Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.

[Eric739]

Lived in the South for most of my adult life and seen this kind of racism before. It is always couched in words that he used: I have lots of black friends. Or this one:

 

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way,"....

 

If you don't believe in mixing the races, you are no different than the Aryan nation who have different words to describe those feelings.

 

A justice of the Peace should be able to put aside his own bias in order to do his job. If he were a minister that is one thing but in lots of these small towns, he is the one to decide issues that judges normally decide, whether to go to trial, whether to arraign, etc.

 

But am I surprised? No. We still have a long way to go.....

[bokiwen]

After reading the story, I'm a little confused. What I understand, is the interracial couple called the Justice of the Peace office and the wife answered the phone. She asked if the couple was interracial, and then made a statement that her husband does not marry interracial couples, and the couple should look elsewhere. At that point, the ACLU is going to send a letter to the Justice of the Peace.

 

Based on that, of course I agree this is 100% wrong. However, the couple didn't file any paperwork with this Justice of the Peace and were discouraged to. Being in this situation, I would have filed with this Justice of the Peace just to see what happens. Also the phone call, was it placed to his office or the Justice of the Peace's home?

I'm not sure a law was actually broken or would have been broken had they actually filed with this Justice of the Peace.

 

The basic principal is wrong, but it's one of those stories which if you look into the details as I understand them, that shouldn't be blown way out of proportion. Of course I say that and immediately fell into the trap of balloon boy yesterday!.

[Eric739]

After reading the story, I'm a little confused. What I understand, is the interracial couple called the Justice of the Peace office and the wife answered the phone. She asked if the couple was interracial, and then made a statement that her husband does not marry interracial couples, and the couple should look elsewhere. At that point, the ACLU is going to send a letter to the Justice of the Peace.

 

Based on that, of course I agree this is 100% wrong. However, the couple didn't file any paperwork with this Justice of the Peace and were discouraged to. Being in this situation, I would have filed with this Justice of the Peace just to see what happens. Also the phone call, was it placed to his office or the Justice of the Peace's home?

I'm not sure a law was actually broken or would have been broken had they actually filed with this Justice of the Peace.

 

The basic principal is wrong, but it's one of those stories which if you look into the details as I understand them, that shouldn't be blown way out of proportion. Of course I say that and immediately fell into the trap of balloon boy yesterday!.

 

Discrimination is the unequal treatment of parties who are similarly situated. If a white couple came in and we married by this racist, then the mixed couple has a case.

 

Whether they filed is irrelevant if they were told that if they filed they would not be married. It would help from an evidentiary point of view, however.

[Guest Tony n Terrific]

Anti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that banned interracial marriage and sometimes sex between members of two different races. In the United States, interracial marriage, cohabitation and sex have since 1863 been termed "miscegenation." Contemporary usage of the term "miscegenation" is less frequent. In North America, laws against interracial marriage and interracial sex existed and were enforced in the Thirteen Colonies from the late seventeenth century onwards, and subsequently in several US states and US territories until 1967.

All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians. In many states, anti-miscegenation laws also criminalized cohabitation and sex between whites and non-whites. In addition, the state of Oklahoma in 1908 banned marriage "between a person of African descent" and "any person not of African descent", and Kentucky and Louisiana in 1932 banned marriage between Native Americans and African Americans. While anti-miscegenation laws are often regarded as a Southern phenomenon, many northern states had anti-miscegenation laws as well.

[weiaijiayou]

Lived in the South for most of my adult life and seen this kind of racism before. It is always couched in words that he used: I have lots of black friends.

I find this interesting as well. There isn't a 1 to 1 link between attitudes and behavior, since behavior has many other determinants aside from attitudes. It's not surprising that people with racist views would be able to point to many things they do which would seem on the surface to go against a racist attitude.

 

There was a classic field study in the 1930s where a psychologist followed a Chinese couple across the US as they stopped at hotels and restaurants along the way. I believe the couple was only denied service at one establishment. Afterward, the psychologist sent each of the establishments a letter asking if a Chinese couple would be able to get service there, and found that a large number claimed they would not serve the couple. In other words, the people at these places disliked Chinese, but other things (e.g., expedience, politeness, the characteristics of the specific Chinese couple) apparently led them to serve the couple anyway.

 

Another example from everyday life is, like you mentioned, that many people who have racist views also have friends and associates of different races. These friends and associates become, in their minds, "the exceptions."

[bokiwen]

 

Discrimination is the unequal treatment of parties who are similarly situated. If a white couple came in and we married by this racist, then the mixed couple has a case.

 

Whether they filed is irrelevant if they were told that if they filed they would not be married. It would help from an evidentiary point of view, however.

 

I guess more to the point as to what I'm trying to say, this story is very "media" related. I'm not sure for example if the couple actually talked to the Justice of the Peace at all (it says for example they talked to his wife). Did this conversation take place during a time/place of business or after hours. However, I don't believe the wife's statements could have prohibited them from filing, then on the grounds of whatever denial the Justice of the Peace would make would have made this a much bigger issue (IMHO).

 

Don't get me wrong, if what was said to them on a phone call and then someone contacted the judge and he expressed his opinion in print, then discrimation took place here. I'm just not sure I completely understand the details of the case to throw the book at the judge yet (I see that yahoo updated the story and two civil and constitutional rights are calling for him to resign).

[Smitty]

who is this man to make discision on other, how many white couples does he say no too. he is a racist, all cfl members should choose to marry with him, 4000 mixes marriage request this week .

Is he against all interracial marriages?

That would be bad. If for nothing else how can he say where the race line is, thus allowing any marriage?

 

Is he against certain interracial marriages?

That may be bad. ¡­¡­probably is racial.

 

Is he against the town idiot making another dumb decision?

That may be OK; official elected by the town/city knows the people, media is incapable of reporting all pertinent details.

 

I could be wrong

Yes, you could be.

 

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.

 

This JotP is a liar. He says "I try to treat everyone equally," he said. Unless they are a mixed couple then he doesn't.

 

He claims that he does it because he wants to protect the children. What a crock of sh1t.

[Stepbrow]

He may have been a justice of the peace for 34 years, but I believe that his days are numbered.

[whome?]

That's roughly like walking into a business where they say, "Sorry, we don't serve your kind here". Shouldn't happen.

.....

point well taken.

 

and you do say 'roughly'....so.... I think a distinction is here:

 

The ¡®race issue¡¯ in this marriage request is discrimination of lifestyle choice.

The ¡®race issue¡¯ of a business owner refusing service to ¡®your kind¡¯ is discrimination of a race.

 

There is a difference there.

 

I could be wrong: Does it benefit society to allow prejudice against a particular choice of lifestyle?

 

I wonder if you would feel the same way if he told you this when you went to him to marry your Chinese spouse because he said in his statement that he is against mixed race marriages:

 

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way,"

[Randy W]

That's roughly like walking into a business where they say, "Sorry, we don't serve your kind here". Shouldn't happen.

.....

point well taken.

 

and you do say 'roughly'....so.... I think a distinction is here:

 

The ¡®race issue¡¯ in this marriage request is discrimination of lifestyle choice.

The ¡®race issue¡¯ of a business owner refusing service to ¡®your kind¡¯ is discrimination of a race.

 

There is a difference there.

 

I could be wrong: Does it benefit society to allow prejudice against a particular choice of lifestyle?

 

I wonder if you would feel the same way if he told you this when you went to him to marry your Chinese spouse because he said in his statement that he is against mixed race marriages:

 

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way,"

 

 

Yes - race is EXACTLY the issue here, but LIFESTYLE ?? The only lifestyle I can see is marriage, which should be sacrosanct,

[warpedbored]

I think Randy has the best argument here. Marrying people is part of a JP's job. If he doesn't want to do his job he should be let go. He has his first amendment right to his racist opinion. He doesn't have a right to use his government position to enforce that opinion. Earlier I posted that it was a difficult issue. I said this thinking of his first amendment rights. After reading Randy's argument that it is part of his job to marry people I agree with Randy.

[dcwfn]

I thought bigots like that all died of old age.

 

Nah, they just stink to high heaven....lol

[dcwfn]

who is this man to make discision on other, how many white couples does he say no too. he is a racist, all cfl members should choose to marry with him, 4000 mixes marriage request this week .

Is he against all interracial marriages?

That would be bad. If for nothing else how can he say where the race line is, thus allowing any marriage?

 

Is he against certain interracial marriages?

That may be bad. ……probably is racial.

 

Is he against the town idiot making another dumb decision?

That may be OK; official elected by the town/city knows the people, media is incapable of reporting all pertinent details.

 

I could be wrong

Yes, you could be.

 

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.

 

This JotP is a liar. He says "I try to treat everyone equally," he said. Unless they are a mixed couple then he doesn't.

 

He claims that he does it because he wants to protect the children. What a crock of sh1t.

 

AMEN!

Then again, no matter which side of the fence someone is on (this JOTP sees only the black/white fence) there are some of those people who I'd like to put my size 10-D so far up his butt he'd have to pry his mouth open for me to clip my toenails.

Edited October 17, 2009 by dcwfn (see edit history)

[hakkamike]

I think Randy has the best argument here. Marrying people is part of a JP's job. If he doesn't want to do his job he should be let go. He has his first amendment right to his racist opinion. He doesn't have a right to use his government position to enforce that opinion. Earlier I posted that it was a difficult issue. I said this thinking of his first amendment rights. After reading Randy's argument that it is part of his job to marry people I agree with Randy.

I dont have a problem with it, thumbs to the JP for voicing his opinion.

[dcwfn]

I think Randy has the best argument here. Marrying people is part of a JP's job. If he doesn't want to do his job he should be let go. He has his first amendment right to his racist opinion. He doesn't have a right to use his government position to enforce that opinion. Earlier I posted that it was a difficult issue. I said this thinking of his first amendment rights. After reading Randy's argument that it is part of his job to marry people I agree with Randy.

I dont have a problem with it, thumbs to the JP for voicing his opinion.

 

Absolutely! He definately has the right to say whatever he wants to say. He just kinda put his foot in his mouth is all. For that reason I'd still like to put my foot....well, nevermind. It kind of reminds me of the phrase that got Don Imus in hot water. We can have whatever thoughts we want to have. We have that right too. Sometimes we're supposed to know when to keep our mouths shut though...lol