Louisiana magistrate denies marriage license to interracial couple

Oh, I knew this is still an issue and this article only proves that we still have a long way to go....

Thanks for the seed!

Oh flippen hell! Like there's not bi-racial children in Louisiana. A whole segment of our culture is BASED on being bi-racial! I wonder where in Tagi this is, there's some real "backwoods" areas in that parish.

I find a lot of racists start sentences with "i'm not a racist but....."

I find a lot of racists start sentences with "i'm not a racist but....."

Yes. That ugly "butt" is usually there.

Are you SOOOO SERIOUS right now?!?!?!

I liked Limbaugh today on his show. He's calling everyone else a racist after being rejected as an NFL owner. It's that "everybodies doing it" defense.

Want to see racism? Watch this.

Sounds like the magistrate is within his rights, and the couple is going to be married.

Sounds like the magistrate is within his rights

No, he's not. At all.

He said the state attorney general told him years ago that he would eventually get into trouble for not performing interracial marriages.

This has been the law for over 50 years, she said. In 1963, in the case Loving vs. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot prohibit marriages simply because of the race of the spouses.

I'm going to do my best Edgar Cayce prediction here. I for see this magistrate hasn't seen trouble like Gettysburg being over run in the civil war. Let's us see what will happen in the next, hum, let's say month. Oh, he maybe well with in his right, I don't know. All I know is that it stinks of white supremacists, hypocrites, white sheet with hood.

A justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple last week because of concern for the children who might be born of that relationship.

Because there's so much racism in this country, a bi-racial child could never become president or anything.

Ummm, isn't Obama biracial and currently the US president? Correct me if I missed something....

Hey Lilith....nope, you didn't miss anything at all. Buckeye was being sarcastic. :~)

I thought so, but maybe some people would think he's serious?... You never know....

Anyway, that magistrate needs their Judgeship revoked or something to that extent.

Ok, so for all the people who are using this is a flagship example of racism in this country, let's be realistic. This was one incident, which is in no way life threatening nor even life alterning for the couple. They will be married and the judge will likely lose his bench.

How ya gonna compare that to serious examples of racism such as that experienced by Tom Joyner's uncles who were falsely executed (just pardoned, though).

Yes, there are racist people in America. There will always be "-ist" people in America. Unless, however, they alter or end the course of your life in some way, isn't all this holding every incident up to the light a wee bit overblown and melodramatic? It is not as though interracial couples all across the country are being denied marriage certificates or don't have the freedom to marry. They do. This judge broke the law. He will pay for his crime. That's justice. That's equality. In the old days, this couple wouldn't have had any recourse, and therein lay the problem.

I'm the product of a bi-racial marriage...one that is going strong after 40 years...I had a happy, secure childhood growing up and am a happy, secure adult with a wonderful husband and wonderful children. I work in a profession where there are not many minorities similar to me. While I know racism is alive and well in the US, I like to think that people like me, living their life and being good people, can slowly chip away at peoples' hate. Maybe I'm a Pollyanna but I like to think that on a person-by-person basis, I do manage to kill racism a chip at a time...and maybe when my kids grow up nobody will tell them who they can and cannot marry.

HOW is he within his rights?

He said he isn't required to perform marriages or issue certificates. He may be ethically wrong, but legally he appears to be within his rights. He isn't prohibiting anyone from getting married, he is refusing to aid them.

It isn't a flagship incident, but it does remind all of us that racism is far from dead........

It does for me.....

"He said he isn't required to perform marriages or issue certificates. He may be ethically wrong, but legally he appears to be within his rights. He isn't prohibiting anyone from getting married, he is refusing to aid them."

How is he possibly within his rights? By accepting the position of "Justice of the Peace," he is an employee of the jurisdiction and bound to uphold the laws of that jurisdiction. That jurisdiction, in turn, is bound by the laws of the state which, in turn, is bound by the laws of the United States. In 1963, the Supreme Court decided that a state violates an individual's fundamental Constitutional rights when it denies the right to marriage based upon race.

I would agree with you if he were a private citizen expressing an unpopular idea; he has the right to do so as a private citizen. However, as a public official, he is bound by our laws, and cannot choose to follow those with which he agrees, while ignoring those laws with which he disagrees. If he cannot uphold a law that goes against his personal views, then he should not hold the position.

However, as a public official, he is bound by our laws, and cannot choose to follow those with which he agrees, while ignoring those laws with which he disagrees. If he cannot uphold a law that goes against his personal views, then he should not hold the position.

Apparently he is not bound by any law to perform marriages, regardless of his reasons.

We're all bi-racial. I'm multi-racial personally so don't hold it against me! :)

James, to quote Bardwell:

The Attorney General’s office has told me I’m in violation of the law, but I have the right to recuse myself. I don’t feel like I’ve done anything wrong.”

I didn't see that. What I did read was:

Bardwell said a justice of the peace is not required to conduct a marriage ceremony and is at liberty to recuse himself “from a marriage or anything else.”

Your quote says as well:

but I have the right to recuse myself.

Indeed, but I wonder if the right to recuse himself is limited or not.  In some cases of anti discrimination law, I don't believe you can recuse yourself on that basis, but I'm not sure if that would apply here.  In discussion of Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court stated:

The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11).

So it's pretty clear that he's in violation of the Court's decision, the only question remaining is whether he has the right to recuse himself based on his prejudices.

He claims not to be racist and says "I treat everybody fairly" and that children of mixed races do not do well in society....DUH!!! we have a mixed race POTUS and contrary to Repub.Conserv. Neo-Con,TeaBagger propaganda he is doing well....

I'm sorry I don't see where this JP did anything illegal. He did not tell them they couldn't get married, only that he would not marry them. and even told them a JP that would sign the licence.

Bardwell said a justice of the peace is not required to conduct a marriage ceremony and is at liberty to recuse himself “from a marriage or anything else.”

Unethical? possibly. immoral? maybe, but illegal? no. Unfortunately about all he is guilty of is gross ignorance, which to my knowledge is not illegal yet. I look at this the same as some pastors, priests, reverends will not marry same sex couples, but others will.

Unfortunately, the Justice may be half right. I've worked with divorced and single fathers for 20 years, and I can say the a marriage between an African/American male and a Caucasian female have a high rate of failure, resulting in the mothers trying to alienate the children from the father. There's a much lower rate with them marrying a Asian woman. For Caucasian males marry an African/American woman, the failure rate of the marriage is much lower than marrying a Caucasian woman. I hate using the term race as we are all a part of the human race.

Now for this couple, if they were both virgins, their chances of a long marriage would be much greater due to their ages. Both were fully mature. Over 85% of divorces involve couples who cohabit or marry prior to age 24. The best age for a male to first develop a relationship, and get married, is when he passes age 30.

If any pastor has a "right" to refuse gay people the "priveledge of marriage" because it is "against the teachings of their bible", then all pastors also have the right to deny "blacks" the priveledge... because "it is against the teaching of the bible".

Race, Religion, Sex... Discrimination is discrimination.

This is disgusting.

I know that 40% of the country is illiterate and another 40% can't read beyond 4th grade comprehension, but go back to school, and learn how to read your g0ddam bible, you freaks!

Marriage is for sinners and those who cannot control their sexual urges! 

Marriage is not for those who love "God" or are on any path to righteousness.

This pastor has been given a right to refuse his services, so that he can deny the marriage of adults to children, or or stop "forced" marriages,  but for him to deny marriage to this couple because of his racist ideology is abominable. 

Does this pastor deny marriage to "armed forces" personnel, since they have the highest incidence rate for divorce of all people combined (not to mention the "absence of the military parent" due to their prolonged and life-threatening service?

Or is he just a racist POS?

Does he not marry Americans because the statistics claim that the American divorce rate is over 50%?

Or is he just a racist POS?

He can try to save his arse by claiming that he was trying to help the children, but in his bible, HIS lord and savior says that "it is better to be in a family than not to be"...so why does he go against the teachings of his lord and savior?

I think because he is a racist POS!

cabaroke

the justice is not right at all. he is a public official. he must abide by the law. if he does not, then he could be subject to some sort of consequences under the law. if the couple sues, then they could very well win.

I know that 40% of the country is illiterate and another 40% can't read beyond 4th grade comprehension

Speaking of.. you may want to go back and read the article. This isn't about a pastor refusing to participate in a ceremony, this is a Justice of the Peace. Two quite different entities.

Technically, what he did was illegal. As stated earlier Bardwell said "a justice of the peace is not required to conduct a marriage ceremony and is at liberty to recuse himself "from a marriage or anything else." However, if you look the legal dictionary use of "recuse" it states...

To disqualify or remove oneself as a judge over a particular proceeding because of one's conflict of interest. Recusal, or the judge's act of disqualifying himself or herself from presiding over a proceeding, is based on the Maxim that judges are charged with a duty of impartiality in administering justice."

In simpler language, "recuse v. to refuse to be a judge (or for a judge to be requested by one of the parties to step aside) in a lawsuit or appeal because of a conflict of interest or other good reason (acquaintanceship with one of the parties, for example). It also applies to a judge or prosecutor being removed or voluntarily removing himself/herself from a criminal case in which he/she has a conflict of interest, such as friendship or known enmity to the defendant. (See: recusal)"

link: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Recuse

The conflict of interest in this case was that quote ""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." Under law this is not a valid reason for "conflict of interest."

Also, I am the product of interracial marriage. Yeah, it may be a little bit harder but my brother and I turned out great. My parents have been together 27 years are extremely dedicated to each other. Just because it is harder isn't a good reason to deny someone marriage. It's like a judge saying that he won't marry two working class individuals because he fears that the children will not have the opportunity to succeed and will "later suffer." Every marriage has its difficulties and every family has their obstacles...race is just one of many. Unless he does research with every couple who wants to get married to assess parenting capacity (e.g. he looks into their educational background, IQ, occupation,racial mix, family dynamics/values, parenting experience, etc.) he is a racist too.

unbelievable~! well, no, not really this is what the KKK was all about- keeping white women to themselves

this is also a huge reason that pot is illegal in the USA- our WASP taliban leaders think it makes white women want to have sex with men of other races. And it's also a great reason to lock up people of other races.

Sanyu615- I guess what you are saying is that if he just recused himself and said nothing else this would have been ok? Sort of a "don't ask don't tell" deal. Or should he have stated a conflict of interest between his personal beliefs and the law? either way, he's screwed isn;t he? I don't pretend to know the answers here, but than again I won't be the one hearing the lawsuit that will inevitably follow. So my views are nothing more than my views.

So this guy is trying to apply the same logic that some pharmacists have used in refusing (on religious grounds) to fill certain prescriptions.

If you're gonna be a JOP, you might just have to marry an interracial couple (and/or a same sex marriage). Got a problem with that? Don't be a JOP.

As for this guy worrying about interracial couple's kids, maybe he should worry more about HIS own kids (assuming he has them).  Besides, who is he to assume they're going to have kids?  Maybe they decide to adopt or maybe they decide not to have kids at all. It's none of his business.

While your definition of "recuse" is correct, I don't think it applies here. Judges often have to recuse themselves in cases of conflict of interest because there is the question of whether the conflict will have an effect on that particular judge's decision making ability. Here, however, the justice of the peace has no decision to make. Out of curiosity, I looked up the Louisiana laws on marriage licenses. A couple simply must present a number of documents (e.g., Social Security Card, Birth Certificate) to the justice of the peace. If they have provided the required documents, then the couple is entitled to the marriage license. The JoP's personal views have no bearing whatsoever; if the couple has complied with the statute, then the JoP has the duty of issuing the license. Just because the JoP has a personal disagreement with the marriage does not give him the ability to recuse himself in such a case.

The couple suffered no loss, and are able to marry. Now, I am just going by what was written in this article. There is no law proscribing this couple's marriage, nor did the JP act to prevent it. He simply failed to act for whatever reasons. If his participation is not required by his position or office, I don't see how he has violated the law, no matter how morally or ethically repugnant his beliefs are.

His participation is required by both his position and his office. And he did violate a Federal law in refusing to marry this couple. This is federal law. You don't get to break the law just because you have personal beliefs about it.

Signing certificates is a service. He isn't required to provide that service. You can't make a notary public or real estate agent work for someone they don't want to work for, even though both are licensed and empowered by the state and bound by ethical guidelines.

Completely different scenario. A notary public and a real estate agent are licensed by the state; a JP is employed by the state...the state most certainly can make one of its agents obey the law and do certain things with which that individual may have a personal disagreement.