Judge Defends Denied Interracial Marriage

La. Justice of the Peace Who Wouldn't Marry Interracial Couple Says He Doesn't See What's Wrong, Now that They're Married

(CBS)  The Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to marry an interracial couple said on "The Early Show" he doesn't see what the problem is with what he did now, because the couple is already married.

"I'm sorry, you know, that I offended the couple, but I did help them and tell them who to go to and to get married," he said. "And they went and got married, and they should be happily married, and I don't see what the problem is now."

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, said he refused to perform the ceremony because of his concern for the future of the couple's children.

Bardwell told "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith, "I've had countless numbers of people that was born in that situation, and that they claim that the blacks or the whites didn't accept the children. And I didn't want to put the children in that position."

Bardwell also said he does not issue marriage licenses, he just performs the ceremonies.

"I recused myself of performing the ceremony. A judge is legally -- can recuse himself of hearing a case or marrying people," he said.

However, according to Humphrey, Bardwell wouldn't issue them a marriage license. Humphrey says she initially spoke to Bardwell's wife, who said her husband would not issue the license because they are an interracial couple.

Humphrey said, "I was just completely shocked. I had no words."

McKay added, "He's not going to marry us because your black, and I'm white. ... It's 2009."

Bardwell denied on "The Early Show" that he broke any laws.

"The law says that I cannot deny mixed race marriages," he said. "And that means prevent them from getting married. And I did not prevent them getting married."

But would Bardwell refuse anyone else a marriage ceremony?

Initially, he said he would not refuse a couple on any other grounds, but then corrected himself, saying, for example, he would refuse to marry a couple if one -- or both of them -- was intoxicated.

"I can recuse myself and tell them to come back when they're sober," he said. "That's legal."

Smith also reacted to a statement by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who said a nine-member commission that reviews lawyers and judges in the state should investigate and take immediate "disciplinary action," including "the revoking of his license."

Bardwell countered on "The Early Show" that he doesn't have a license.
"I'm an elected official," he said. "So he quite didn't know what he was talking about by losing my license."

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.

Humphrey and McKay are now mulling legal action against Bardwell.

[overlarry]

I loved seeing Mr. Bardwell on national television, demonstrating his lack of command of the English language; and I loved reading stuart-john2's comments demonstrating HIS lack of (1) neurons and (2) command of English grammar and spelling.

Note to posters: If you can't spell or if you write like you speak (ie, a moron); give us a break.

I wonder if Mr. Bardwell would refuse to marry a couple who are hillbilly-stupid and have no likelihood of providing a child with a good education and a basic quality of life. Isn't that bad for children also?

[dicerotops]

IN DEFENSE OF THE JUDGE

What did he really do that was wrong? He hurt someone's feelings. That's it. He didn't deny the couple anything. He disagreed with interracial marriages, recused himself, and another judge was able to perform the ceremony the same day. They were not denied any service based on race. I hope that they lose their case and the judge is eventually able to go on with life. He made a bad decision perhaps (every judge has in his life), but there was no racism here as nothing was denied to this interracial couple.

[hhhhh-----]

I feel the judge did what he thought was right. LaCrosse County in Wisconsin takes children away from disabled parents and poor , adopts them out to wealthy famlies that cant have children of their own, the LaCrosse Tribune even did a story on how LaCrosse is very racist and Reid Magney the one that wrote the facts on this county got canned cuz of it. Justice isnt perfect if it was Guvernment would not get away with baby celling nor would innocent people who are writing the truth on government get canned. Why cant I have a story done on baby selling? That black #### had one done and the good news for then is County never took their kids... Deal with it ####.....

[hhhhh-----]

I feel the judge did what he thought was right. LaCrosse County in Wisconsin takes children away from disabled parents and poor , adopts them out to wealthy famlies that cant have children of their own, the LaCrosse Tribune even did a story on how LaCrosse is very racist and Reid Magney the one that wrote the facts on this county got canned cuz of it. Justice isnt perfect if it was Guvernment would not get away with baby celling nor would innocent people who are writing the truth on government get canned. Why cant I have a story done on baby selling? That black #### had one done and the good news for then is County never took their kids... Deal with it ####.....

[sam-kiley]

bonjour
Bardwell, who's held his post more than 30 years, said he refused to perform the ceremony because of his concern for the future of the couple's children.
monsieur le juge vous parlez de l'avenir du couple et de leur éventuels enfants..comme s'ils s'agissait du premier mariage mixte.il yr'n eu des milliers aux states ..et d'un..
d'u autre coté ils sont assez grands et responsables, et de deux..
la loi existe..il fallait se contenter de les marier et ne pas chercher midi a quatorze heures et de trois....quand a ce qui pourrait se passer a l'avenir..seul le seigneur le sait et de quatre...il faut etre optimiste et fin...au revoir
félicitations au couple.

[catzop]

The judge says, "he feels that he has done nothing wrong, so, therefore, he should not apologize"..... I am very sorry, but, the conscience is not the ultimate standard of moral goodness. Unbelievers should know these things.

[pensacola8-2009]

I am quite certain that if this judge had spent more time in college and acquired his degree in law and received a license from the state, his behavior would have taken a different direction.

Education does have a way to wash away personal prejudice and balance the constitutional rights of citizens in favor of allowing citizens themselves to make their decisions about starting a family and choosing a home.

Judge Keith Bardwell exhibited no education, but instead pure prejudice and arrogance in the way he discharges his duties.

Children of mixed parents only encounter problems when their environment is teaching that to be their role. I have raised bi-racial children and spent a short time in nearby St. Tammany parish and had to move away from the horrible racism that was damaging my children's esteems.

I hope Mr. Bardwell can find a way to allow God to change his heart. There is no future in re-living the George Wallace legacy of segregation.

Everything derives from the fact that one party to the contract is black. The issue of biracial birth would not otherwise arise in his decision. The issue of future treatment of the product of such a union would not arise. The issue of longevity of union would not otherwise arise in his decision. He is not, by federal law, allowed to make that consideration in his decision. His intention, his earnestness, his sincerity, even the matter of whether he was elected, appointed, licensed or conjured is not germane. It is not a mitigating factor to argue that the offended party was able to acquire redress elsewhere. To accept that argument would be to allow a restaurant owner to deny service to a black person based upon there being a nearby eating establishment that would give the party service. If the party indeed ate somewhere else, the owner would be off the hook. The same would be true of a bus driver's right to deny service to a black based upon the existence of a nearby bus stop where the party could await the arrival of a bus that would provide service. Surely no one would argue that if the offended person set foot on the other bus, the offending driver would be exonerated. It is not the offer of a substitute that is called for by the law; it is the refusal of equal access that violates that law. Even nice guys who have sincere reservations don't get to change that, not in this country.

[stuart-johns2]

by October 19, 2009 10:05 PM EDT
Everything derives from the fact that one party to the contract is black. The issue of biracial birth would not otherwise arise in his decision.
=======================

I am sorry but in a court of law, that argument would not work. Everything could derive from the fact that one party to the contract is white I would argue. I would ask the court what is the purpose of mentioning the color at all when we already know it is a bi-racial couple?

I would argue that you making that distinction you are discriminating against him.

[gramto8]

It seems to me that the same people that are supporting this JP in his decision to use his bias against this couple are the same people who were up in arms when they though Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor might be biased in her rulings. Don't you think it should work both ways?

[stuart-johns2]

Yes I do think that it should work both ways. But the difference is that she was not in official capacity then. This man is. And I was never up in arms regarding anything relating to Sotomayer.

[nubnvenus1]

A lot of people in this country need to learn the laws of this country, including all amendments. The laws should be explained for those who have problems associating fact and fiction. The really scary part is that we send people to government office that should be first in line for the class.

Discrimination is discrimination, it's not subjective. It is against the law in this country to discriminate against people for the reason this man did. If he does not know the law, and clearly he doesn't, he should not have been appointed to this position. Who appointed him and what are their biases?

[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.

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.

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.

[nubnvenus1]

Where did you get your law degree...you seem to be confusing conflict of interest with personal bias, which in this case was discriminatory. Was this man afraid their bi-racial children would grow up to become President. What state did you pass the bar in?

[spongekill]

I'm as far from a lawyer as you can get, but am wanting to understand this case out of pure curiosity (and boredom at work). So he can remove himself from a case for any reason, stated or not, correct? How then is he obligated not to deny marriage based on race, if he can back out of any marriage without having to say why? Or is it totally based on the honor system and the assumption that such bias would become obvious if he continuted to act on it?

Also, I think it's important to note that while his concern is allegedly that neither whites nor blacks fully accept mixed race children, he bluntly stated that he doesn't "believe in mixing the races in that way" ( http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/2114-marriage-permission-denied-to-interracial-couple ) which I feel like is a pretty undeniable expression of a discriminatory philosophy, malicious or not.

[stuart-johns2]

by snh01 October 19, 2009 5:17 PM EDT
BTW I am an attorney

===============
You're a liar.

[snh01]

Wrong again

[stuart-johns2]

I seriously doubt it. In fact, I am certain I am right.

[stuart-johns2]

You know what. The majority of posts on this board reflect the scary ignorance possessed by so many. I can see that the point I was making just went WAY OVER most of your heads. You guys just have no clue and you love to criticize that which you disagree with. I am not impressed with you..well...some of you.

You don't even take the time to read the board before you go off on a tangent criticizing others. And perhaps it does'nt matter for you lack the intelligence to understand anyway.

I know the law and I know much of you who commented on my posts totally mis-quoted what I said, mis-understood it, and deliberately chose to simply want to argue.

There is no way an intelligent person who understands law would disagree woith anything I said. But all you hiding behind the monitor wanna be lawyers think you know better than I do. How pathetic.

You people don't want to learn anything. You people want a platform ti air your ignorance. You really believe you know what you are talking about. How sad.

[snh01]

BTW I am an attorney

[TPS2]

Lighten up bad ass

[CompletelyFrustrated]

Can him, impeach him do whatever it takes to get this bigoted fool out of office!! He does not deserve to be there.

He violated his oath of office and should be barred from holding any local or federal office again.

[tewatkins1717]

This isn't free speech. Anyone who has half a brain and understands law and how these officials are elected and serve knows this is not free speech. Federal law prohibits this and you can bet the Justice Department is on the case. As an elected official, he has to follow the constitution of the United States and the State of Louisiana. He is history. OK, so he takes a shot at the Governor for not knowing he is elected and not licensed. So what, impeach him then. And, sorry all you that think he has a right to deny services. HE IS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL! That places him in a position that requires him not to discriminate. He's toast! He's also about as sharp as a bowling ball. He can't even construct proper sentences or use proper language. He's an idiot!

[stuart-johns2]

He did not discriminate. You do not understand.

[spongekill]

Demonizing this idiot accomplishes nothing besides bolstering one's own ego, which is a waste of time and if anything only perpetuates the problem by refusing to address it head-on. The solution to this issue is to explain in clear, explicit terms why he is wrong and why he doesn't realize it. Incidents like this continue to happen (the Texan woman who suggested Asians adopt "easier" last names) not because they want to demean or oppress, but rather because they are simply clueless. And unfortunately it's up to everyone else to give them a clue, otherwise nothing will ever change. It's simple human nature to draw conclusions based on what you know, and if your realm of experience doesn't cross paths with a lot of other sorts of people, you are very likely going to have a skewed perception of those people.

Look at the debate that has formed, it's between those who want to tar & feather him, and those who think he is exercising "free speech". No one is going to come out of this any better- Bardwell will feel he has been suppressed and his critics will imagine they have vanquished a worthless scum of a man.. neither of these is accurate, least of all by the ideals that are allegedly the foundation of American society.

[jxknowles]

Keith Bardwell is a racist. Racists are morons. Keith Bardwell is a moron.

[tomanyt]

by Len_RI October 19, 2009 1:13 PM EDT
So by your argument, if the Secretary of Defense decided that he didn't believe black people should serve in the military, it would be OK for him to order the discharge of all blacks on free speech grounds? .... He has a right to say what he wants. Taking action based on that belief is something all together different.

[scubbasteve01]

Keith Bardwell local supporter of the Klu Klux Klan.

[MPHgrad]

His argument would be valid if conception was determined by marital status. However, since the millions of babies born to unwed couples prove otherwise, his rationale is rather irrational.
Nonetheless, he has a right to his beliefs, though the legality of his actions is questionable. I suppose it is not very different from pharmacists who refuse to dispense Plan B or RU 486. Still, in most of those cases, there are personal morality laws which protect the pharmacists. To my knowledge, none exists in Louisiana or any other state which would shield Bardwell on legal or legal/moral loophole grounds.

[Cru09]

Throw him out, the 21st century doesn't need him.
His assumption that he could predict that nature of their childbearing skills based on race should be grounds for expulsion.

Can him! Next story!

[Len_RI]

Dear Stuart-Johns2:

The distinction you are trying to draw in plain enaough. You are, however, wrong.

A justice of the peace, in Louisiana, is an elected official who like all elected officials must be sworn in and take an oath of office. In doing so. Bardwell swore to (1) uphold the law and (2) faithfully discharge the obligations of his office.

The law is that people cannot be denied the right to marry on the basis of the fact that one is black and the other white. See the U.S. Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia.

You seem to place credence on Bardwell's stated concern about children, and you assert that this distinction somehow makes his refusal to discharge the obligations of his office acceptable because it isn't about the race of the couple. That's not the law, my friend. You can't refuse to marry a couple based on their race, period. It doesn't matter whether your refusal is based on your disfavor of the bi-racial children that result, or based on some misguided notion of what the bible says, or based on just pure hatred of miscegenation. It doesn't matter.

In short, the distinction you are drawing is clear enough, but is not recognized by the law.

[snh01]

Nicely said.

[stuart-johns2]

You seem to have not read all my posts, are not able to read (which I doubt) or choose to ignor and just criticize. I was wrong in your opinion. The fact is, I am not wrong. I know full well what I am talking about.

That he denied one black and one white person to marry had nothing to do with any post I wrote. I placed no creedence on any argument this man made. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Please, learn to read and think before you so quickly tell someone else they are wrong. If I am wrong to you, you have not the capacity to understand the law. Sorry about that.

[nubnvenus1]

There is still hope for the world...You tell 'em Len. You know just like you can't get a drunk man to understand he's drunk, you can't get an idiot to see he's an idiot.

[stuart-johns2]

by nubnvenus1 October 20, 2009 12:46 AM EDT
There is still hope for the world...You tell 'em Len. You know just like you can't get a drunk man to understand he's drunk, you can't get an idiot to see he's an idiot.
--------------
Well you can get help for both of those problems if you really want to.