(Originally Published 10/15/09)
The Associated Press is reporting (article) that an interracial couple has been denied a marriage license in Louisiana. No, not in the 1940's, this very year!
NEW ORLEANS – 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. (emphasis mine)
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday.
So, this particular Justice of the Peace has decided, in his infinite wisdom, that since he thinks that interracial marriages do not last and he states elsewhere that he thinks the children of these couples have a harder time, that he will not marry any interracial couples. He contends that "he's not a racist," he only doesn't believe in "mixing the races that way."
If Bardwell (the Justice in question) is right that these marriages do not fare well, then it is only because of the hatred that he helps to perpetuate! What makes him think that he has the right, in his capacity as a Justice of Peace, to arbitrarily choose who he will marry and who he won't? If the couple in question fulfills the legal requirements, then it is Bardwell's duty to marry them. If he does not, for whatever reason, then he has abdicated his duty and should be minimally removed from office, if not tried for discrimination.
To think that love can only happen between people of the same race is foolish. Love is about certain attributes that one finds in another person; the fact that skin comes in different colors is irrelevant.
---UPDATE---
As of today (10/16) CNN is reporting that the Governor of Louisiana is calling for Bardwell's firing.
---UPDATE---
As of 11/03, the NY Times is reporting that Justice Bardwell has resigned and is facing a civil suit by the couple he denied the marriage license to.
---UPDATE---
As of today (10/16) CNN is reporting that the Governor of Louisiana is calling for Bardwell's firing.
---UPDATE---
As of 11/03, the NY Times is reporting that Justice Bardwell has resigned and is facing a civil suit by the couple he denied the marriage license to.
Posts
4 comments:
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way."
I laughed out loud at this, and had to compose myself before I continued with your analysis of this situation.
While in his myopic view, the words "I'm not a racist" likely equate simply with "I don't openly hate black people," what his actual words mean is the following:
"I don't believe in the form of collectivism that arbitrarily condemns groups of people based on their skin color. And yet, I'm using these folk's membership in different skin color collectives as my sole means of determining their fitness for marriage."
Or, more simply, "I'm not racist, but I'm racist."
On a different note, one offhand comment you made has me wondering. I agree that, as a member of the judiciary, even if America were a fully free, laissez-faire society with objective law and a proper limited government, this judge should lose his position. If he's incapable of upholding individual rights in contract cases (such as a marriage) then he's unfit for office.
But then you suggested he might be tried for discrimination. In such a laissez-faire country as I outlined, would the offense of "discrimination" actually exist? It's difficult to divorce the loaded package deal of modern-day "discrimination" and figure out how it would apply in a rational situation.
I'm torn. On the one hand, I think it might be a superfluous concept that could be handled by more fundamental contract law. On the other hand, such a case could also be the only rational instance of true discrimination -- where an agent of the government sworn to protect individual rights instead uses arbitrary, irrational standards that end up violating rights.
(now that I write that all out, I think it might be the latter case, but I'm curious what others think)
I laughed when I read that line too! It makes absolutely no sense.
I haven't thought much about the idea of discrimination in a rational society, so I won't venture too much here, although I'll probably blog about it at some point in the future.
I agree with your second point, that the government should not be allowed to use any criteria to judge its citizenry (besides criminal history and the like).
On the other hand, I don't know if I'd be okay with laws preventing private companies from discriminating. Milton Friedman has an interesting discussion about this in his book "Capitalism and Freedom."
As a general moral principle I think that no individual should be judged by criteria that are not within his control (age, sex, ethnicity, etc) and should only be judged by his character.
Well, I think the judge is liable for several things DUE to his discriminatory actions. While maybe not "tried for discrimination," he should be tried *for* his discrimination. This justice of the peace violated the applicants' individual rights to freely enter a contract, the same as any fraudster or armed thug. Even in today's alice-in-wonderland laws, he's liable to a 1983 suit for his abuse of official power.
However, there's a broader point here. The institution of marriage is completely topsy turvy, due to the government's insistence upon the preservation of the trappings of feudalistic rules, procedures, and requirements. As you pointed out, marriage is a contract, which is an incredibly important part of most people's lives. But, how many other contracts do you know of that require a judicial approval before you can enter them? Did you need a judge's approval to buy your lunch today, or your car, or pay your bills? Nope. Marital relationships are one painfully glowing example of how we need a separation of state and economy. It is nothing short of a travesty that these two individuals were forced to go before a court to enter their marriage in the first place.
Park,
I certainly think the institution of marriage is topsy turvy right now, but I think this is because of the idea that if gays were to marry, it would hurt the institution of marriage. The very idea is just silly and not even the subject of an intelligent debate.
However, I'm not sure about your comparison of marriage to other contracts. Marriage is a contract, but more similar to contracts of incorporation than agreements to an end. In both marriage and the creation of business, one is creating a new union that seeks to be recognized as a new legal entity (a marriage is a legal entity and so is a corporation).
I think that since one wants to be accepted by society and the law as one person, then the government does have a proper role here. If the government is to protect my marriage contract, it must know about it. However, this is not to say that the government should have a right to tell people who they can marry.
I admit that I've not thought much about this subject and I be interested in talking more about it.
~Jason
Post a Comment