] winds up in divorce. How many people get married that winds up in divorce, black or white? ... It's unethical to me, because he's an elected official and he cannot do that."

Asked what he'd say to Bardwell, McKay responded, "Good luck. That's all I can tell him. I wish him the best. I don't wish him any harm, but he was wrong."

Blunt says Louisiana's Judicial Code of Ethics requires officials like Bardwell to "perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice."

But Bardwell insisted to WAFB, "I stand by my decision, and it is my right not to marry an interracial couple."

Bloom described Bardwell's actions as "immoral and outrageous. It's also patently illegal," since a 1967 Supreme Court ruling that interracial marriages are "absolutely legal."

"It is unlawful for anyone to refuse to perform them," she said.

"Once he is performing any marriages," Bloom continued, "he is obligated not to discriminate based on race. To me, this is a blatant violation of Louisiana and federal law and I agree with all of those who have criticized him and said he should be fired."

Bloom also took note of President Obama being the product of an interracial marriage, wondering of Bardwell, "Has he had any kind of basic awareness of who our president is? This is just shocking to me in 2009."

"He should face immediate termination," Bloom repeated. "He's refusing to follow the law in performing his duties. He's also potentially exposing his county - it's called a parish in Louisiana - to a lawsuit for race discrimination. He's really causing, I think, a lot of problems for that area, and that's why he's got to go."

[gseamoore]

It is amazing that so many people are too stupid to realize how asinine their arguments or positions are (note i do not say ignorant because ignorance is a valid excuse for stupidity there are many educated fools this judge is apparently an attorney which means he must have some education but he refuses to acknowledge science and learning & facts just to satisfy his own anachronistic viewpoints, we all have that problem to some lesser degrees) there is is an old saying we should eliminate all the foolish, self-centered, opinionated people in the world, but alas there would be no one left i hope the God he believes in moves upon his heart and brings him wisdom & understanding

[queenofclubs]

Just because an interracial couple divorces, it's not necessarily because they ARE an interracial couple. That is patently unfair to make such an assumption. I/R couples divorce for the very same reasons other same race couples divorce. It's ridiculous for this judge to proclaim himself the 'marriage police' and decided who gets to marry and who doesn't. Maybe he should look at couples like newswoman Soledad O'Brien's parents who celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary this year!

[dougmmm]

sorry, just a true fact !!!

[dougmmm]

He should have allowed them to marry!!

She could follow in the footsteps of Nicole Brown Simpson !!!!

[stuart-johns2]

A great debate for Americans. This issue is not as cut and dried as some would like it to be. One question to be debated is;

Does the government, or any private entity, have the right to contractually bind people to give up their Constitutional rights?

Are certain exemtions and exceptions allowed by law?

Some food for thought. The Military does this. You enter signing a contract essentially giving up certain rights - essentially you become their property. Yet you still have the right, once enlisted, to plead conscientious objections and not fight.

I'll leave it at that and let the debate go where it will.

[bill0bob]

"Does the government, or any private entity, have the right to contractually bind people to give up their Constitutional rights?"

Your ignorance of contract law and constitutional law are both ASTOUNDING!

[rickwar]

Go to your local courthouse, observe the statue there:

Lady Justice,

While it goes by many names, the most popular are Lady Justice, Scales of Justice, and Blind Justice. The statue dates it origins from ancient Greek and Roman times as the lady represented is Themis, the goddess of justice and law. Well known for her clear sightedness, she typically holds a sword in one hand and scales in the other.

The scales that she holds represent the impartiality with which justice is served and the sword signifies the power that is held by those making the decision. During the 16th century, artists started showing the lady blindfolded to show that justice is not subject to influence. From this, the statue earned the name Blind Justice.


The law is the law, his personal feelings should not enter into it. If you practice or administer the laws, that is what you follow, not personal feelings. Justice of the peace is a legal title confired by the state. He needs to follow the laws he agreed to abide by.

Is he racist? You bet, just read or listen to his answer, racists will always hide under a sheet, even if that sheet is a sheet of words such as "personal feelings"

[cidaia]

At first I was enraged at this guy but the more I think about it, the more I think there are really two issues here. He's just plain wrong about interracial marriage. But I don't much like the idea of punishing people for being conscientious objectors.

When the govt starts demanding the right to make us override our conscience, our beliefs, our own morality (even when we're wrong, and regardless whether it's left or right wing), we are stepping over a line I'd rather not cross.

Of course people on both sides of the political spectrum are slavering to use the law to force people to accept their morality, but true morality requires persuasion, not the use of force (legal, physical or otherwise).

[bill0bob]

"He's just plain wrong about interracial marriage. But I don't much like the idea of punishing people for being conscientious objectors"

A "conscientious objector" refuses to take the job if he objects to it; he does NOT have the right to pick and choose which parts of the job to do and which to not do!

For example, someone who opposes war based on conscience can NOT enter military service and then pick and choose who he will or will not kill. It's ALL OR NOTHING. If you are aren't opposed to ALL killing, then you don't qualify as a conscientious objector.

This JP is a racist, and he is using slippery "logic" to try to justify his illegal actions now that his evil has been exposed.

[notyou7270207]

It's amazing how many people pretend that this is a legal issue so they can justify thier own beleives. No laws were broken, this man did his job and if our government stick to the foundation this country was built on we would not have half of the issues we have today. I'll make this simple as it I can.

There was no lines crossed, no laws broken, the man did his job.
Trying to scream racism at every corner will eventually come back in a that will be counter productive. Rather then trying to make something out of nothing people need to look at themselves first. Assuming that this man is racist, is racist in and of it's self.

I say enforce the laws as they are written and quit ammending them to fit the views of whomever wants to cry that laws are unfair to them.

Seriously, marriage is a religious ceremony and should not be being performed by a justice of the peace or judge anyways.

All fights lead to more fights, and more insane/radical ideas. Gay marriage anyone? Next will be interspecie marriage and finally the right to marry children, then the right ot marry your own children.
This country is on the edge of becoming nothing more than a sick joke. I commend this man for stading up for his believes regardless of wheter I or anyone else agrees with. It's nice to know that there is still some one out there that is not tainted by this politic ran country.

[strawberrysidd]

I suppose you're not familiar with the 1967 court ruling Loving v. Virginia.

Here's a link:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Allow me to summarize:
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.

In case you're too dense to comprehend that, allow me to break it down further. IT IS ILLEGAL TO DENY SOMEONE THE RIGHT TO MARRY BASED UPON THEIR RACE.

Why don't you do a little research next time before you go spouting your crazy all over the place.

[tonyatq]

Notyou: Yes there were laws broken he violated the 1967 supreme court ruling. He may not agree with interracial marriages but as an elected offical he was suppose to marry them. The fact is that most marriage end up in divorce so he has no case.

[notyou7270207]

Again he did not prevent them from being married, he simpley sent them to some one else to do the job that he felt he had a conflict of interest with. Arguments like these are exactly what continues to break this once great nation. He did his job and still enabled them to be married. The key word in that mess of people fighting for their political futures in LOVING v. VIRGINIA is prevent.

The real problem here is that due to political corruption this country has strayed from it's Christian roots and continues to do so. This countries constitution has became more and more flawed and laghable with every ammendment. At this point the constitution is just a peice of old paper that people look at wondering why it has become nothing more than a passing joke.

People that jump at these types of non-issues, are the same type of people that have and continue to rework the constitution to benefit themselves. With the path this country is on the only thing that is certain is we will see gay marriage, marriage to young children and marriage to different species all become legal.

[strawberrysidd]

it's the ignorant bigots like you that use the term "Christian" to justify your hatred that are the real problem in this country.

[stuart-johns2]

by massenga October 19, 2009 10:05 PM EDT
what a crock...can't you read?? Loving v. Virginia, 1967, made it illegal NOT to marry persons of different races. "quality of life of 'bi-racial' children'" is not only irrelevant as an argument, it is entirely racist. Fire that SOB _now_.
=====================

Yes I can read fine. He is not using it as an argument. He is using it as a conflict of interest.

[writer10]

stuart is right...it's all in his wording...it's a personal 'conflict'to him...cowardess? yep

[joetheplumer]

I really think that the US should address these insane behaviors.
It is really becoming an anarchy.
People shouting kill the president, taking arms to meeting places, refusing to marry people because of their race and just work away with it.
Who the hell is he to decide who to marry.

[writer10]

creepy ba$**** would look at home in a sheet eh? sick...and the US won't ever address these much needed to be addressed topics because it will 'violate his rights'...ahem...ya know, it's only a topic of 'violation' when the extremists actions are called in to question...heck, Bardwell probably still carries a confederate musket w/bayonet, has wet dreams about 'owning' a slave and continually spouts off some hor$e$hit how the civil war was nothing more than a vulgar act of northern aggression..."Hey Terence...I won't marry y'all to this white gal...now bring me mah lemonade post haste" Terence probably would love to kick this redneck JOP a$$...and I'd root him on if it wouldn't make him any less of a gentleman...he got the best of the redneck though...he married his love...seeth yourself straight to h-e-l-l bardwell.

[notyou7270207]

I think God made the decision long ago as marriage is a religous ceremony and not a governmental cereamony. It seems this country continues to forget that this country was found on the principles of the christian religion and continues to stray from them more and more every passing day.

1 - In the beginning all races were seperated by oceans, mountains and deserts. It was by man's doing they all came to cross the barriers set in place by God himselve. There was most likely a reason why god wanted us all seperate. Think about it, seriously not as a advocate of doing or saying the politicaly correct thing.

2 - All a person has is his beleives, once those are gone you minds well roll over and die.

3 - Bardwell has a right ot his opinion right or wrong is not relevant, he has the right to speak what he feels and follow through accordingly.

4 - Racial marriage is the tip of the iceberg, gay marriage is now being pushed at the government and the religious entities through out the world. Next we will see people fighting for the right to marry thier pets and other animals. Seriously, there was already a case of an organization/group trying to legalize marriage for men who wanted to marry minor children.

5 - This country was founded on the believes and morales of christianity, and now we look to go against this at every turn. The facts are that this country has been on a slippery slope for years when it comes to interacial/gay/interspecie relationships and marriage. Our government has folded at every turn in the name of politics and their own personal political advancement.

In closing,
A line must be drawn in the sand and held to no matter what the cost.
Is this the line that must be drawn? I don't know, but I do know that Bardwell has a voice and the right to use it. Maybe if our government wasn't controlled by the media and their own political aspirations we wouldn't be having these types of issues. The fact that Obama got elected speaks to the power of the media, both positive and negative. Ask Hilary Clinton she knows all about the media.

I say this guy has executed his freedom of choice and speech and nothing more. Any one that disagrees with that is doing nothing more than violating his rights as a human being.

I see this country heading down a path that completely abandons the very foundation it was built on.

[abbe91]

by notyou7270207 October 20, 2009 12:22 AM EDT
"I think God made the decision long ago as marriage is a religous ceremony and not a governmental cereamony."

Interesting ... where in the bible did you read this ?

"It seems this country continues to forget that this country was found on the principles of the christian religion and continues to stray from them more and more every passing day."

It's easy to forget something which is not true. Ever read the second amendment ?

" 1 - In the beginning all races were seperated by oceans, mountains and deserts. It was by man's doing they all came to cross the barriers set in place by God himselve. There was most likely a reason why god wanted us all seperate. Think about it, seriously not as a advocate of doing or saying the politicaly correct thing."

In the beginning of what ?
I'm sure you are a true believer in the genesis. So God created
a black Adam, a white Adam, a yellow Adam ? Or is it rather a black Noah, a white Noah, a yellow Noah ?

"3 - Bardwell has a right ot his opinion right or wrong is not relevant, he has the right to speak what he feels and follow through accordingly."

And he has the right to find another job where his opinion will not interfere with his duties.

[timetocomeclean]

See what kind of brain damage you can catch listening to Rush Limbaugh for just five minutes a day can cause?

Can you imagine how much viagra this guy needs?

Quick get Viagra Drug Kingpin Limbaugh to give him an emergency 100 doses, stat!

[writer10]

limbaugh has nothing to so w/ this topic...go to bed then dry out before you look more a fool for spouting irrelevant garbage to cause yourself further embarrassment

[JTODD57]

HOW DID THIS PRIVATE 1ST CLASS DUMB ASS BECOME A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE ANY WAY ???

[stuart-johns2]

Good question.

[stuart-johns2]

by summarex October 19, 2009 8:23 PM EDT
This is really turning into a crazy country. If you punch out a homosexual who makes advances at you, you get charged with a hate crime. But if you're a racist piece of garbage and deny a couple a marriage license because you don't like the race of one of them, you don't even get arrested. I guess it sez a lot about who owns this country.
==================

Summerex. If he had siad I refuse to marry black people because I hate nijjers, as an example, he would have violated the law on the grounds he discriminated on the basis of race.

Thats not what he did. I know its hard to see. It is a fine line agreed. But never-the-less, he did not say that. He did not marry them out of concern for the future quality of life of their bi-racial children. THAT is not against the law.

[sandy19731]

Why do men who have other men need to punch them out? I'm a woman, men come on to me - I just say, "No thanks".

[IndianEd]

And since 40% of the marriages in this country end in divorce, is is then required, using that logic, to refuse to perform 40% of marriages requested of him. How utterly moronic.

[stuart-johns2]

by IndianEd October 19, 2009 9:15 PM EDT
And since 40% of the marriages in this country end in divorce, is is then required, using that logic, to refuse to perform 40% of marriages requested of him. How utterly moronic

=====================

I am sorry but your are really stretching here. Your argument is extraneous.

[massenga]

what a crock...can't you read?? Loving v. Virginia, 1967, made it illegal NOT to marry persons of different races. "quality of life of 'bi-racial' children'" is not only irrelevant as an argument, it is entirely racist. Fire that SOB _now_.

[writer10]

by IndianEd October 19, 2009 9:15 PM EDT
And since 40% of the marriages in this country end in divorce, is is then required, using that logic, to refuse to perform 40% of marriages requested of him. How utterly moronic

because people don't take committment seriously and view it as disposable, which is disturbing, to say the least, however it's certainly ot for this JOP to determine who will or will not make it, especially based on the very stupid issue of color??? what a complete idiot - people are...or should be just that...people...we all bleed and hurt physically and even more importantly, emotionally based on *****'s like this guy...get rid of this racial tension fueling ba$****...

[bill0bob]

"It is a fine line agreed. But never-the-less, he did not say that. He did not marry them out of concern for the future quality of life of their bi-racial children. THAT is not against the law. "

You are WRONG, and you are an idiot to keep repeating your stupid attempt at making a distinction where there is none. It's like saying "I didn't discriminate against latinos by refusing to hire them, I only did it because their relatives don't speak English." It's illegal discrimination based on race. There is no way to argue around that. If you can't figure that out, then you should just shut up. You sound like a complete imbecile.

[stuart-johns2]

Judges and Justices of the Peace are not required by law to not have personal feelings. But on the same token, by law, they are not allowed to let them sway legal opinions on matters.

Since the law acknowledges that it is natural for men to have emotions and opinions and feelings, and since the law also says that those opinions cannot sway legal decisions, it addresses this matter by allowing Judges to recuse themselves from cases where a Judge feels his biases would wrongly and unfairly affect the outcome of a case.

This recusal process protects the Judge, the plaintiff, the respondent and the integrity of the Judicial process. The law allows him to refuse to sit on a case, or in this case, perform a judicial function of the courts or the Judicial system and he need not give a reason why. Conflict of interest is enough.

[summarex]

This is really turning into a crazy country. If you punch out a homosexual who makes advances at you, you get charged with a hate crime. But if you're a racist piece of garbage and deny a couple a marriage license because you don't like the race of one of them, you don't even get arrested. I guess it sez a lot about who owns this country.

[stuart-johns2]

If he had said I won't marry a blackman he would have violated the law. You must understand what he did and see the difference here.

[massenga]

Too bad most women aren't as strong as the ostensibly hetero men who "make advances" to them, a lot more of those so-called "men" would get "punched out, BTW the term now for persons of same-sex attraction is "gay," since "homosexual" is becoming pejorative. And apparently it never occurred to your sensitive soul that women are gay, too. As for you I suggest an education beyond third grade, assuming you are educable.

[stuart-johns2]

This man did not violate any law. He has the legal right to recuse himself from performing his duties due to conflicts of interests just as a judge has that right. He need not be required to give a reason why. That, according to the law, is legal. He did not deny them a license to marry, he simply denied to marry them, all well within his legal rights.

Where he went wrong was uttering those seemingly racist remarks regarding bi-racial children. I think those remarks certainly had the undertones of racism. And yet, those remarks violated no law.

I know everyone wants to tar and feather this idiot and I agree he is a fool. But the only violation really was in exercising his free speech, he forgot about the responsibility that goes with it and hence rightfully incurred the wrath of the nation. But he did not violate any law.

I know that's difficult for a good portion of you to accept but those are the facts. It sucks I know. But it's the law.

He did not refuse to marry them because of their bi-racial status. He refused to marry them because he was concerned about the future of their bi-racial children. That is not a violation of the law and the distinction needs to be made.

I do not agree with this man's attitude, but again, while it SEEMS unlawful, none of you can show me anywhere where his actions violated the law. Any defense attorney worth his weight in salt could confirm this and successfully defend this man.

Sorry folks. But that's the law. Again, he did not refuse to marry and so discriminate based on race. He refused to marry based on his concerns for bi-racial children. BIG BIG difference.

[sandy19731]

I guess he was afraid the child may grow up to be president.

[monmon-2009]

"He did not refuse to marry them because of their bi-racial status. He refused to marry them because he was concerned about the future of their bi-racial children. That is not a violation of the law and the distinction needs to be made."

In reply to this statement made by stuart-johns2, October 19, 2009 8:20 PM EDT, if he was so concerned about the future of their bi-racial children, why did he refer them to another judge? He simply is a racist, pure and simple. He just did not wear the hood.

[dblbar1]

article states he "wouldn't issue a license to or preside over the nuptials for" this couple....

By refusine the license, isn't that a violation of their rights? I agree, its all in how he chose to word his refusal however, surely he should have anticipated this issue arising over a 30 year period of time.....if it so goes against his beliefs/conscience, he should not have accepted the job....

[mick7744]

By that logic(?) a Justice of the Peace could refuse to marry any couple of any race that was, in his judgement, too unattractive to ever produce anything but extremely ugly children.

He's only trying to beautify America! (by illegal means)

[tonyatq]

Gov 101: He broke the law. When the Supreme court make a ruling it has to be obeyed. Concern about he kids does not excuse him, Idiot. By the way was is he going support these kids financially. If he were a priest or a minister he could have done that.

[redwilma]

I hope he's kicked off the bench immediately. He's an embarassment to the State of Louisiana and to the country!

[stuart-johns2]

by redwilma October 19, 2009 8:03 PM EDT
I hope he's kicked off the bench immediately. He's an embarassment to the State of Louisiana and to the country!
------------------

I agree he is an embarassment. No doubt there. And not to bright either.

[USA_is_back]

Doesn't this make him an "activist judge" the right is always ranting about? Didn't he "legislate from the bench"?

[wadyaknow]

I don't think Germans should marry French people. There would be too much invasion of personal space.

[cbsblogger]

Isn't this based upon the same philosophy that some pharmacists have used to avoid filling morning after pills. It is still wrong.

Speaking of racism this JP has nothing over the Israelis who claim it is treasonous for a Jew to marry a Palestinian. They have groups of young brown shirts to ensure it doesn't happen and that the blood lines aren't contaminated. Racism by any against any is still racism.

http://www.silobreaker.com/in-israel-intermarriage-viewed-as-treason-5_2262625716841480204