BATON ROUGE, La., Nov. 3, 2009
Judge Who Nixed Interracial Marriage Quits
Louisiana Justice Admits He Routinely Denied Interracial Marriages
-
Keith Bardwell on The Early Show. (CBS)
Keith Bardwell, who is white, quit the post with a one-sentence statement to Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne and no explanation of his decision: "I do hereby resign the office of Justice of the Peace for the Eighth Ward of Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, effective November 3, 2009."
Bardwell refused to perform the ceremony for Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay because they are of different races.
When questioned about his refusal, Bardwell acknowledged he routinely recuses himself from marrying interracial couples because he believes such marriages cause harm to the couples' children. In interviews, he said he refers such couples to other justices of the peace, who then perform the ceremony, which happened in this case.
Humphrey has said she and McKay received their marriage license from the parish clerk of court, where they also received a list of people qualified to perform the ceremony. When she called Bardwell's office to ask about the ceremony on Oct. 6, Humphrey said Bardwell's wife told her that the justice wouldn't sign their marriage license because they were a "mixed couple."
Bardwell didn't immediately return a call for comment Tuesday about his resignation, which followed calls for his ouster from several public officials, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu.
Humphrey and McKay have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Bardwell.
© MMIX, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 73 Comments
- He should have stood for his rights,not the ACLU Gestapos.
- Reply to this comment
- Shame that he couldn't have stayed on and nixed more.His life was probably threatened by ACLU.This would be their speed.
- Reply to this comment
- Not sure if justices of the peace are elected officials or whether they apply for the job, take an exam and get credentials (e.g., notary public).
Someone please correct me here. - Reply to this comment
- It's a good thing he quit because his actions were unjust. Obviously he has only read certain portions of the Bible when formulating his opinion.
Matthew 22:37-40 (New International Version)
Jesus replied: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. - Reply to this comment
- He quit. Good.
- Reply to this comment
- He needs councelling; who is he to play god?
- Reply to this comment
- I am an ordained minister and would refuse to perform a (so-called) marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple....What do you think of that America? Come on you politically correct wolves, surely you can think of SOMETHING inteligently sounding to insult me.
- Reply to this comment
-
- 1. Gay marriage is not legal in most states.
2. If you're marrying in the church, you probably wouldn't marry a Catholic and a Jew either.
3. My opinion is marriage should be relegated to the church and the church only.
- While it might be fine for you to not marry a gay couple based on your understanding of the Bible. But do you find anywhere in your Bible teaches that people of different races should not marry? I don't find it in mine, and I hold a Master of Divinity degree. DO you?
- This article was about inter-racial marriage. There's a difference in what you are talking about. In case you didn't notice.
- Why?
You are a minister. You are not part of the government, and as a religion, you can choose to discriminate in whatever way you choose. You can refuse to perform ceremonies for Catholics, Jews, Muslims, members of other churches - really, almost any criteria at all can be used.
He was a public official. They are NOT allowed to discriminate.
- "something intelligently sounding"? I don't even know what that means. Anyway, I don't concern myself with being "politically correct." Just correct. But since this is the story you chose to post on, it is evident that you are opposed to inter-racial marriages, as well, so why don't you try posting something "intelligently sounding" and on topic?
- by C G Bartlett November 4, 2009 12:20 AM EST
I am an ordained minister and would refuse to perform a (so-called) marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple....What do you think of that America?
---------------------------
Would you marry a woman to a person who is genetically and legally female, but who (due to abnormal hormone levels before birth) appears to be a male and has naturally formed male genitalia?
- There are two separate issues here. It is hard to be sympathetic toward a man who refuses to marry interracial couples, because he's WRONG...but the second issue is, how much power should the state have, to force people to do things that people believe to be wrong?
The conscience exists for a reason, we should not be casual about demanding the right to override peoples' conscience. How can we know other than by hindsight (if then even) when conscientious objectors are wrong or right?
- 1. Gay marriage is not legal in most states.
- While I don't agree with him, I acknowledge his right to do what he feels comfortable with. He did refer them to someone who would perform the ceremony. This couple should just move on.
- Reply to this comment
-
- So, someone who owns a store should be able to refuse to sell stuff to people who are the wrong color?
"There's a guy down the street who serves your type. Go see him."
Classy.
- by joule3 November 3, 2009 10:44 PM EST
This couple should just move on.
==========================
They did. And so did the judge.
- No. Our government officials are not allowed to be racist and tell members of some races that they must go elsewhere for public services.
- daffy, if a store owner refused to sell stuff to people who were the wrong color, and that violated what the majority felt, there would be a boycott.
Look - this judge has been pressured to quit. He is in violation of the community's standards, and there is an outcry. A special law to punish him is not needed.
And if that did NOT violate what the majority felt, then no matter how many laws you pass, the odds are those laws are not going to get much respect, they'll be sabotaged.
The law is not the cure for these sorts of social ills, and misusing the law has given us short-term gains but long-term heartache.
Meanwhile, there is something very disturbing about granting govt the power to overrule and punish people for listening to their own sense of right & wrong. Mindless majority rule is not always a good thing.
- So, someone who owns a store should be able to refuse to sell stuff to people who are the wrong color?
- What a novel idea, June Carter. You don't think judges should have to follow the law. You think they should be able to make it up as they go along, according to their "personal convictions". How cute! Furthermore, you describe a lawsuit launched to uphold Constitutional Law as "frivilous". Well, hot dang - you must be a Republican!
- Reply to this comment
- Mr. Bardwell: While I disagree with you that interracial marriages are necessarily bad for children, I support your decision to deny the marriage based on your own personal convictions. It's the USA. We are free to make such decisions. A frivilous lawsuit and the Gov. and Senator jumping on the bandwagon for popularity with voters is embarrassing for the State of Lousiana and the USA in general as it undermines the process of freedom of thought. I am with you. You have my support. If a lawsuit ensues, you have my financial support as well for a legal defense. Just contact me at junecartercash63@yahoo.com Thank you for your public service.
- Reply to this comment
- Was he required to perform marriages??
- Reply to this comment
-
- He was absolutely required to marry qualified applicants.He did not so he quit before he could be removed.
- It was part of his job to issue marriage certificates. Previously married individuals, serially married individuals, 17 year olds with a note from the parents, convicts and the mentally infirm are all okee-dokee -- as long as their the same race.
I wonder if you're a Hispanic couple, one being lighter and one being darker skinned would have a problem. Man, what if one is an Indian and one is Native American? Can you always tell the difference? What if a couple where one person is already of mixed race and one is not? Asians and caucasians? Where do you draw the line?
- "Who is more of a biggot..............you or the ex judge? "
To whom are you addressing that question? - Reply to this comment
- Ah, yes ... well, that's a common New Republican way of putting it ... that following and upholding the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and following the law of the land is being "politically correct" and "brainwashed". And with that comment, folks, you have the philosophy of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush nicely wrapped up, in a nutshell.
- Reply to this comment
- billorights - it appears you are not very familiar with the history of the dixiecrats yourself. They _were_ democrats until the Democratic Party came out in favor of civil rights. Then the racists, led by their candidate Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, formed the Dixiecrat Party to fight for the preservation of segregation. When they lost the election, they all joined the Republican Party. Son, it's best not to quote history if you aren't familiar with it. You end up demonstrating your ignorance.
- Reply to this comment
- This cracker bastard needed to go.
When one serves the state, one's personal opinions have no gravity whatsoever.
The law does. - Reply to this comment
- Ummm .... Gitano ... respectfully, as a citizen you are entitled to your opinions (however unAmerican they may be). So is Bardwell ... as a _citizen_ - but NOT as a judge. There is no mystery here - his job is to follow the law. He chose not to. Furthermore - news flash for ya: the people who "wear the big people panties" are the ones who FOLLOW THE LAW and respect the Constitution. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not ... it's the foundation of our system (thank God for small blessings!)
- Reply to this comment
- He deserved to be fired but he did the right thing to quit. He is RACIST and I hope his license is revoked. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Why do you applaud him? If he really had any backbone at all, then back in 1960 or whenever Louisiana finally got rid of their last anti-mixed race laws, he would have stated that he could no longer uphold a law he didn't believe in, and resigned then. THAT would have been having backbone. Instead, he kept his no-doubt lucrative position and spent the rest of his career trying to have his cake and eat it too - keep the job and money, and keep the old-style laws that were repealed years ago. That's being wishy-washy and spineless.
- Maybe he read the CBS news article about 90% of black children in America being on food stamps and was simply trying to do something about it.
- Reply to this comment
- Byb Byb Bubba.
- Reply to this comment
- I hope he took his Jim Crow laws with him.
- Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
