Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.


SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#1
A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

--

I thought this sort of thing disappeared with George Wallace and Jim Crow. Evidently it is still the in thing, the respectable thing to do in some parts of the Bible Belt.
 
TenPenny
#2
Interesting. I wonder what leeway issuers of marriage licenses have to deny the license.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#3
Licence refused for being seen in Louisiana as licentious?
 
TenPenny
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Licence refused for being seen in Louisiana as licentious?

Look, lady, Louisiana limits licentious living.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#5
It would be illegal here in Canada, and I am pretty sure it is illegal in USA as well. I don’t think it is at the discretion of Justice of the Peace as to whom he can grant a marriage license.

There are certain criteria that a couple has to fulfill so they can get married, and race of the couple isn’t one of them. I am pretty sure he was breaking the law. Anyway, a lawsuit has been filed against him; we will see how it turns out.

Interestingly, we had the same argument here not long ago, about gay marriages. The verdict was that Justice of the Peace or magistrate or whoever, cannot refuse to marry gays, if they did that, they could well be fired from the job.
 
TenPenny
Avatar
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Interestingly, we had the same argument here not long ago, about gay marriages. The verdict was that Justice of the Peace or magistrate or whoever, cannot refuse to marry gays, if they did that, they could well be fired from the job.

But I believe that a minister/priest does have the right to refuse to marry a gay couple, on religious grounds.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

But I believe that a minister/priest does have the right to refuse to marry a gay couple, on religious grounds.


A priest or a minister has the absolute right to marry anybody he chooses. He has the right to refuse to marry interracial couples. Even if a couple is not legally entitled to marry, the priest still may marry them. Thus United Church used to perform gay weddings long before they became legal. Such weddings wouldn’t have any legal significance, of course. But the point is, a priest or a minister is a private citizen and may do as he wishes.

A Justice of Peace on the other hand, is representative of the government and as such is bound by the laws. If the law says that interracial marriage (or gay marriage) is legal, then a representative of the government may not refuse to marry such couples. However, a private citizen (minister or a priest) may marry whomever he chooses.
 
EagleSmack
Avatar
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

But I believe that a minister/priest does have the right to refuse to marry a gay couple, on religious grounds.

In the end...these two will get married. This guy just didn't want to marry them.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

In the end...these two will get married. This guy just didn't want to marry them.


They have already got married, EagleSmack. But that is not the issue. The issue is, should a representative of government be allowed to discriminate based upon race?
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

It would be illegal here in Canada, and I am pretty sure it is illegal in USA as well. I don’t think it is at the discretion of Justice of the Peace as to whom he can grant a marriage license.

There are certain criteria that a couple has to fulfill so they can get married, and race of the couple isn’t one of them. I am pretty sure he was breaking the law. Anyway, a lawsuit has been filed against him; we will see how it turns out.

Interestingly, we had the same argument here not long ago, about gay marriages. The verdict was that Justice of the Peace or magistrate or whoever, cannot refuse to marry gays, if they did that, they could well be fired from the job.

In fact, the Justice could (and should) be charged under Federal US law for denying the couple their civil rights.
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

They have already got married, EagleSmack. But that is not the issue. The issue is, should a representative of government be allowed to discriminate based upon race?

No he should not be allowed to deny them a license.....however, if he found it morally repugnant to perform the ceremony itself (for any reason), he should be allowed to send them down the street.......

There is the line, IMHO.
 
EagleSmack
Avatar
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

They have already got married, EagleSmack. But that is not the issue. The issue is, should a representative of government be allowed to discriminate based upon race?

He's a JP. He has married black couples before...he just does not like to marry mixed races.

He will most likely lose his JP status if what he did was against the law.

But why would you post this? You are the biggest racist in here. There is no difference than you and him.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post


But why would you post this? You are the biggest racist in here. There is no difference than you and him.

We have been through this before, EagleSmack, if a conservative says that I am a racist, then my views about race are just right, considering the fact that blacks shun conservatives like they shun the black plague, most blacks find conservatism as repugnant as they would find Nazism.

So if a conservative says I am a racist, that means that my views on race are just right. If a conservative were to say that I am not a racist, then I would be worried.
 
EagleSmack
Avatar
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

We have been through this before, EagleSmack, if a conservative says that I am a racist, then my views about race are just right,

In your opinion.

Quote:

considering the fact that blacks shun conservatives like they shun the black plague, most blacks find conservatism as repugnant as they would find Nazism.

Stereotyping African Amercans... racist

Calling African Americans "black"... racist

Quote:

So if a conservative says I am a racist, that means that my views on race are just right. If a conservative were to say that I am not a racist, then I would be worried.

Many in here were offended by you saying women of color around the world should look up to Michelle Obama because you said "she is as dark as they come" declared your statement was ignorant and racist. Which is what it was...bigot.

You see, if you had said Michelle Obama should be looked up to by ALL woman around the world because of her accomplishments you wouldn't be so chastised.

But instead you said women of color in third world nations should look up to Michelle because she "is as dark as they come". You judged her by the color of her skin. Totally racist and very ignorant.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

In your opinion.



Stereotyping African Amercans... racist

Calling African Americans "black"... racist


Again, just your opinion, EagleSmack. And coming from a conservative (whose philosophy blacks despise as they would despise Nazism), I wear it as a badge of honour.

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Many in here were offended by you saying women of color around the world should look up to Michelle Obama because you said "she is as dark as they come" declared your statement was ignorant and racist. Which is what it was...bigot.
.

Not many, it was you who shed the crocodile tears over it. It was a perfectly reasonable comment. Indeed, the fact that you consider it racist shows to me that it was a reasonable comment.

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

You see, if you had said Michelle Obama should be looked up to by ALL woman around the world because of her accomplishments you wouldn't be so chastised.

.

But that is not what I meant to say. The article quoted specifically said that many third world women look up to Michelle Obama, precisely because she looks like them, she is dark skinned like them. And I don’t see anything wrong with that. Indeed, the fact that you think it is wrong tells me that there is nothing wrong with that. Because your philosophy, your ideas of racism are rejected by more than 90% of blacks.

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

But instead you said women of color in third world nations should look up to Michelle because she "is as dark as they come". You judged her by the color of her skin. Totally racist and very ignorant.

Totally reasonable and proper. That is what the article quoted by me said, and I agreed with it. If she had been white, I seriously doubt that third world women would have looked up to her. They did not look up to Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton etc. They look up to Michelle Obama precisely because she looks like them.

The fact that you think that is racist, tells me that it is not racist. Also that really demonstrates why blacks reject your idea of racism by more than 90%.

Anyway, I don’t want to turn this thread into the other thread about Michelle Obama, so I won’t answer any further posts from you about that thread. If you want to continue this discussion, post it in the appropriate thread.

But I stand by everything I said in that thread.
 
EagleSmack
Avatar
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Again, just your opinion, EagleSmack. And coming from a conservative (whose philosophy blacks despise as they would despise Nazism),

More sterotyping...more racism.

Saying all "blacks" despise conservatives is not only false but stereotypical racism.

Quote:

I wear it as a badge of honour.

Just like the aryan nation. You're no different.


Quote:

Not many, it was you who shed the crocodile tears over it. It was a perfectly reasonable comment. Indeed, the fact that you consider it racist shows to me that it was a reasonable comment.

Sure they did. Go read them...I bumped it.


Quote:

But that is not what I meant to say.

Sure it was and you DID say it.

Quote:

The article quoted specifically said that many third world women look up to Michelle Obama, precisely because she looks like them, she is dark skinned like them. And I don’t see anything wrong with that. Indeed, the fact that you think it is wrong tells me that there is nothing wrong with that.

The article itself was looked at as ignorant (particularly among women in India)... your take is racist.

Quote:

Because your philosophy, your ideas of racism are rejected by more than 90% of blacks.

A double dose of racism.

I bet you wouldn't shout out what you wrote to a gathering of African Americans.


Quote:

Totally reasonable and proper. That is what the article quoted by me said, and I agreed with it. If she had been white, I seriously doubt that third world women would have looked up to her. They did not look up to Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton etc.

Of course you think that. That is why you are a racist and an elitest.

Quote:

They look up to Michelle Obama precisely because she looks like them.

Them! THEM!

LMAO.

You're such a bigot.

Quote:

The fact that you think that is racist, tells me that it is not racist. Also that relay demonstrates why blacks reject your idea of racism by more than 90%.


Oooo.. I doubt that.

Quote:

Anyway, I don’t want to turn this thread into the other thread about Michelle Obama, so I won’t answer any further posts from you about that thread. If you want to continue this discussion, post it in the appropriate thread.

But I stand by everything I said in that thread.

I am sure you do stand by your racist views.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

The issue is, should a representative of government be allowed to discriminate based upon race?

No, the issue is your trolling. That is why you ended your OP with, "Evidently it is still the in thing, the respectable thing to do in some parts of the Bible Belt." and it is why your post was reported.
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

No, the issue is your trolling. That is why you ended your OP with, "Evidently it is still the in thing, the respectable thing to do in some parts of the Bible Belt." and it is why your post was reported.

Yeah, I caught that.....but I don't report anything.

Unlike the idiot in question, I know being offended is just something you have to put up with if you want a free exchange of ideas, or just simple freedom of speech, for that matter.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Yeah, I caught that.....but I don't report anything.

Unlike the idiot in question, I know being offended is just something you have to put up with if you want a free exchange of ideas, or just simple freedom of speech, for that matter.

I'm not the least bit offended by Pompass. I think he's hilarious. The mods have said that trolling has gotten out of hand and want it to end. I'm just helping them out by pointing it out.
 
EagleSmack
Avatar
#20
Well this is his MO. This is what gets him off. He's a troll. He starts threads to get reactions from people. We answer them because we get a kick out of making him look like the silly little house husband that he is.
 
AnnaG
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

--

I thought this sort of thing disappeared with George Wallace and Jim Crow. Evidently it is still the in thing, the respectable thing to do in some parts of the Bible Belt.

Must be hard up for news.
YAWN
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#22
[QUOTE]
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Again, just your opinion, EagleSmack. And coming from a conservative (whose philosophy blacks despise as they would despise Nazism), I wear it as a badge of honour.


Indeed, the fact that you consider it racist shows to me that it was a reasonable comment.

{quote]

Nothing like projecting your own prejudices, and promoting a racial stereotype.....that exists only in your own weird mind......what an idiot!
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

--

I thought this sort of thing disappeared with George Wallace and Jim Crow. Evidently it is still the in thing, the respectable thing to do in some parts of the Bible Belt.


SJP, This was one man who said he personally could not marry this couple, claims it is a sin (Freedom of Religion). What this means to his career remains to be seen, he shouldn't be put in this position again, never.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
Avatar
#24
I, too, am confused here.

One Guy has done this asinine thing four times over the span of his
career as a Justice of this Peace. How on Earth does this One Guy
being a Racist equate to his particular form of stupidity being "the
in thing & the respectable thing to do in some parts of the Bible Belt."
???

How many parts of "the Bible Belt" could this one Guy work & reside in,
to turn the actions of One Guy into "the in thing & the respectable thing
to do in some parts of the Bible Belt." ????
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#25
"1959 Louisiana supreme court upholds the state's miscegenation law, arguing that the state could protect the children from such marriages from "a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone" ( Zabel, 121 notes that this was a sarcastic verbal echo of the Supreme Court's 1954 school integration ruling in Brown v.Board of Education)".. The final word is "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."

I also wonder how he got away from facing Federal law, guess it didn't make the papers when he did it before. If the couple files now, he is toast.
 
TenPenny
Avatar
#26
[quote=ironsides;1161718]SJP, This was one man who said he personally could not marry this couple, claims it is a sin (Freedom of Religion). [quote]

I thought his issue was that inter racial marriages end in divorce, and the children aren't accepted by either race. I don't believe he claimed religious grounds, and I don't know why Sir TightAzzz had to bring up 'the bible belt', other than his perverse views on the world.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
Avatar
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

--

I thought this sort of thing disappeared with George Wallace and Jim Crow. Evidently it is still the in thing, the respectable thing to do in some parts of the Bible Belt.



Read Rons post about this guy and how does 4 times represent the Bible Belt- You are again showing your deep rooted prejudice for religion- Add up the total numbers of people in the Bible Belt- probaly 40 - 50 million - and one guy represents them all. While you may not be a racist your prejudice and hatred for religion stands out loud and clear -
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#28
[quote=TenPenny;1161747][quote=ironsides;1161718]SJP, This was one man who said he personally could not marry this couple, claims it is a sin (Freedom of Religion).
Quote:


I thought his issue was that inter racial marriages end in divorce, and the children aren't accepted by either race. I don't believe he claimed religious grounds, and I don't know why Sir TightAzzz had to bring up 'the bible belt', other than his perverse views on the world.

Sorry about the sin thing, got two stories mixed up.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
Avatar
#29
[quote=ironsides;1161753][quote=TenPenny;1161747]
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

SJP, This was one man who said he personally could not marry this couple, claims it is a sin (Freedom of Religion).

Sorry about the sin thing, got two stories mixed up.

Ironsides - When I was stationed in Germany many US soldiers told me that on some bases that certain Messes were segregated by choice - if you were to light you did not go into a certain Mess - same as if you were quite dark - The theme that I have seen and it is documented throughout US States are the cases where people could "Pass" for white - Terrible when you think of it -
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

SJP, This was one man who said he personally could not marry this couple, claims it is a sin (Freedom of Religion). What this means to his career remains to be seen, he shouldn't be put in this position again, never.


I agree, ironsides, he should be fired from his job. If the law say he cannot be fired (will the law also say that a JP who refuses to marry a Jew with a non Jew also cannot be fired?), then the law must be changed.
 

Similar Threads

5
Man refuses to marry interracial couple
by B00Mer | Oct 18th, 2009
32
Six Years of 9/11 as a License to Kill
by JBeee | Sep 14th, 2007
17
National Driver's License
by tawker | Feb 6th, 2006
68
The Right has a License to Write Anything
by moghrabi | Feb 14th, 2005
no new posts