Justice who refused interracial marriage resigns

Source: CNN

A Louisiana justice of the peace who drew criticism for refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple has resigned, the secretary of state's office said Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/louisiana.interracial.marriage/index.html

I hate to do this but...when you say it like this, it sounds really populist. I heard a neo-con once say ''Gay marriage legislation will FORCE every justice of the peace to perform marriages against their will.'' he chose the words justice of the peace because it resonates with the folk, makes him seem like he's just a down home good ol' boy that loves baseball, apple pie, and America... you can almost hear the star spangled banner playing when you think of it.

I don't mean to start something, but it really upsets me when people use such tactics to convey their point.

Did you post your reply to the wrong message?

And welcome to DU!

:hi:

nope, right message. point- folkish or populist methods are unbecoming to any type of discussion.

just using the term justice of the peace to describe the people is. I'm not sure the person that posted it was thinking in this way, but I find it offensive because of its aims.

what else could he be called?

That is the official title.

I presume you are not acquainted with American judicial titles?

but thanks for the jackass comment! Working at a courthouse for 2 years put me in close contact with them. and I must say that all of the 1's I have ever come into contact with would not understand why you were calling them justices of the peace, They are also known in official capacities as The Honorable... but turns out, they prefer the title judge. just as most peace officers nowadays like to be called police officers, unless your name is wyatt earp.

I was not trying to be a jackass. Your online name and profile led me to believe you were a foreigner, perhaps unfamiliar with American customs. Now I see that was not the case, so you really have no excuse for the assinine remarks you are making.

In Louisiana and Texas, places I am familiar with, the title is Justice of the Peace. That is what their business cards say, and that it what the title painted on their office door says. I know, because I've met them personally, and one of them presided at my wedding.

You've exhausted my patience.

Good bye.

peace out

:wtf:

It took a while, but he finally got the message.

wow ... ... ...

This guy ran for an office whose official title is Justice of the Peace. He is not a judge under any definition of "judge." His job title is inferior to that of the judges in his jurisdiction (inferior in a technical and legal sense, not as an elitist editorial comment).

Maybe you need to do some googling of definitions.

refers to him as a Justice of the Peace, don't you? We don't call him a judge because the term judge is not exactly correct for his particular job functions. Justice of the Peace is exactly correct and is the term that should be used to define his position.

because newspaper articles are usually written in an official manner. news sources usually do that. and I think everyone would probably rather call him judge.

when the person's job title is "justice of the peace."

I've worked for a few newspapers — including The Wall Street Journal — but what do I know?

here is a copy of the AP stylebook (JOP is on page 143)

http://alumni.imsa.edu/org/hadron/ap.pdf

yeah, I already acknowledged that I was wrong. thanks for going to the trouble to find a link though

I'm confused. He's an official Justice of Peace. That's how every single article about him referred to him.

because the man was a Justice of the Peace. What other term would you have preferred?

I would have gone with judge.

His position is called "Justice of the Peace." That is the name for it. Therefore that is what SHOULD be used.

but I personally know 4 judges, and they would probably raise their eyebrows if you called them a justice of the peace, most just go with judge. I just wasn't aware that this was such a formal forum please forgive me for breaking the rules of decorum.

In fact, technically they are not even in the same league... heck they are technically not the same sport. The only requirements to be a justice of the peace is to not be a felon and have completed high school. In other words, a Justice of the Peace is to a Judge, like a citizen's arrester is to a Police Chief with 30 yrs in the force.

You really need better approaches to express your "concern" LOL.

good 1 again! but i found an ap article that called him a judge... your blab doesn't prove anything.

That "exchanges" everything eh?

Great trolling by the way... I have seen better, but you are still young and your flippers are tired. Take a rest, all that "concern" can't be good for you.

wha...?

it is about your scolding of a poster who was entirely correct in his wording. You said he should not use the term "justice of the peace," when, in fact, he absolutely should...since that's what the man was. If you just call him judge, that is actually confusing...as some judges have more power than others. Calling him a "justice of the peace" actually helps the reader determine just what type of judge he is.

From the wikipedia post I gave earlier:
United States

In some U.S. states, the Justice of the Peace is a judge of a court of limited jurisdiction, a magistrate, or a quasi-judicial official with certain statutory or common law magisterial powers.

The Justice of the Peace, or solicitor general, typically presides over a court that hears misdemeanor cases, traffic violations, and other petty criminal infractions. The Justice of the Peace may also have authority over cases involving small debts, landlord and tenant disputes, or other small claims court proceedings. Proceedings before Justices of the Peace are often faster and less formal than the proceedings in other courts. In some jurisdictions a party convicted or found liable before a Justice of the Peace may have the right to a trial de novo before the judge of a higher court rather than an appeal strictly considered.

The Justice of the Peace is also the judge to whom parties seeking a civil marriage can repair. While states generally recognize marriages applied for under any relevant statutes and officiated under a religious leader or equivalent authority with adequate witnesses present, a Justice of the Peace can typically oversee a marriage union directly.

Some states have special qualifications or unique features for the office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_peace

thanks for the wiki post.

One that deals with mundane routine work. Petty offenses, misdemeanors, and marriages are typically all the guys is allowed to do (though that depends). But calling him Justice of Peace does more to clarify what his actual responsibilities are than just calling him judge. The main point is that your first response to poster number 1 is wrong...he was clearly not trying to use language to get a rise...rather, he was calling the guy exactly what he is...a Justice of the Peace.

would still call him a judge. srry.

whatever. At the very least, I hope you have now learned that the initial post you responded to was not using the term "Justice of the Peace" as incitement...but rather as the title of the man's actual position. There was no GWB use of language to rile us all up.

too bad the discussion spiraled out of control about the correct names of judges. could have been used as something constructive. too bad.

has entered the realm of ridiculous and laughable.

are unique office holders, elected in small geographic areas. Unlike judges in other state courts, JPs are not required to hold a juris doctorate degree, and are not usually licensed by the state bar (although they can be).

I know this because I am a Texas lawyer who has appeared numerous times before Justices of the Peace. They have so little authority in Texas that their decisions are reviewable de novo (any appeal requires the entire case to be reheard by the district court). Calling a Justice of the Peace a judge is not only inaccurate, it is improper as it misrepresents their authority and professional standing.

anyone should call a Justice of the Peace a judge. They are two different positions. Both exist. You're posting as though there is no such thing as a Justice of the Peace who is not a judge.

know them. I came in regular contact with jeez.... 30 or so i guess. but 4 are good friends.

n/t

peace. You can rid yourself of it with some dictionary defintions, but, apparently, you'd rather argue with people who do know the difference. Whatever.

i already admitted that I was wrong... I thought that the guy was a judge, and that the person that first was calling him a justice of the peace... it was a mistake... but thanks for acting like a jackass like 24 hours later.

Perhaps our new member is unfamiliar with American honorifics for jurisprudence.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of doubt.

good 1.

I can't help that. If you knew anything about german history you would be aware of the meaning of the quote. I can't help that stormfront uses it, or uses bismark to help their cause. I mean if I had a churchill quote, would you say "the BNP quotes churchill"---therefore I'm slightly accusing you of being a nazi. Probably not, because I think everyone knows Churchill. Read something, esp about the post 1848 revolutions of europe and then the Frankfurter Nationalversammlung and you will understand. But, don't make broad generalizations, and esp don't accuse someone of being a nazi or supporting stormfront because your lack of historical knowledge prevents you from knowing ANYTHING about what the person is saying.
Here's a wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_Iron_%28speech%29

On a side note, Google Translator, while a technological marvel of our time, is a bad translator. I find it hilarious that Stormfront uses the google translater translations for their stuff. You would think that the organization would at least have someone that spoke german posting things for their website.

I must have missed your point. Can you clarify it?

point- folkish or populist methods are unbecoming to any type of discussion

are you referring to?

Amazing how you were able to extrapolate so much stuff from the single line subject which was the OP's posts that triggered your "concern-o-meter"

LOL.

8 years under bush really tuned my ability to how did you put it... 'extrapolate' the use of such words used by people that like to rouse up the huddled masses i guess you could say.

Not through speeches and majority decisions of the great questions of our time to be decided, but by iron and blood."

WTF is that supposed to mean??

That's what your profile has as its quote, and that is straight out of Mein Kampf

WTF is up with that?

uhhhhhh no, its from otto von bismark. and i liked the quote because of the historical context, not because of anything else.

Perhaps contributing to the confusion of the use of the designation of a "Justice of the Peace" as an actual title? Similarly, there are "judges" called "Magistrates". Both types tend to handle lower level types of legal matters.

no, english is not my 2nd language. I hope that wasn't meant as a backhanded comment, if so what a jackass. b.t.w. props on the bumrushdashow name and the pe logo, I saw them last year in concert here in Germany and it was awesome.

Only noticing the germanic character set use in your profile and you did confirm that you are over there. :hi:

b.t.w. this past spring I was in the US and got to listen to Chuck D on his lecture circuit. You can usually find the dates on Public Enemy's website. It's really cool. He talks about a lot of things, the evolution of hip-hop, and of western music as a whole, politics. You should definitely check it out.

the sad thing is, it's 30-some years since what we used to simply call "rap", had finally started to trickle into the mainstream (and wasn't just confined to basement parties or clubs), and I was hoping that the genre would at least spawn an even more sophisticated "next generation" of music. But it seems to have gone sideways with the way hip-hop has evolved (e.g., why has break-dancing returned from the dead?). :crazy:

Edit to add, maybe I'm just getting old and crotchety. :rofl:

The death of rap was when it became the mainstream. I long for the days of the the true rap, not just the political groups with the message like the PE's, but the others ones that just made songs to dance and have a good time to as well. It seems that it was so pure at that time. The music had substance because it was created by people that worshiped the turntables and the free spirit that was the driving force of rap. It will never go back to the way you and I liked it, I wish I could go back to the first time I heard afrika bambaataa 'planet rock.' At the age of 13, year 1998, I can't explain the feeling, but it was like nothing I had ever heard before, gotta give props to my older brother for turning me on to it. Then came all of the other groups, in a semi chronological order. It was awesome. But, you have to realize that it will never be as good as it was. Nothing ever is.

PE is special and dear to my heart, and I think something that Chuck D himself told me is as true as ever. I mentioned to him after his lecture when I was getting his autograph that I had seen PE in Germany. He was really happy that I had the chance, and we had about a 15 minute conversation about the differences between fans of rap in the US and fans in Europe. He told me that it's hard for them to put on a show anywhere in the US unless its a huge metropolitan area. The city I live in, where I saw them, is home to about 300k people. He said that the the crowd on both continents are mostly younger people, but he said that there is an energy in the European kids that the American kids don't have. He said the kids watching them in Europe reminded him of the old days, playing in some basement club where the only people that were there are people that have a higher understand of your music, he said it was like they were living the words to the song like it was their own creation. At the european shows the people in the crowd knows every single line of every single song they do and scream out the words like they mean it, whereas in the US, its usually only the choruses of the popular songs that the crowd sings along to.

But, lately, I have really felt like rap is somewhat going in the right direction. At the end of highschool, 2003, for me, I really stopped listening to rap after that, it was going in a direction that lacked any creative talent whatsoever. That's until I started listening to Common, which then led me to Kanye West and others on his label like Kid Cudi. Now, say what you will about kanye's personal life and attitude, but the man slaves over his work like no one else has done in rap since the days of PE. There's more going on on his albums than just pop hits. I mean yeah he's guilty of the 'made strictly for topping the billboards' song as any other artist, but if you really pay attention to his words and especially the quality of the music itself, you can tell that this is a person that really cares about his art. You should really check out his storytellers episode. I think that the fact that Storytellers got him to do an episode tells a lot about him as an artist.

But I really think that rap is going in a new direction, I think kanye helped usher in a new rap sound. I mean he has really changed the way rap music is conceptualized, written, produced, marketed, even performed. While it will never go back to the way we want it to, I feel like it has been a change for the good.

i misread the article... and the guy is a justice of the peace, i thought he was just a judge and you were calling him a justice of the peace... so please disregard the arguments... :)

are unique office holders, elected in small geographic areas. Unlike judges in other state courts, JPs are not required to hold a juris doctorate degree, and are not usually licensed by the state bar (although they can be).

I know this because I am a Texas lawyer who has appeared numerous times before Justices of the Peace. They have so little authority in Texas that their decisions are reviewable de novo (any appeal requires the entire case to be reheard by the district court). Calling a Justice of the Peace a judge is not only inaccurate, it is improper as it misrepresents their authority and professional standing.

did you have to rub it in? I already said I misread the article.

seems sensible.

BTW, it's very hard to reconcile your post 68 with your reply 78. In 68, you had reasons why the article was wrong. In 78 you recant, saying you finally saw the light bc you read the article.

Congrats. You will now have a number of posters here assuming you're a troll, a liar and/or a fool. Next time, try taking a breath and maybe doing a little research before stubbornly muddling through as poster after poster tries to enlighten you.

im sure you will admit its hard to realize the meaning of what people are saying when you are reading text, esp text in a forum. It was a mistake... but there's no reason to be a dick about it.

that bismark and hitler are different people right?

Are we really having this debate? REALLLLLY?

I think you burned my retina. LOL.

and therefore subject to the Constitution of the United States. He should indeed be forced to obey it. Forcing churches to do something that violates their religious belief is a horse of a whole different color.

BTW, you may want to look into the meaning of "populist" a bit more. It does not mean allowing government officials to make their decisions about human rights on the basis of skin color.

On edit: Sorry. As the thread progressed, the poster's objection, if he had a genuine objection, turned out to have been based on his misunderstanding of judge v. justice of the peace, as well as his misunderstanding of the term "populist," but the former appears to have been his main focus. I misunderstood him.

Can't imagine why. :rofl:

i never said it was 'allowing government officials to make their....' I said the use of the term justice of the peace was a populist tool, not what the guy did. furthermore, i never said anything about churches. read before you comment.

I imagine many people will interpret and infer almost anything in such as way as to better validate any preconceived notions they may hold.

attempt to label me as a racist by using nuances is off base, without warrant, and childish at best. If that's not the way it was meant, I sincerely apologize.

This is a good sign... we didn't take a giant leap backward after all!

Just sayin :) My apologies for the redundancy.

:D

whom he so magnanimously allows to use his toilet.

I think he may have seen Borat one too many times.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

.

:kick: and rec!

but this'll do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaG2Acg8n60

Hope your racist attitude gets you everything you deserve!

He needed to retire his bigoted ass! He was a disgrace to public elected officials!

:applause::applause::applause:

Sonia

He will not be missed.

for by the taxes of people he has chosen to discriminate against.

To me, if you're going to have a conviction, then you should take your asswhippin' for that conviction, too, not profit from your cowardess.

Typical punk.

So he goes out on his own terms, gets to have the last word in FOX... AND gets to have a public pension? WTF!

Funny how these "personal responsibility pull yourself by your own bootstraps" folk tend to be so damend good at passing the buck and suck off the public tit. Figures...

When this story first broke, he claimed he had not intended to stand for re-election anyway, but showed no sign of resigning. I wonder what did it? I hope to heaven no one made him better off in order to get him to resign. Then again, I guess it would be worth it, just to be sure he can't ever again refuse to marry a mixed race couple.

but at least he's out (at least there).

n/t

he said that his reasoning for his decision was that he had seen the bad side of interracial marriages and thought that their effect on children etc adversely affected those people. But, my question is... if there was a way to tell that he actually meant this rather than just using it as a b.s. cover for his racism, would this change the opinions of those that have decried his position?

regardless of whether he was being sincere.

y was it not his decision?

He doesn't get to change them just because he feels like it.

there have been instances in the past where judges have gone 'against the law' because of their personal feelings, but forwarded what we today would consider 'just' and 'correct' rules of law. Are you suggesting that decisions in which the judge ruled with his/her personal feelings are to be thrown out/reexamined?

only a judge can do that. A justice of the peace is basically a glorified court clerk.

looks like ur concern-o-meter is so overloaded you can't tell where to post.

It is not my fault you decided to take a dump in this thread, and thus creating plenty of opportunities for the clean up crew.

LOL

dropping what? Is it ok if i gank the LOL at the end of ur posts for mine, i find it soooo badass.

LOL

that the law is unconstitutional, then the case gets kicked around the appeals courts before finally going up to the USSC...

I cannot find Bardwell's biography or resume, but I'm willing to bet dollars to yen that he has no law degree, has never taken the Bar, and his scope of legal experience doesn't go beyond being a backwoods JOP for a couple of decades...Which means in the legal world, he is about two steps up from a Notary Public...He is not qualified to interpret the law, and he certainly has ZERO standing to overrule a USSC decision (Loving v. Virginia 1967)

Re-interpreting the Equal Protection Clause to allow racial discrimination is no part of his job. He's a low level functionary.

Please don't fall for the line of "reasoning" of this apparent lover of things German newbie, who has spent this thread so far trying to elevate, rationalize and defend the Louisiana racist.

negating all of the hateful things that you have said about me. I agree. He is a low level functionary, and therefore it is not his job to interpret the law. 100%. I misunderstood that he is only a justice of the peace. If he had been a judge, it would have been a valid question.

I never tried to elevate, rationalize or defend the lousiana racist. But thanks for trying. Good smear tactic. But 'lover of things German?' wtf is that supposed to mean?

I'm sure he has no degree. I mean its not a requirement for 'justices of the peace.' I thought that the guy was a judge, as in an actual judge that holds a degree and is elected or whatever. I didn't realize that he was only a justice of the peace.

the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States when he acted upon his racism during the course of his duties, could, in the future, be considered a just and correct interpretation of the law?

And this was not an official ruling by a judge. It was a Justice of the Peace acting illegally in refusing to marry a mixed race couple. So, your question makes no sense in this context.

You're going from sounding like a troll to sounding like a racist. Wrong direction.

I know. I didn't realize that it was only a justice of the peace. I never tried to defend a racist. What I was getting at... if they guy had been an actual judge, is that you can't have so called 'judicial activism' both ways. Sometimes you get shit, which is what happened in this situation, sometimes you get gold, which is what happened with decisions like brown vs. board.>>>>>> I'm totally not saying that brown v board was bs. It's one of the cases that makes me proud of our legal system. I believe in it very strongly. It makes me happy that some judges were able to go out on a limb to rescue the country from rampant racism. But, the warren court (which made decisions that I completely 100% agree with) has been criticized for judicial activism by many, not just racists and neo-cons (but a lot of them yes) but also by progressives and people that agree with the decision.

I'm not trying to sound like a racist. I was talking about the main ideal at the center, which was if a judge (if the guy had been a judge, I have been corrected) acted in his own personal interest for a case, should we negate that case? That was the center issue that I was trying to get at. Because it becomes a very troublesome issue to say the least esp. when other court decisions that stand up for what we, as democrats/liberals etc, believe in has been labeled or fits the definition of judicial activism perfectly. But, apparently you can't talk about an issue like this when race is involved because people call foul too quickly. If race/racism and the decisions that reflect such beliefs were able to be talked about without racist being thrown around, race relations as a whole in the US would be better. This is one of the main things that plagues america. Some are too worried about pissing someone off to talk about an issue candidly. And when the issue is brought up some throw around the terms racist and nazi for that matter like they are just typical words. Labels are really strong, and when you throw them around so wantonly it eliminates the possibility for a discussion.

But, I do acknowledge that I was 100% wrong about the guy being a judge. I know that he is not a judge and I am sorry for that. My question therefore made no sense. But, my question in it's intent was correct. There are more issues than the difference between a judge and jp here. Too bad some can't understand that.

The U.S. Supreme Court tossed out any racially-based limitations on marriage in the landmark 1967 ruling in the case Loving v. Virginia. In the unanimous decision, the court said that under the Constitution, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."


This is a direct quote from the article posted by the OP which, apparently, you still haven't read thoroughly enough.

I know that, and I read it. And i 100% agree. thanks for that

is racist in itself.

.....what?

Your post was racist.

its amazing that people are able to talk about things that concern race in the US without people like you throwing around the word racist. You misunderstood what I meant.

which informs the context of his remarks. I hope youget that I was talking about his concerns, not calling you a racist.

It is impossible to talk about race in the US, particularly in the south, without talking about racism. This concern the JoP cites, "concern for the children," is an old one. The idea that what used to be called "race-mixing" is somehow bad for children, and society as a whole, is part and parcel of the entire ideology of white supremacy in the southern part of the US. It has a long history. When someone like him says something like this, it is very easily recognized, by all Americans, as racist.

I thought you were directing that to me. As far as your 'in the south' comment, I would disagree. Getting my undergrad at a prominent southern university we discussed race and racism openly in tons of classes, esp political science and af-am studies classes. I found that very different from my life in the north, where racism is swept under the rug. Many professors in af-am studies programs have told me that they personally prefer teaching af-am and/or lecturing on racism/race relations in southern classrooms because people aren't afraid to talk about their racist beliefs, therefore you can make progress. One, who taught uc berkeley before coming to my uni said that teaching there and lecturing in the north 'was like talking to a group of agreeable head shakers.' Everyone just pretends there's no problem and ignores the elephant in the room that all of the blacks were at one side of the room and the whites were at the other side and therefore nothing is learned. In the south, people tend to speak their minds no matter how stupid they sound and because they do this progress can be made, understanding can be reached. Of course this is only anecdotal evidence, so it's not scientific and doesn't fit every situation, and it's not meant to. It's just based on personal experience.

The civil rights movement would have never made the great progress in the north because people weren't willing to go on the record like that. There were schools that weren't desegregated in the north, restaurants etc. Some of the schools were technically 'desegregated' but unless a black family was sold a house in the 'nice' part of town, the school was going to remain 100% white. The SCLC and the other organizations picked the south skillfully, relying off of the flagrant racism of the south to forward their platform. It was a skillfully executed political operation. They didn't pick cities in the north because it wouldn't have caused any trouble, in fact in places in the north where black college students went against SCLC and SNCC's wishes and demonstrated, they were met with little to no resistance at all. There was no Bull Connor of a northern city. There's a reason that the civil rights mvt occurred in the South. And while many places in the north like to keep up appearances by juxtaposing themselves a non-racist place far away from the 'back woods' of the south the truth is there is still racism everywhere in the US. All white neighborhoods, schools, are forms of racism no matter their relative position to the Mason-Dixon line.

The use of race-mixing has been used to forward the ideas of white supremacy in the southern united states as well as the north. But, I think that to just throw the label of racist on someone that takes any position without really looking into what made the person arrive at that conclusion is stupid. If it were possible to know what the JoP thinks I would be able to arrive at a conclusion better, so I'm not going to call him racist with using the 'looks like a.... smells like a...' system. I wish that our society could be at the point where someone could make a legitimate (i'm not calling his position legitimate because I don't personally know his racial politics) argument dealing with race without racist being tossed on him as frequently as Americans (lib and con) like to throw around Nazi without knowing what it actually means. People are too quick to rush to judgment when someone talks about issues like this.

I do know that from research I did as an undergrad that children of mixed races have trouble fitting in not only in school and their peer group, but sometimes even with families. White kids dismiss them as 'not one of us,' and black kids dismiss them as 'not black enough.' The same systemic problem can be shown by using examples from both history and contemporary times. Kanye West had a lot of trouble being accepted as a rapper not only because of his music style but even the style of his clothes. A&R and music execs thought that he wouldn't appeal because he was essentially not 'black enough' i.e. didn't wear chains or jersey's or talk about bitches & ho's money, cars, clothes stuff. Some in the rap community criticized him for not fitting into this narrow ideal of what a rapper should be. This runs parallel to black kids not accepting kids that aren't black enough, or if they behave or talk 'white.' The topic of black kids having to shun education and being forced to perform their expected identity to their friends and family was recently covered on a news story on CNN. Similarly, there is the historical example of the mixed children born in Australia. Mainly the product of white 'Australian' frontiersmen and (usually by rape) Aboriginal women, after horrible policies by the Australian government aimed at eliminating the 'half-castes' population by forced castration and other methods, the 'half-castes' were finally allowed to enter 'normal' society. Sadly, many were never able to function properly because of their inability to integrate into the white or aboriginal society.

So there are in fact legitimate concerns about the children. It is true that this has been used in the past to shroud racist policy making in the US. However, there is a concern. The JoP's remedy of just stopping the marriages is a pretty stupid one. There should be more done in communities, white and black, to help the integration of children of mixed races. Some get by without any problems, some in the past have used 'passing' as a way to cope, and others who couldn't fit have just been forgotten.

The sad thing is that no one in the media at least that I know of, tried to get the truth out of his opinions. The story was handled by every news source that I read as 'racist JoP tries to make stupid stand against interracial relationships haha laugh at the racist.' They did the job that we typically expect of msm reporters, and just reported for shock value, the selling of headlines, etc.

Now, I would doubt that the decision that the JoP made had half as much thought put in to it as I did this post, but the thing is, no one ever took the time to look into it. If the judge did have a legitimate concern, he went about in perhaps the most absolutely wrong way he could have. But, I think we lost out on a way to improve race relations by just dismissing him as a racist and not examining our own racial politics, our own schools, friend circles, neighborhoods, restaurants. We will never make any progress if people aren't allowed to think critically about race.

He deals quite a bit with the issues facing multiracial people in Dreams of my Father.

As a white southern male, this is my culture, and I'm completely comfortable saying that I am 99.999% sure this fellow did what he did for racist reasons: when he's concerned about the children, he doesn't mean anything about the complexities of growing up biracial. You're looking to the wrong sources. The JoP's tactic of stopping interracial marriages would, indeed, be a silly one to address the problems you cite, which further goes to the fact that these are not the problems that concern him: the problem that concerns him is the very existence of biracial people, and, since he cannot have the creation of such families on his conscience, there is no doubt that his choice seemed a natural one.

I have a relative (if in-laws by my Dad's second marriage count) from the vicinity of Nuremberg who has literally said such things as "The trains did run on time" and "The Holocaust was real, sure, but very much overstated. 20 million, 10 million? No way. I doubt it was 100,000." Now, if someone from the very place where Nazism got its strongest support, who was also in die Hitlerjugend, said these things, you might be reasonable to assume he is a Nazi sympathizer. Maybe he doesn't put on the boots anymore, but there you have it. Similarly, if someone from Louisiana does something racists used to do, and then offers up the same rationale the racists used, it might be reasonable to assume he's a racist. Maybe he doesn't don the sheets anymore, but he's a racist.

Heuristics are useful in simplifying the world. I agree with you about the need to examine the most subtle forms of racism, but I fail to see how calling someone out on the most obvious forms of racism in any way prevents us from that task. Indeed, if I'm worrying about whether my kid has enough black friends but don't say anything when they burn a cross in my town, I think my priorities are wrong. The charge of racism is sometimes overused, but lately the people who have been doing that the most are right-wingers maligning our President.

"the bad side of interracial marriages and thought that their effect on children etc adversely affected those people"

i.e. the claim that interracial marriages are in some way inherently flawed, or that they have an effect on children that leaves them somehow inherently flawed. This claim isn't simply b.s. that covers racism, but racism tout court. That's how we know it's racism, not simply what he did, but also what he said. Far from being a "cover" for racism, the supposed ill effects of "miscegenation" have long been a part of racism in the south.

I'm not buying for one second that a man who wishes that my parents never got married because they were an interracial couple or that I was never born somehow cares about my well being.

shouldn't change anyone's opinion.

Because they would be better off if they were not born.

"Bardwell did not return repeated phone calls from CNN in October, but told CNN affiliate WAFB that he had no regrets about the decision. "It's kind of hard to apologize for something that you really and truly feel down in your heart you haven't done wrong," he said.

In addition, he told the Hammond Daily Star in an October story that he did not marry the couple because he was concerned for the children that might be born of the relationship and that, in his experience, most interracial marriages don't last.

"I'm not a racist," he said. "I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house. My main concern is for the children.""

Some people, apparently, shouldn't even exist. Bardwell knows some black folks, though, so it's OK.

.... "It's kind of hard to apologize for something that you really and truly feel down in your heart you haven't done wrong," he said.

Charlie Manson and Hitler felt the same way. Sorry, not much of a criteria.

What a dinosaur.

:thumbsup:

Ladies and Gentleman I present to you minus the White Hood and white gown the former Louisiana Justice of the Peace, a throw back from the Civil War and Jim Crow, the disgraced Keith Bardwell...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/11/03/2009-11-03_louisiana_judge_keith_bardwell_resigns_after_flap_over_refusal_to_issue_marriage.html

The world would have been better off he was never born, and it will be a better place when he dies - the sooner the better...

This old fat baboon obviously resigned because he won't comply with social ethics, not because he learned his lesson and knew he got fired.

Hoping to sneak that one by us without noticing huh?

I can see glen beck crying now saying, 'this guy stood up for what he believed in'... here is louisiana legal specialist former racist... i mean justice of the peace Keith Bardwell

Bardwell might get his job.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

we were married by a judge 12 years ago. It never once crossed my mind that the judge might have objected. Glad he didn't or I might still be in jail for judicial assault.

...out of concern for the children of such a union.

see ya later bye

:hi:

AfroRomance

discover true african romance!

Bardwell, speaking to CNN affiliate WBRZ, said he was advised "that I needed to step down because they was going to take me to court, and I was going to lose."


THEY WAS?!

First he would point out that there is no Academé de Anglais. Then he would inform you the various dialects and ancient literary uses of "they was" and then he would call you a racist and classist finishing up with the respectful request that you "educate yourself".

:evilgrin:

:mad: