So, I’m checking the news headlines as I do every morning, when I come across a headline that read “Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License in La.” My initial reaction was, well, that’s Louisiana, what do you expect, but always interested in race relations, I decided to read the article. Based on the title, one would assume that some crazy KKK leader, who just happened to hold a high government position banned the couple from marriage. Loaded headlines, boy I’ll tell you.
So upon reading the article, I find out that the justice of the peace, Keith Bardwell is a white man. Potential KKK leader assumption fulfilled? Check. Government position assumption fulfilled? Check.
However, the article goes on to explain that Mr. Bardwell simply told the couple that he would not marry them. Not that they could not get married. He didn’t tell them, ‘sorry, we don’t do that with yalls kind here, now go on, get boy” like the headline would have you to believe. All he said is, I don’t marry interracial couples, sorry. But I’m sure there’s another justice of the peace in this parish who will do it.
His reasoning is that a) interracial couples have a higher divorce rate than intra-racial (can I say that?) couples, and b) interracial children have a harder time being accepted by the 2 races involved. He says white people don’t readily accept them, and black people don’t either. So his main concern is the potential offspring that could come of the union.
Bardwell stated that he has tons of black friends. He said, “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.” First off, LOL to his statement, “they use my bathroom.” But I get his point… you know, it’s the typical “my best friend is black” comment. He’s just trying to say that he feels very strongly about treating everyone equally. Cool. So he’ll marry whites with whites, black with blacks, so on, just not between races.
Here’s my issue. The world seems to be up in arms against this man. But I don’t understand what the problem is. He just said he didn’t want to marry them, so what?! He doesn’t have to. Lets take a little trip to, oohhhh let’s say Massachusetts. Or Vermont. Or Connecticut. Or Iowa. And lets say I’m a justice of the peace there and a lesbian couple comes to me and says we want to get married. It’s totally legal right? Do I want to do it? No. And guess what? I don’t have to.
Or what about a religious doctor, who has a patient coming to them for an abortion. I’m pretty sure they can tell their patient, you know, I don’t believe in that, and while I’m sure there are other places where you can get that procedure done, here is not one of them.
So basically, I think that everyone just needs to get over it. It’s not that big of a deal. Bardwell says in all of his years of being a justice of the peace, he’s only had to deny 4 marriages, this one included. He says he likes to treat everyone fairly, and that if he’s denied interracial marriages before, it’s only fair that he denies them now.
I support you Bardwell. I support you because I support the freedom to believe whatever you want. I’m probably the only black supporter you have lol, but nonetheless, I support you.
Article by
C.Carter is a 24 year old, American University Alumna who currently works in the marketing department for the Washington Wizards. She was born and raised in Columbus, Ohio and loves sushi.
has written 1 article(s) for us.
Senor_H_El_Jefe (110)
bitter black dude (41)
blackchild (30)
Abdul Wilson (29)
j2y2k3 (21)
Captain No Marriage (20)
MzZetaEsq (20)
R0cktheMike (18)
E. Reed (17)
max (15)
Idu Charles (14)
true2me (14)
the uppity negro (13)
JG* RunsTheKitchen (12)
Tiffany (12)
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
I will have to politely disagree with your article. While I respect each individual’s freedom of personal ideas and ideology, as an appointed state official and an officer of Louisiana State, Mr. Bardwell has a duty, supported by oath, to uphold the laws of his state regardless of his personal beliefs or policy. The couple met the legal requirements for marriage in his state. In that respect, he has failed to uphold his important position to the highest standard, a great debt to his society. Justices of the peace, although not judges, are officers and defenders of the law. If Mr. Bardwell has a personal conflict with the law, he should support political candidates who will try to change the law, or he should resign from his post–he should not use his position to impart his own beliefs/rationale on others unless it coincides with the sanctity of the law. Imagine how different our world would be if, just 42 years ago, our esteemed Supreme Court, by its Justices, had come to a different conclusion in the case of Loving v. Virginia, which outlawed anti-miscegenation laws in America. Had those Justices used their position to impart their own personal beliefs about interracial relationships in their decision, instead of relying on the Constitutional principles of Equal Protection and Right to Privacy, we would not even be having this debate about Mr. Bardwell–he would fully be within the law. Fortunately, those Justices took their appointed duty and oath to our beloved country seriously. I hope Mr. Bardwell will do the same or make the decision to step down.
In full disclosure, I am a third-year law student at Howard University School of Law, so I care deeply about public officials upholding the law and civil rights regardless of one’s personal beliefs. With that, I urge Mr. Bardwell to follow the words (in paraphrase) of the great Charles H. Houston, former Dean of my school and a mentor to Justice Thurgood Marshall: One can use the law to either be a “social engineer” or a “parasite on society.”
Let us hope that Mr. Bardwell chooses wisely.
@Brandon M.W., …I agree with everything you just say. I don’t think its his right to choice whether a couple should married just because they have higher divorce rates or that their children won’t be accepted. If they meet the requirements it is not his choice. This couple should not have to go through all of this just to be married. Just like an other occupation you are supposed to check your beliefs at the door. If you believe that your job is conflicting with your beliefs then you need to find a new job.
@Brandon M.W., So we agree to disagree. That’s what life is about, right? I appreciate your well written response. I just feel like the same could apply for a justice of the peace in Massachusetts. It’s legal for gay couples to marry there, and I’m sure if I justice of the peace doesn’t agree with that law, he doesn’t have to co-sign on something that he doesn’t believe in. If this article had been about a gay couple instead of an interracial one, would your response have been the same?
@cc1908, I respect all individuals right to privacy (marriage included). But in the state of Louisiana, as I understand, marriage must consist of one man and one woman. (Defense of Marriage Act). Personally, I do not agree with same-sex marriages or plural marriages, but I do believe that each individual has the right to marry whomever they wish provided each partner is of the legal age to marry in the state issuing the license. So had Mr. Bardwell denied a couple of the same-sex a marriage license in Louisiana, I would consider that fully within his capacity as justice of the peace in a state that clearly defines who will be considered for marriage. While I do not agree with Louisiana’s law, it is the law.
Yet because Mr. Bardwell denied a man-woman couple a marriage license without any legal authority to do so, I disagree with his actions and consider it a grave injustice to our federal system which has traditionally allowed each individual state to proscribe and/or prescribe certain conditions for marriage.
All being said, I am encouraged by your decision to write this article and speak your mind. The First Amendment loses its significance and impact if we all simply acquiesce to just listening to the news and not talking about the news. Well done.
@Brandon M.W., Thanks for the kudos.
I would be willing to bet that the writer of this article is not African American regardless of saying they are. And certainly the writer has never been in a mixed relationship or marriage like I have. Actually being in the situation gives you a better view of things I think . This Bradwell person has no right to refuse his services to anyone who politely requests them. I have read that the Louisiana attorney general told him years ago that he was going to get in trouble by refusing to marry mixed couples and still he keeps doing it. The man is ignorant to say the least and hateful too. We have a mixed President and he STILL says it is unfair to the children. My mixed children had no more trouble that any other kids.
I think that this is very sad, if two people want to get married why not regardless of race. Love is love, I don’t know why people think interracial marriage is wrong when its a new step into turning around America. One of my good friends just got married (shes white) to a black man this past weekend everything went great they love each other and her family didn’t have a problem meshing in with his family. I honestly think we can’t have people who are in power to decide on peoples life’s based on how they believe it should be.
Eh, I’d argue that he should advocate for more social awareness work if he sees a problem w/ the way America approaches interracial marriage. Not that he isn’t allowed to disagree, just that his excuse is lame. As is, I feel like he’s just using convenient, and arguably subjective, observations to mask his own bigotry.
actually…..i agree with you…..personally they should just go somewhere else and get married. i feel like he shouldve just denied them and kept it moving without an explanation….there are more impt things we have to worry abt. they can hop over to the next county and get married. problem solved!
“I have piles and piles of black friends.” Ummmmm what does that even mean???? LOL. You really can’t compare opposition to interracial marriage with opposition to abortion and gay marriage. That doesn’t even make sense.
@Alissa, It makes total sense. It’s all about what people believe in. There are doctors who, for whatever reason, be it the Bible or other personal reasons, believe that abortions are wrong, so they choose not to practice them. There are people who believe that gay marriage is wrong… And not even for biblical reasons. One person told me that it was wrong because they can’t procreate. He believes that interracial couples shouldn’t be married. He never told the couple, you guys can’t get married. He just said he wasn’t going to be the one to do it. I pose the same question to you that I posed to Brandon M.W., if this article had been about a gay couple, would your sentiments be the same?
@Alissa, I agree with Alissa.
judges take vows to adhere to the law without personal bias. that is the issue here. the end.
What we have here is a fundamental disagreement about people’s rights. You feel that someone in a certain position has a right to not perform their job duties if they disagree with it, despite the law. Others feel that if you are in a job (legal or otherwise) you should do that job despite your personal beliefts. We get a lot of this when it comes to pharmacists not fulfilling prescriptions for birth control. It doesn’t take a genius to point out that most people hold firm to their fundamental beliefs, so trying to get you to come to the other side is pointless. I don’t really know where I stand on this fundamental issue. While I think people should hold firm to their beliefs, I also think if you get paid to do a job, then you need to do it or find another job. The justice of the peace’s position is racist though. Couples who get married under the age of 30 divorce at a higher rate than interracial couples and he’s never denied any of them a marriage license…
I see where you’re going with this. And I can agree with his reasons as to why he may not support the idea. But the problem is, the Government is not a church, therefore, personal beliefs will not suspend legislation that supports something. Hell, I’m sure there are people against traditional medicine in health sector, however, its not ethical for them to go around refusing to sign off on prescriptions to patients.
I’m not saying he’s wrong or right for his belief, I just feel like if he can’t do his job fully, then why wont he step down for someone who can?
So here’s my two cents. As a justice of the peace he is there to uphold the laws of the land even if those laws go against his personal beliefs. If he feels he is incapable of performing the duties of his position due to his personal beliefs he should resign from his post, it is really that simple. So in this instance Mr. Bardwell is wrong. Not that he is wrong in his opinion because he is entitled to his opinion whether it’s prejudice or not.
I noticed that you also asked folks if they would be upset if the this was a same sex couple trying to get married. Now if the justice of the peace was still in LA then he would be correct to deny the marriage because it goes against the laws of the parrish and the state. On the other hand if the same sex couple were in Mass. Mr. Bardwell would be wrong again because the laws in the state permit same sex marriage.
It really comes down to the duties of the position. Mr. Bardwell took an oath to uphold the laws of the particular parrish regardless of his personal opinions/beliefs. If he felt that his job went against his belief he should seek other employment.
And that would be my two cents