Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
There's an old joke for which you can use any state for the punchline. It goes like this: It's difficult getting used to the time change going from Michigan to Louisiana. It's 12:15 here and it's 1959 there. Here's a story that allows that joke to come to life.
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."I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "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."
Nah, this injustice of the peace isn't racist. He lets black people use his bathroom! Piles and piles of them!
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.Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."
If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
Yeah, he's an equal fuckhead to everyone. Bardwell should be removed from his position. Like yesterday. And then he should be placed in the public square and laughed at mercilessly. Asshole.
Politics
Comments
I dunno, I think this guy is a hero. Everyone knows that it is our God-given First Amendment right as white heterosexual Christian males to piss all over the Fourteenth Amendment rights of everyone else.
See, this is exactly why you liberals are so scary. First, you want to let gay people get married. Now, you want judges to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples. What's next? Letting good Christian girls get married to JEWS?!???
Posted by: James Sweet | October 16, 2009 9:36 AM
Ngrkh.
(That's the sound of something in my brain burning out under the strain of processing that.)
He says "treat everyone equally" but means "treat all members of the class I discriminate against equally badly".
I mean, really. His argument is that if he marries one couple legally entitled to seek it, he has to marry all such couples? Which is, y'know, his obligation anyway?
Yeah, I'm gonna need to go look at kittens for an hour or so to soothe my brain now.
Posted by: Morgan | October 16, 2009 9:44 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 16, 2009 9:45 AM
James,
You are not quite up to the MtS quality of Poe-ness but not bad.
The judge is a loon and like John Freshwater's bible lessons in science class, is no doubt supported by his local citizens. In Freshwater's case its Ohio religious nuts, in Louisiana, its probably the KKK. Hell, this is closer to 1859 than 1959.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 16, 2009 9:46 AM
He has a point... I mean, the child of a mixed race couple could very well grow up to be president, and that is a high-stress high-visibility job I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy!
Posted by: James Sweet | October 16, 2009 9:48 AM
For some reason I keep reading his comments as
Posted by: Matty | October 16, 2009 9:49 AM
Heh, thanks. I could never aspire to approach MtS in that regard :)
In any case, I don't have the energy for sustained satire. Even if I tried, at some point I wouldn't be able to help saying what I actually think.
Posted by: James Sweet | October 16, 2009 9:50 AM
Bardwell should be removed from his position.
That's it? Isn't this guy breaking the law somehow? If this isn't a civil rights violation, what is?
Posted by: Taz | October 16, 2009 9:59 AM
Ed is quite right. This JP has placed his personal preferences above the letter of the law he's sworn to uphold. His job is to issue marriage licenses to people who fulfill the legal requirements for marriage, not to be the Decider and grant marriage licenses as boons to the worthy. If he can't do his job, he needs to be fired; if he's done this sort of thing before (and this sort of arrogant Dixiecrat nanny-stating doesn't show up ex nihilo), there's room (and reason) for a class-action suit against the parish itself.
Though it's funny. I don't remember widespread liberal/libertarian outrage when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city's JPs to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, even though that was precisely the same issue (justices of the peace deciding who should be licensed to marry based on personal preference, not on state law).
Posted by: mad the swine | October 16, 2009 10:10 AM
Holy ******! So much for Loving v. Virginia eh? I love how this guy makes all of the standard, "I am not a racist" comments proving pretty soundly that he is a racist. "I have black friends, I see black people all the time, I even let them use my bathroom!" Seriously, WTF?
MtS:
I'm not certain if your second part is you slipping back into character again, have to ask, can you please stay in character throughout a post, or be rational throughout a post? The combination posts give me a headache. ;o)
But, if your second part comment is legitimate rather than sarcasm, there is a significant difference in a public official (or anyone really) breaking a law because of their personal preferences (this tool), or breaking a law because they believe the law violates the rights of individuals, which is what the Mayor of San Francisco was doing.
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 16, 2009 10:17 AM
Mad the Swine wrote:
Actually no, for starters an order from a mayor to all JP's and a decision by one JP are not the same thing. Second the San Francisco thing did not prevent anyone from marrying this guy did. Is there anyone who can't see the difference between letting people do something and not letting them?
I know, I know, I'll try not to take the bait again.
Posted by: Matty | October 16, 2009 10:19 AM
Because there's no difference whatsoever between discriminating against a couple whose relationship he disapproves of, but which has been legal for decades, and using the power of one's position to fight for the rights of second-class citizens.
Sometimes I still wonder how much you're faking your wingnuttery.
Posted by: Seraph | October 16, 2009 10:23 AM
Quoth the injustice:
"I've got nothing against black people, everyone should own two or three."
I wonder if he applies his racial purity test to asians, hispanics, middle eastern and other non-white 'interracial' marriages. Just how does he know? Does he secretly order DNA testing?
I mean, I've got enough Lakota in me that I can claim American Indian if I wanted to, and my wife is half Philipino, so I wonder whether this douchenozzle would have married us or not?
Posted by: FastLane | October 16, 2009 10:24 AM
How charming of Bardwell. It sounds like what the trial judge wrote in Loving v. Virginia:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
It's worth remembering what Earl Warren wrote in response:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
I certainly hope Bardwell gets everything that he deserves.
Posted by: THobbes | October 16, 2009 10:26 AM
When someone says, "I'm not racist, but...", I think it's because they don't know the meaning of the word racist. They think that racism is limited to extreme things like slavery, lynching, and segregated schools. They think that as long as they're not complete assholes about their racism, then it doesn't really count as racism. That's one reason that it's so hard to overcome racism, because so many people don't even know what the word means.
Posted by: catgirl | October 16, 2009 10:27 AM
I don't ordinarily advocate "voting with your feet" as a first resort; but if what this JP says is true for the people he's "discussed the topic with," then that's a pretty good argument for leaving that backward backwater and finding a better place to live, get married, and raise kids.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 16, 2009 10:49 AM
I had no idea in 2009 my own relationship would be controversial so somebody. (And, yes, we would like to have kids some day)
Posted by: Nigel Patel | October 16, 2009 10:56 AM
The story at the Hammond Daily Star is a bit more enlightening:
So he likes to say it's about protecting the children but I have a sneaking suspicion that it's mostly about protecting the honor and chastity of the good southern white lady from the savage lusts of the negro. Or something along those lines.
Posted by: peaches | October 16, 2009 11:12 AM
Yes, the risk of discrimination towards these children is a real one. But it's even worse for Black children, isn't it? So let's prevent Black people from marrying. Also, haven't we all seen a glasses-wearing kid mocked by other schoolchildren? You know, "four eyes", "blind as a bat", etc. It hurts. Fortunately, we know that myopy is hereditary. So let's forbid marriage for myopic people!
Posted by: Christophe Thill | October 16, 2009 11:13 AM
Am I the only one who chuckled when he said he has piles of blacks?
Freudian FTW
Posted by: rpsms | October 16, 2009 11:14 AM
Selection bias, anyone? From the Wiki: "According to the 2006 census, 286,000 White female-Black male and 117,000 Black female-White male marriages were recorded[.]"
But I guess it's like peaches said. He doesn't remember the white male-black female couples (or the Hispanic/white, or Hispanic/black, or Asian/white, etc, etc, etc, couples) as vividly, since they don't trigger his good ol' boy 'protect teh white wimmenz' instincts :P
Oh, and I want to reiterate: this issue shouldn't be put to rest by just firing the JP. The article quotes Bardwell:
He's been a JP for 35 years. He could not possibly have gotten away with this sort of blatantly illegal discrimination unless his supervisors were either supportive or criminally negligent. There needs to be a federal investigation to see just how high up the rot goes and how many other Democrat politicians and appointees turned a blind eye to this.
Posted by: mad the swine | October 16, 2009 11:44 AM
MtS just made my head 'splode. The last paragraph seems like his classic satire -- taking pains to blame the whole thing on "Democrat politicians and appointees" -- and yet, I find myself wholly agreeing with it.
Damn you, swine!
Posted by: James Sweet | October 16, 2009 11:49 AM
This JP has placed his personal preferences above the letter of the law he's sworn to uphold...I don't remember widespread liberal/libertarian outrage when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city's JPs to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, even though that was precisely the same issue
That's because the outrage is over the discrimination, not the "letter of the law". That's why there was outrage before such discrimination was outlawed, which led to the law being changed.
Posted by: Taz | October 16, 2009 11:55 AM
When someone says, "I'm not racist, but...", I think it's because they don't know the meaning of the word racist.
OR BECAUSE THEY DO, BUT CAN'T HANDLE THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!!!
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | October 16, 2009 12:34 PM
"I'm not racist, but" is up there with "This is not about money," as classic sentences prefixes that lie.
Ed, I hope you follow up on the aftermath of this, that is, what happens to this piece.
Posted by: cm | October 16, 2009 1:01 PM
How could anyone possibly say something like that with a straight face? The mind boggles.
Posted by: Wes | October 16, 2009 1:01 PM
Dammit MtS!!! Are you Poe or NOT????
Are you seriously blaming Democrats for this, without putting equal blame on the Republicans in his parish/district/state who did the same?
I'm curious... how many people think MtS is a Poe? Let's have a vote... 3 choices:
1. Obvious Poe. He clearly is yanking our chain with his strange insertions of absurdity in otherwise thoughtful responses.
2. Obvious wingnut. He's way too consistent with his absurdities. A pattern has emerged and he clearly has a strong irrational bias against the left, logic be damned.
3. Still can't tell for sure. If he's a Poe, he's a damned good one!
For myself, I vote option 3. LOL
Posted by: doctorgoo | October 16, 2009 1:13 PM
I feel like there's a new meme here: "Black people use my bathroom."
Posted by: THobbes | October 16, 2009 1:17 PM
In light of this topic, I would like all participants in this thread to watch this instructional video, entitled "How to Tell People They Sound Racist."
Oh, and check this out, because it's just awesome.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 16, 2009 1:23 PM
Ah, you see, he's not a racist because he does believe in mixing the races in OTHER ways than that one. For example, football teams. That rule against colored folks playing sports on the regular teams was really misguided. Why, he'll readily admit that some of those boys are real pros, and he cheers for them all the time, no difference.
A 'racist' wouldn't. And, since he probably knows people like that, he thinks he's in the Golden Middle of Moderate Moderation.
Posted by: Sastra | October 16, 2009 1:30 PM
Gretchen
Instructional video will have to wait until I get home. Those pics were great. I did notice an uncanny positional bias however. I saw only one pic where hubby wasn't on the left. Hmmmm, must be something to that... :O
Posted by: MikeMa | October 16, 2009 1:37 PM
For those suggesting that he shouldn't be allowed to do this (or that he should be removed from office) please remember that he's protected by Federal law. Conscience clauses, anyone?
Besides that, performing marriages is not part of a justice's official duties. He can do it, but isn't required to -- honoraria from marriages are a modest but steady part of any judge's income.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | October 16, 2009 1:55 PM
THobbes: "Black people use my bathroom" knda sounds like either an indie-rock CD title or a tagline for a Ricky Gervais movie:
"Black people use his bathroom. And they annoy him."
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 16, 2009 2:04 PM
I wonder how many JP's approve mixed hetero/homo marriages? Oh, wait, that's been happening for years ... although usually only the gay partner knows it.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | October 16, 2009 2:13 PM
MtS may just be dating hirself. Some of us remember the days when the Democratic Party had a lock on the Deep South due in large part to rejection of Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Declaration.
Hard as it might be to believe now, there was a time when the (rare) Republicans in the South were more likely to support civil rights than the Democrats.
Of course, then the "Yellow-Dog Democrats" filed the paperwork to become "Blue Dog Republicans" and not much else changed.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | October 16, 2009 2:14 PM
As a Louisiana native, I duly hang my in shame, but the 'devil is in the details' and when I first saw this story something didn't seem right about it. Justices of the Peace do not issue the marriage licenses, the parish(county) does, usually at the courthouse. While I can see the JP not performing his elected duties for not performing the wedding as being true, I cannot see the courthouse failing to issue the marriage license.
Posted by: Freedonian | October 16, 2009 2:28 PM
Never mind that all children are born into situations they didn't choose. Nobody gets to pick their parents, genetic make up, natal cultural environment, position in society.... You can't get more non-biased than that.
Posted by: cicely | October 16, 2009 2:43 PM
Posted by: Martin | October 16, 2009 2:52 PM
I keep switching between thinking like the rest of people who think the guy is a racist, and wondering if he is just more aware of how rotten mixed race kids had it 20-30 years ago. I got similar advice about interracial marriage and kids from my parents when I expressed an interest in a black women back in 1973, and my parents were a mixed race couple themselves.
Posted by: rnb | October 16, 2009 3:32 PM
D.C.@32,
That doesn't sound right to me. In general, you do not have a right of conscience to discriminate based on race. (For example, a restauranteur may put up a sign saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," but if they actually refuses based on race, they can get in a peck of legal trouble.)
I would expect that ministers would have the right to refuse, because freedom of religion trumps the requirement to be race-blind. J.P. is a secular job, and in that case I wouldn't think you could get away with it. (Even if you could refuse for any number of other reasons. But this guy has come out and said it was because the couples were mixed race.)
By the way, an earlier commenter talked as though this
MtS(out of character)@21,
The guy hasn't been doing it for 35 years. According to the AP, "Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years."
This makes me wonder if the guy got close to retirement and decided to pull this stunt, figuring if he got fired it wouldn't make much difference. (Or worse, planning to pull a Roy Moore and run for a higher office, and get the racist vote.)
Posted by: Paul W. | October 16, 2009 4:03 PM
Does this chowderhead not realize that his President is of mixed race?
Posted by: DCBob | October 16, 2009 4:08 PM
That doesn't sound right to me. In general, you do not have a right of conscience to discriminate based on race. (For example, a restauranteur may put up a sign saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone,"
You cannot discriminate in housing, work, or public accommodation. In other areas you are legally entitled to behave like an ass. However I would expect that the JP job would be considered public accommodation.
Posted by: jay | October 16, 2009 4:17 PM
He's so worried about children of interracial marriages, but by his own logic they shouldn't be allowed to marry anybody.
Posted by: Taz | October 16, 2009 4:27 PM
D. C. Sessions "...please remember that he's protected by Federal law. Conscience clauses, anyone?"
This is the first time I've heard of a conscience clause protecting a state-employed racist from the Constitution, over the Constitutional rights of those he serves. Apparently his liberty doesn't end where your nose begins.
"Besides that, performing marriages is not part of a justice's official duties. He can do it, but isn't required to…"
Valid excuse: "I'm sorry, but I don't have the time."
Invalid excuse: "Youse gonna have one of them mulatto babies."
Posted by: Modusoperandi | October 16, 2009 5:01 PM
Oboy! I think this guy thinks he's living in 1909, not 2009! Never mind that there have always been "unofficial" interracial couples -- and their children! The rest is just appalling in this day and age!
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | October 16, 2009 6:12 PM
Ed
You bring me such joy with these stranger-than-fiction stories. In an odd way these absurdities have a calming effect on my soul. Amen.
Posted by: Slixpert | October 16, 2009 6:42 PM
Well, that's mighty white of you..., asshole.
Posted by: Troy Britain | October 16, 2009 9:41 PM
Yes, God forbid there be children from the mixed marriage!! Who would want children as ugly and unacceptable as Mariah Carey, Barack Obama, Beyonce, or Halle Berry?
Think of how they would be shunned by society!!!
Posted by: Chiefley | October 17, 2009 12:23 AM
Welcome to Louisiana, where bigotry, self-service, and criminality are reasons to vote for someone. As an aside... My wife and I were refused to be married by her Catholic church priest because it was a mixed marriage. I was Baptist at the time.
Posted by: Kevin | October 17, 2009 2:16 AM
CNN has a poll (at 6am gmt-5) up as to whether this racist JP should be removed from office. Nice pic of the couple too.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 17, 2009 5:41 AM
Here's the link to the story, there's a video link embedded in this story link where Anderson Cooper interviews the bride: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/interracial.marriage/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 17, 2009 7:02 AM
Kevin "As an aside... My wife and I were refused to be married by her Catholic church priest because it was a mixed marriage."
That's okay. Freedom of Religion and whatnot. It's different when the authority in question is a part of the State, which serves (or is supposed to serve) all people.
"I was Baptist at the time."
So you switched teams? If anything, marriage ceremony denial because I wasn't part of the in-group would make me far less likely to join them.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | October 17, 2009 10:11 AM
IANAL, but 18 USC 242 seems like it would be applicable.
"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
Posted by: Brock | October 17, 2009 10:49 AM
MtS @21... it looks like you're blaming the democrats for letting him get away with this... but this JP is a Republican:
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091017/NEWS/910170344
Posted by: doctorgoo | October 17, 2009 10:05 PM
I feel as though I should mention this
I grew up in England, and while I was at secondary school my form tutor told us that she did not think that blacks and whites should mix because then the child would be 'neither black or white' to which my reply was 'does it matter'
to make it worse there was a girl in my class who was mixed raced, who looked like she was about to cry it was a very unnerving experience for me, but especially for her
call me Naïve but I had no idea people still thought like that up until that point
some people just have no idea that what they are saying is racist and hurtful
XxX
Posted by: Kim | October 20, 2009 6:28 PM
Seriously, though, our sign got incredible attention. Much fun for us.
Posted by: mrmoonpie | October 28, 2009 4:11 PM