Hammond justice refuses to marry an interracial couple

Post Reply New Topic

By MARY FOSTER, Associated Press Writer Mary Foster, Associated Press Writer – Fri Oct 16, 4:50 am ET

NEW ORLEANS – A white 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.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

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.

"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."

If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.

Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.

Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She is white and he is black. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.

"That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age."

Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.

"We are looking forward to having children," Humphrey said. "And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."

"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. She said the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."

The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."

"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzmann said.

According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.

Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.

The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.

"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."



...............
I'm disturbed by this. Your thoughts on this?

I'm always a little bemused when people use the excuse that other people wouldn't accept something when in fact they are one of those people. Every time I hear the phrase " I'm not racist' I say to myself " Here we go"

My family is multiracial. We have adopted my black sister. Even though I do not agree with this man, I can understand his point of view. We are constantly stared at whenever we go out, and every now and then, we hear the snide remarks that people whisper under their breath. He could either be a closet racist or in fact have genuine concern for the wellbeing of any children that may come out of this marriage.

I am shocked to find that people still discriminate in that way.

I think the government should stay out the marriage business.

The thing is that there are like twelve billion different things that can make things difficult for a child. Anything unusual can be difficult. And anything that's difficult simply because it's uncommon will become less difficult the more common it becomes, so that whole difficulty thing is just BS. When something like that is difficult, it's not because the thing itself is difficult, it's difficult because other people don't react well to it. It's like saying that since growing up is difficult, nobody should ever grow up. Or that because college is difficult, nobody should ever pursue higher education.

This matter deserves to be appealed.

It's a clear violation of the Supreme Court decision
in Loving vs. Virginia, and should be decided
on summary judgment.

The fact that marriages must be recorded and kept on file in courthouses has always and will always keep the government in the marriage business. But this little man is not Big Brother government - he's a local justice of the Peace - with no more impact or authority that Andy of Mayberry had on the politics of North Carolina.

This is a tempest in a teapot. This man did not prevent the couple from getting married. He in no way barred them from exercising their rights. He simply said that HE PERSONALLY would not perform the ceremony because of his own personally held beliefs about the long term effects on society. However misguided you may think he is, however stringently you may disagree with him, he has a right of his own to say "I feel strongly this would be wrong, therefore I choose not to engage in that behavior".

And how does his decision affect the couple in question? They simply went to a different JOP. No harm, no foul. Hell, the man being crucified here even went so far as to RECOMMEND a different JOP to them. OooOOooHhh, he's such a horrible racist.

Stop judging people because they don't fall in line with the Politically Correct point-of-view. I would thinking this group of all places, such snap judgments would be withheld and tempered with more rational thinking.

The fact that this story even got into the news and made a national headline is a clear indicator of some reporter and/or news organization with a political agenda on a slow news day.

Actually Willard as a civil servant impartiality is a requirement, so if his beliefs interfere with his duty then he should resign.

The issues in this matter are not black and white... er I mean there are shades of grey... er I mean... oh never mind, forget it!

Impartiality, and attention to the law as written (and occasionally as interpreted by the Supreme Court), are requirements for positions anywhere in jurisprudence, at least in the United States. One may feel personally that adultery is a social ill, for example, and that those who commit it should be punished somehow - but one is not permitted to mete out such punishment oneself, as (in most jurisdictions, anyway) adultery is not against the law.

This gentleman (and I use the term loosely) has taken it upon himself to decide what is best for others, not in accordance with the law, or even in accordance with some interpretation thereof, but rather in accordance with his own feelings on the subject. And yes, his line about "piles of black friends" did indeed smack of the classic racist line, "Some of my best friends are <insert minority group here>"...

Cyberscan, my wife is black - a heck of a lot darker than Mr. McKay, for what it's worth - and beyond a couple of night-shift officers in a small town in southern California, we're never gotten any odd looks from anyone. Our daughter only faces discrimination because she's autistic, and our son gets nothing but compliments on his appearance. (I may need to start carrying needles to deflate his ego when he gets a little older...) Perhaps the source of the "looks" you describe is other than what you suppose?

To be fair to the state of Louisiana they have a long history of the races intermixing. If this Mr. Bardwell is from Louisiana I'm sure it wouldn't take much digging to find black, indians or jews in his own family tree. This intermixing is one the things that makes Louisiana the interesting place it is. I think it's sad that Mr. Bardwell fails to see this.

A Justice is a very minor Judge, any Judge my remove himself if for any reason if he feels that he cannot perform in the case at hand.

X is a member of my church, I know some member of the family, are valid reasons.

It sounds like they went shopping for trouble, another reason for a Judge to excuse himself.

So she is going for a Degree in race politics, and is trying to make a name.

Consider the case of a fourteen year old girl marrying a fifty year old man, may a Justice refuse on personal reasons?

May perform, and has to perform in all cases, are very different things.

What about a Minister who refuses to perform a wedding?

As one of the three classes of people who legally can, is he obligated to in all cases?

No one denied the right of marriage, they have many other choices.

Now if a Clerk of Court refused to issue a Marriage License, they would have a case.

Louisiana had the first black governor, back in the 1870s. He was not elected (his predecessor was impeached).

If I might address this: I think the trouble with his logic is simply that it can lead to full discrimination. Consider the rather innocent-sounding statement below.

"The couple can go to another J.O.P. I just don't want to marry them, that's all."

Each Justice they go to tells them, "Well, kids, I don't care if you get married, but, you know, I'M not going to do it. Try down the road". Eventually they try every J.O.P. in the county. Nobody will marry them, but nobody minds if they are married. Although they have been denied the right of marriage because of their race, but nobody is overtly racist and nobody is telling them they can't be married. It's just an innocent personal choice held by every Justice they go to which is effectively discriminatory.

Does this help make it more clear why we cannot allow this kind of behavior? If one can do it, all can do it and while I grant you that it is likely that all will NOT do it, it leaves the groundwork in place for de facto discrimination.

The JP deserves to be removed from the bench. This is a clear case of racial discrimination, this is not the 1950s anymore.

I think this ^ is what bothered me the most about this article. My husband has family who has lived in Hammond for a long long time. For all outward appearances, my husband is black. The reality of it is though, he is related to most of the people in Hammond. He once went to visit his grandparents for a summer and took to liking a girl (a white girl) and his grandmother informed him that he could not date her because they were kin. I bet if I were to be obnoxiously nosy, I could find where the judges lineage (assuming he and his our from Hammond) meets up with my husbands. The hypocrisy of it all upset me.

Yeah, the guy is entitled to his opinion, but if he is unable to keep his personal feelings regarding such issues out of his job, perhaps he should find a different job. I am entitled to believe that fifty dollar sweaters are a stupid waste of money, but if I worked in a store that sold them I would be fired for telling the customers that I won't sell them one, but some other store will. I fear he is using 'the children' as a way to not sound like the bigot he seems to be. The state says it is ok for whites and blacks to marry... should he be legally allowed to turn them away? That sets a scary precedence.

This man is a government official who is practicing a form of bigotry. I find that scary. And the fact that it has been allowed to happen on multiple occasions makes it all that much more upsetting to me. I cannot believe this community has allowed this to go on.