http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/i...d_n_322784.html

Original AP story:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...Ie9NDwD9BBOKIG0


A judge in Louisiana refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple because of concerns he has for the potential lives of the children. He says he's not racist and that he marries black couples all the time, but he doesn't do interracial marriages since statistically, they're marriages don't last as long as other marriages...

What do you think? Does a judge have the authority to deny a marriage license to someone because of fears what the lives of potential children will be like? Personally, I think the guy is just trying to come up with an excuse for his beliefs that whites and blacks shouldn't mix...but that's just my opinion...

Also, he may fear for the mixed race children and how they might not fit into either society...but don't we have a mixed-race man AS THE FRICKIN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?!

EDIT: Forgot the story!!!

"but he doesn't do interracial marriages since statistically, they're marriages don't last as long as other marriages..."

Gee, then I hope he never marries anyone under age 25 either, since statistically they don't last as long ......

Wow. As a biracial person I can comfortably say that he is full of crap. Even setting aside my own personal opinion though, it has already been declared unconstitutional to impede marriage between interracial couples in the 1967 Loving v Virginia Supreme Court case. So he doesn't have a leg to stand on. If necessary they can take him to court and have the ruling reaffirmed.

Wait a minute! Look at the runaway balloon kid article.... about 1/2 way down..... the family pic....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33330516/ns/us_news-life/

This is why we should've let the south secede.

And then let us socialist take over and kill all the racists.

The racists are a minority, I repeat, a minority. Most southerners aren't even white these days.

The latter doesn't really have much to do with the former, but I hope you're right.

Alright, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he is not a racist, and that his objection to interracial marriage is not based on separation of the races and actually based on statistics he's seen... Can he use a precedent like that to deny a couple from marrying? I honestly don't see where he could possibly justify using his beliefs on interracial marriage to deny a couple the right to marry...

Forget about the fact that this same sort of thinking could be used to deny poor people the right to marry, or any other group... what about the fact that you don't need to get married to have children? I mean, sure, don't let the couple get married, but that's not going to stop them from producing the kids that you seem so hell-bent on protecting from the cold, mean world...

Well, yes, but most Southerners have strange beliefs (ie all teenagers are criminals and must be punished pre-preemptively) and won't stand against the racists.

On this second paragraph: What about movie-stars/other famous people (yes I know this is included in your paragraph when you say "other group" but it's just another example)? They get married to a different person every week! (not really, but still) Should they not be allowed to marry based on the stats that show their marriages don't last that long either?

Don't really agree with him, but this is a pretty legitimate practice in theory

a real life "I'm not racist, but..."

beautiful

How could decisions made without consideration to individual circumstance but rather on broad stereotypes ever be considered a legitimate practice?

I think he's trying to make a subtle point in support of gay marriage and gay adoption. Well done sir, but you can't slip that past me.




And why we left.

I would say that yes, one could, but the problem is that he isn't applying it even handily when it does come to statistics, as no doubt many other marriage qualities cause even higher divorce rates then biracial marriage, and he is ignoring those.

When information about individual circumstance is obscure and hard to discern.


Young boys are more dangerous drivers. Sure, YOU might be a great driver that always goes the speed limit and isn't out at 3 AM with your boys heading to Buffalo Wild Wings to do the Blazin' Wing challenge. I don't know that, though, and I can't know that unless I follow you through your life. You also have a strong incentive to lie to me to bargain down your premiums.
In this case, I just charge the entire group more

Half of marriages end in divorce. He should only grant marriage licenses to half the couples who ask for them, then nobody will ever get divorced! Hooray making up stupid rationalizations for dumb ideas with statistics!

He needs to be pointed to Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that legalized interracial marriage. Also, he needs to be fired for dereliction of duty. It's really that simple. Whether or not he thinks the marriage will last is immaterial.

Evangelicals have higher divorce rates too.

This is crap. I'm a mish-mash of nationalities, and guess what? My parents have been married twenty years! They both despise the other's family, but neither gives a $%&@. And anway, my brother Nick and I fit perfectly into our own little niches in society.

I would like someone here to clarify something for me, as I am not too knowledgeable about marriage law. Does this force the couple to move to another jurisdiction before they can get married, or can they simply take the license to another judge to get it signed? The answer would determine the severity of this justice's decision.

In any event, this is yet another example of why government being involved in marriage is a bad idea. Contracts are personal decisions where judges largely cannot interfere. Marriage is a spiritual union where government has no business. Separate the contractual elements from the spiritual elements and you find a reasonable role for government to play (enforcing the former).

"I'm not homophobic, but..."
"I'm not fascist, but..."
"I'm not a Republican, but..."



You know, humans have a higher divorce rate then any other species on the planet. Does this mean we shouldn't be allowed to marry?

I do believe you're on to something.

Shall we implement a code OmegaOmegaOmega?

...Grumblegrumble.

It bothers me when people only use statistics to justify anything. Firstly, correlation does not mean causation. Secondly, being married and having children are completely different things. Thirdly, the judge would have to be that discriminating in all his other decisions if he wants to do this. "His family has a history of mental illness? No marriage for you! She was abused as a child? She might pass it on!" And on and on it would have to go.

Except marriage is a legal issue. If you wished to do this, as you mention, and remove government entirely from the equation then you should separate church and legal marriage (which would also end the gay marriage debate, and I am all for splitting the two!)

He's not a racist. I'll bet if you drive by his house you see non-white people mowing the lawn, washing his car, and pruning the bushes.

They're only doing jobs that normal Americans wouldn't do, amirite?

Like you?

Louisiana state law has no restrictions on where they can receive the marriage license from, so they are free to go wherever. They can go receive it from down here in New Orleans, which is only 45 minutes away from where this took place.

Sargun should be familiar with that area and can attest it's known as a problem area regarding race. It's nothing but country bumpkin folks up there who still live in the 50's mindset. As the saying goes, "You can't fix stupid".

"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."

Even assuming this racists judges arguments were sound, surely the end result would be kids born out of wedlock, which kind of defeats any aim he thinks he might have had anyway.

Excuses ftw!

Fourthly, he wasn't even entirely accurate in his claim. Marriages with a minority husband and a white wife have slightly higher divorce rates than normal marriages, but those with a white husband and minority wife have slightly lower divorce rates.

To answer your question (now that I have an answer to it), what happened was that they called this Justice of the Peace on October 6th to see about getting married. The Justice of the Peace's wife answered the phone and asked whether it was to be an interracial marriage. When informed that it would be, the Justice of the Peace's wife explained her husband's position on interracial marriages and referred them to another Justice of the Peace. The couple then phoned another Justice of the Peace and got the marriage license on October 9th. Since then, they've gotten a lawyer.

I don't know if it's that much of a problem, then. I mean, if they were just redirected to a judge who would marry them, then the problem was solved with another phone call.

His position is still wrong, but it doesn't weigh heavily it would seem (especially if the Judge's wife was willing to refer them).

As you seemed to be more informed then I am, is there a law somewhere in LA that requires him to perform the ceremony or is he able to use his discretion based on his own personal desires?

If its the later then I dont see the problem here. Sure he might be a racist but he has the right to think what ever he wants. If he is required by law to preform the ceremony then he ought to be punished. I dont have a lot of time today to read up on, so if you or someone else would enlighten me on the applicable laws it would greatly enhance my knowledge and allow me to make a better judgement on it.

On the premise alone (his premise for not marrying them) I think hes full of crap, who cares if they get divorced or the kids have identity issues, that would be thier bed to lay in. (slight pun intended)

I don't know what the actual law says about whether certain groups can be denied marriage licenses, but I find it difficult to believe that this couple would not have been able to get a court to order someone to marry them if they met all legal obligations. The big question here is whether a Justice of the Peace, in that jurisdiction, can legally refuse to marry couples who are statistically more likely to get divorced. He says his concern is for the children of the couple (which don't yet exist). That may be his genuine concern, but I seriously doubt it's a legal basis for denying them their right to get married.

As for that Justice of the Peace being racist, I don't know if that's the real issue here. If he's refused to marry other couples who would have a high statistical likelyhood of divorce, he has some defense to the charges of racism (but may still not be doing his job). If interracial couples are the only ones he refuses to marry, then he's got problems. We need more information to be able to make an informed judgement.

Bolded part: yes thats somewhat my question, more specifically is a justice of the peace in that jurisdiction required to marry anyone at all, or may he use his discretion.

If he can then this is all moot. He may be a pompas bigot but its his right to be one.

Luckily people don't have children unless they're married, so his plan should work!

I am curious if he has ever refused to issue a license to other couples. What I mean is couples that are not biracial but have issues he feels would not make a good environment for kids. If so would that be within his right iaw the law?

But if it is purely racial that is obviously wrong.

No. He simply doesn't sign off on any interracial marriages. Pretty sure there's a quote in the story with him saying "If I do one, then I'll have to do them all" or something like that.

What he's wondering is whether it's strictly interracial marriages this guy doesn't sign off on, or whether he also refuses to do other types of higher-risk marriages (such as very young couples or other couples that statistically have a higher-than-average rate of divorce). Not only is it a valid question, but the central question as to this guy's motivation for not being party to any interracial marriages. If he's simply going by statistics on who to marry and who not to marry, then he may (and we don't have info either way on this) have a leg to stand on in his jurisdiction's legal code. If he's singling out interracial couples and using the statistics as an excuse, then he's got problems.

Yeah Loki that is what I was trying to get at, thanks for the clarification....anyone know?

Ah, gotcha...not sure, actually... he hasn't said anything, and nobody else seems to have come forward.

I actually learned something interesting through my research. This might confuse some of you, but welcome to LA law.

According to their website, the Tangipahoa Parish Clerk of Court has a "Marriage Department". It states that "The Marriage Department is responsible for issuing Marriage Licenses." and it operates under the powers of the Tangipahoa Parish Clerk of Court.

It doesn't appear one can even get a marriage license from a Justice Of The Peace. Which means the Justice Of The Peace and state judges can only officiate a marriage, like any other ordained or licensed clergymen who have registered with the clerk of the district court of the parish. This means a Justice Of The Peace in Louisiana can no more issue or deny a marriage license than you or I. Marriage law in Louisiana is governed by Louisiana Revised Statute 9, Code Title IV - Husband and Wife.

Due to the above explanation they CAN legally deny doing the ceremony, however there will be serious backlash in doing so by the public.

As you can see by this statute, he isn't the one who gives the marriage license

This shows again that the state should have nothing to do with marriage, have marriages as a purely private institution and these people can easily just go and find a private building (church or some secular building) that will marry them or if they can't find that they can write up a private marriage contract. No need for the state for any of those things.

But can't they just as easily find a state official that will marry them?

Why should the state be involved in marriage at all? All this leads to is a bunch of people fighting against allowing gays or interracial couples to get married, instead you have a fully private system for marriage and no one can really complain about gays or people of different races wanting to get married. Seeing as no one is forcing you to marry them and no one is using your tax dollars to marry them or anything else like that. The whole idea is that marriage has nothing to do with the state and having it as a purely private individual issue will destroy all silly arguments against gay marriage or interracial marriage and take it away as a public issue. Marriage should never be a public issue as it is clearly simply a private issue between two consenting adults.

This wasn't your argument though. Was it? You said that if marriage was not regulated by the state, that the couple would have had an easier time finding someone to marry them. I suspect that the opposite would be the case. It's far more likely that if private institutions or individuals married people, far more of them would not perform interracial marriage than if the state was in charge.

So they can just sign a private marriage contract with maybe a lawyer there to help them. Besides, some private institution would definitely marry them, if there are thousands don't you think there would be some private institutions that would marry them?