La. interracial couple denied marriage license by justice of the peace
Lest we deceive ourselves into believing we live in a completely post-racial United States, there is this sad story from LA state:
(AP)HAMMOND, La. – 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.
Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.
“I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for the children.”
‘I feel the children will later suffer.’
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 don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”
If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press
. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.
Comments are closed.
Funny- “the children” are the biggest talking point of people to oppose marriage equality for gays and lesbians.
As one both fully supportive of the USCCB’s stance on protecting the intergrity of marriage, and a partner in an interracial marriage and the father of interracial children, let me say that I’m nearly as offended by Thom’s comment as Kieth Bardwell.
Well, then, Ben, maybe you need to look at this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?_r=1&hp
…and maybe you need to take a good look at the photo of the child that accompanies the article, and ask yourself if he looks neglected, unloved or unhappy. And maybe you then should ask yourself if that child should be denied full health coverage or full benefit of access to college funds saved by BOTH his parents, just because of what his parents are.
That’s unfortunate, Ben. Justice is justice.
While I think that Keith Bardwell acted very wrongly in his capacity of justice of the peace, I would not call him racist. Interracial couples have a higher divorce rate than couples of the same race, although not dramatically higher. There is evidence that mixed-race children have problems that other children do not have to the same degree. It is probably the case that mixed-race children (children with one white parent and one black parent) are not accepted by whites as whites or by blacks as black.
If Bardwell marries black couples and white couples with no objection, when he will not marry a mixed-race couple, which race is he discriminating against?
For those who want “strong conscience protection,” does that apply only when they agree with those who want a right to refuse to do something? I think this guy is wrong, but it also sounds to me like he is acting on his conscience.
There are still people in a number of faiths who object strenuously if someone in their family marries outside the faith. Is that religious bigotry?
I think it shows the extent of cultural diversity in the US. It is like we are an empire consisting of different nations.
Ben
While you might disagree with Thom, I can’t see any legitimate basis for you to be offended.
David,
This mess was brought to you by the Reformation. If couples were approaching their priest, and going through marriage preparation, issues related to differing family backgrounds would be sorted out and discussed and then, if they still wished to marry, they would receive the graces of the sacrament to help with problems down the road.
But . . . we can’t make people seek marriages only within the Church. The state has gotten involved, for better or worse. ;-) And thus, I don’t see how a representative of the state, such as a j.p., should be allowed to decide not to perform iinterracial marriages (because he believes they are bad for kids), not to perform third or fourth marriages (because he believes they are unlikely to last, plus being outside the teaching of the Church as to the meaning of marriage), not to perform same-sex marriages, where legal, (because he thinks they are bad for kids, unlikely to last, outside Church teaching, etc.).
Here’s a related question that I’ve never thought of before: is a Catholic justice of the peace permitted (by Church teaching) to perform weddings? if so, under what circumstances? is s/he permitted (by civil law) to refuse? if so, under what circumstances?
David, is this what you meant about conscience?
Am I incorrect in thinking that, if two people approach a justice of the peace with the correct documentation, that he HAD to marry them? “justices of the peace” in that country are allowed to pick and choose whom they will marry? Aren’t miscegenated marriages now protected by LAW in that country?!
David, is this what you meant about conscience?
R,
I am saying that misguided though I think this guy is, he seems to be refusing because his conscience tells him that any children from this marriage would be likely to have problems. It seems to me just as much a matter of conscience as a pharmacist who doesn’t want to dispense birth control pills.
My point is that we hear a lot from pro-lifers about respecting people’s consciences, but there are other issues of conscience besides ones involving reproductive matters. How many people who want to respect the consciences of workers are willing to back up this man who has made a decision of conscience?
You raise some interesting questions, though. What if a Catholic justice of the peace is asked to perform a civil marriage ceremony for two Catholics who do not intend to get married in the Church? Can he do so in good conscience? And if not, can he refuse?
I’m no surprised nobody has yet raised the obvious point. One of the pillars of southern institutionalized racism was a horror of “miscegenation”. This has dubious roots in really bad Protestant theology. The fear of the black man and the white woman was also what drove much racial violence, including lynching – a practice that the southerners in the US Senate (then Democrats) refused to ban as late as the 1920s.
From what I’ve read, it appears the justice of the peace was unwilling to celebrate. There were and are other justices of the peace that can celebrate the marriage. I use the word celebrate, because I guess there is a requirement of a ceremony. Also a justice of the peace in Louisiana I’m told isn’t quite the same as a judge. While not endorsing the action, I’m more inclined to let people indulge their inner kook and let social condemnation take its course rather than compel people to do basically saluatory acts that they don’t desire.
As for the racial aspects, Louisiana’s history is a little different than most of the South. Louisiana is one of the few places where we have recordings of black people owning slaves for example.
Justice is justice.
I agree 100%.
In a just society is BOTH not racist and respects the rights of the child to have a mother and a father who are married to each other.
Why do you think that a child does not have a right to a mother and a father who are married to each other?
By that logic, it’s ok and not xenophobic if he refuses to marry an immigrant couple because if they have children, they’ll have a hard time since they’ll be caught in-between two cultures.
Any of the commentators that refuses to see the racism inherent in the justice of the peace’s decision, and the totally lame justification that he makes–well I guess if you keep your eyes shut there’s nothing to be seen, right?
Why do you think that a child does not have a right to a mother and a father who are married to each other?
What does that mean? That a bastard child has a right to use state action to compel his parents to marry for the sake of his legitimacy? To make civil divorce illegal?
“Why do you think that a child does not have a right to a mother and a father who are married to each other?”
What does that even mean? If a woman is pregnant and not married to the father …
- we know you aren’t advocating abortion, so we’ll leave that option out.
- the state forces the two to get married?
- if they won’t get married, the child is taken from them and placed for adoption with a married couple?
- if the mother and father marry but later divorce, the child is taken from them?
I think the reason I don’t believe a child has the “right” to a mother and father who are married to each other is that it would require such a loss of personal freedoms.
In a just society is BOTH not racist and respects the rights of the child to have a mother and a father who are married to each other.
Ben,
What kind of society respects the right of a child to have a mother and father who are married to each other, but also has an out-of- wedlock birth rate of nearly 40 percent, a divorce rate of 50% percent for first marriages, 67% for second marriages, and 74% of third marriages, and a single-parent adoption rate from foster care of 33%?
With all of that going on, and with social science finding that the children of same-sex parents fare just as well as the children of opposite-sex parents, it is pretty nervy to be alarmed about the relatively small number of children that will be adopted by married gay couples (may of them, by the way, special-needs children that might otherwise not be adopted).
Any of the commentators that refuses to see the racism inherent in the justice of the peace’s decision . .
Is believing that blacks and whites should not intermarry necessarily racist? Catholics get all upset when gay people say it is homophobic to oppose same-sex marriage. But of course Catholics have good reasons for opposing gay marriage, whereas this guy had no good reasons for opposing interracial marriage.
Is it racist for Jews to maintain that Jews should not marry non-Jews?
Can you really judge a man by a few newspaper articles? I personally think he has a screw loose, but I wouldn’t be too quick to call him a racist.
Sorry, Kurt. Your post wasn’t up when I was typing and I thought it was my turn. :-)
I’m not opposed to the moderation before posts appear, but it does make things a little confusing.
One of the reasons fornication and adultery are evil and sinful is that they harm the children brought forth from these unions.
The state already cooperates in reducing some of these harms. Bastard childern are entitled to the financial support of their absent fathers even under current laws.
We should strengthen the ways in which the state supports marriage for the benefit of children. Of course we cannot force people to marry against their will(this would compound the wrong), but we should certainly end no-fault divorce and re-criminalize adultery.
“Re-criminalize adultery!” Are you sure you aren’t the Catholic Taliban?!
PLEASE don’t move to a traditionally Catholic country, like Italy or even, say, Honduras–they won’t know where to put you!
ben –
just so I am clear — making same sex marriage, divorce and adultery illegal is all part of one seamless garment, right?
David N., you ask, “Is believing that blacks and whites should not intermarry necessarily racist?”
It was one of the late-night comedians, I think, who pointed out that such a belief actually defines racism.
It was one of the late-night comedians, I think, who pointed out that such a belief actually defines racism.
David R.,
It seems to me to believe that in our current society, interracial marriage is difficult for the spouses, and to believe that children of mixed race will have a hard time fitting in, is not necessarily racist. Somewhat related is the controversy over interracial (or transracial) adoption. I don’t assume that those who believe a child should be adopted by parents of the same race are necessarily racist.
I don’t think it is up to a justice of the peace to refuse to marry people on these grounds, and I think he acted badly.
One might hold the opinion that life will be difficult for the child of an interracial marriage and that his or her life be limited. For example, the child seems to be subject to a ceiling in that he or she can aspire to nothing higher than the Presidency of the United States.
Apart from any private opinion one holds, I think using one’s state power to obstruct the marriage of an interracial couple is racist.
Kurt,
Yes, it is a seamless garment approach to mariage.
Digbydolben,
Why is it so offensive to you that innocent parties ought to be defended against sexual sin?
Even atheistic social scientists will tell you that broken homes are bad for kids. It leads to bad outcomes for health education and welfare. 70% of long term prison inmates come from fatherless homes.
Don’t you think that it is better to prevent crime instead of just building more and more prisons? The re-criminalization of adultery and the end of no fault divorce will mean that these kids will have a better chance. Don’t you want justice for them?
Ben,
While, to a certain extent, I agree with your… how shall I put it… moral analysis. I don’t think re-criminalization of adultery, etc. is the answer. If that were to happen today, nearly half the population would technically be criminals, and we would be forced (by necessity) to give the government the right to “spy” on people to catch them because, well, adultery without the sexual act isn’t adultery.
Marriage is very broken in this country, but changing the law won’t fix the culture. In fact, I’d be tempted to say that at this point its impossible, except for the fact that with God all things are possible. May we all be willing to cooperate with his grace.
Adultery is a crime in some states, and it was historically a crime in pretty much all states. It is not enforced and has not been for many decades. Indeed, I suspect it was enforced only in very unusual cases.
Historically, many institutions considered adultery and divorce serious moral defects. For instance, white shoe institutional law firms were known to fire or discipline partners who committed such breaches. Society has sure changed a lot the past 50 years.