| |
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:40:16 PM |
I've known them to refuse to marry people for any and every reason under the sun. If one of those reasons is based on race or religion, it is against the law, plain and simple: national law. | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:43:38 PM | If nothing changes, nothing changes.....
OP - I think he has no business being a jp!
I have two bi-racial children and I can tell you that where I live, bi-racial children are accepted. My oldest, a son is 15 and has never been subjected to racial slurs. If the races stay separate, things will never get any better. Personally, I would love a world where we are all humans first, and a mix of racial heritage. Only then do I think we could seriously loose the labels and stereotypes about this race and that race. | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:47:11 PM | now, thats not actually the case as i understand it.
See laws are passed by governmental bodies, like our congress. This may be against a court RULING but not necessarrilly against the law. (i'm sure my law school g/f will update me and i'll post again)
Just because the courts ruled it's a violation of rights to deny marriage based on race, that doesn't mean he broke any law. (at least i THINK)
That being said that JP is a douchebag. | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:55:10 PM | | Ismene2: I disagree. It would be illegal to refuse to issue a license (which is the State's 'permission' to marry) for any of those reasons, but without more (a statute for instance) it's not outside the JP's discretionary authority to refuse to personally marry a couple for any reason - race, age, religion or gender included. I'm not defending him or his decision mind you, but I don't think he has a legal obligation to provide a service that can be obtained elsewhere if it's against his personal creed. | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/16/2009 1:18:48 PM | Thanks Helen.
Refusing to sign the license so anyone can marry them is totally different then him refusing to marry them. Not saying the latter is any better based of off his reasoning. But just that I thought this post was about his refusal to marry them. When its about his refusal to sign the paperwork so they can get married which is wrong.
But thanks for clearing that up. No one should be able to impose their beliefs on another and allow it to affect their lives.
For that, I do agree he should not be practicing because signing off on a marriage license to which the couple is eligible for is his job. He can decide if he wants to perform the ceremony himself or not. But I don't see how he can deem them unfit to be married just because of race. | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/16/2009 1:48:31 PM | Source cited ~ Associated Press
"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. She said the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."
The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."
"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzmann said.
According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.
Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.
The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.
"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."
(This version corrects the date of the Supreme Court ruling.)
It's very clear in my mind that Bardwell broke the law if we can be as so bold to trust just one of the many media reports with respect to this story. Bardwell is remiss by not performing his duty as a JP to marry by way of refusing to sign the license for this couple. His personal views and feelings on interracial marriages and their percieved outcomes have nothing to do with the law. | |
|
| |
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/16/2009 2:15:21 PM |
It's very clear in my mind that Bardwell broke the law if we can be as so bold to trust just one of the many media reports with respect to this story.
You're trusting the media to report accurately AND the ACLU to interpret the law correctly.
But again, a distinction has to be drawn between the governmental failure to issue a license, and personal preference not to perform a ceremony. The former is probably illegal, the latter not. | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/16/2009 2:47:43 PM | Big- it's a Federal law & Federal laws supersede all others.
not true in all cases..
Just as an example...
hollow points in handguns
the federal government law states it is legal for people to own and use hollowpoints in a hand gun.
The state of nj will put your but in jail if you do within her borders
Just an example of a state law trumping federal.
Rule of thumb the strictest law supersedes the other.(hear that potheads of CA the feds can still come for you but probably won't)
but in this case i would think there has been at least one case before the supreme court with the ruling that this can not take place.
And if not then it's about time it does.
At the end of the day there has to be a vehicle within the system for removing people from a public office that are not doing their job.
It sounds like the aclu would have taking this up...it is a clear case of a persons civil rights being violated. | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/16/2009 4:51:02 PM | plaxico burress
Boiled down federal law says if your a citizen in good standing you may own a firearm.
He was in the possession of a firearm in NYC and he is doing time for it...
Not for shooting himself but for just having it in his possession.
The state of ny is in the possession of Mr. Burress now.
I'm sure he has the cash to fight it as he was an nfl player...One of the top running backs in the league. Thats one case of state trumping federal .....Burress never had federal charges brought against him as he did nothing wrong in the eyes of the federal government.
I'm still not sure how some states that have legalized marijuana and the feds have not cracked down on it. Though i could care less one way or another.
but there are many areas where state law trumps federal and in all instances it is when state law is more strict.
It doesn't trump it in the sense that the federal government has to adhere to it but you can bet you will still be punished if you break it and since your in a state prison and not federal it falls outside of the federal jurisdiction.
I'm sure there are some that think the federal government has jurisdiction everywhere and they do not.
The supremacy clause is pretty clear that the federal law shall be upheld by state judges..but it says nothing if a law is more strict...ie if state law is more stringent then it trumps federal law within the state that the law is passed.
On topic of the thread...what this jp is doing is bringing his personal believe to a job that serves the public again i would think it is a clear civil rights violation.
The ucla should be all over this...But that would be a noble cause...something the aclu doesn't take up often. | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/16/2009 6:26:32 PM | "Personally based on my legal experience I suspect the Supreme Court of any state will rule based on law and not public opinion."
It was done and since it was already determined is a matter of compliance with the law and not about personal opinions.
As a public official, he must provide the services set on his duties according to the law.
As judicial officer, he must exercise his obligations by the oath he took to uphold the law.
As state's representative, by the power invested and the authority granted, he's obligated to act as public servant rather than a private citizen.
If we are willing to accept the idea that "the law is reason, free from passion" then, we must accept the idea that is not about what we think o want but, about what can be proved.
Futhermore, under the same premise, we must accept that the law is not about moral, fairness, right or wrong but, about what is legislated.
If we are able to understand that the law is a reflective tool for the organizational structure and functioning of the societal evolution, then we must obey the change in legislations as the logical consequence of the time we live, regardless that our personal opinion can remain in the past.
Anti-miscegenation laws were edicts to made unlawfull interracial relationships.
Politically, it helped to expand slavery as a system and to perpetuate the idea of white supremacy.
Economically, it prevented the bi-racial offspring from obtaining free status and to remain slaves because the nature of the illicit intercourse.
Socially, it added greater power to control white women choices by penalizing under adultery/fornication provisions their possible preference for negroes as husbands and paramours.
Even after the Civil War, when state leaders worked to adjust some of the law to accommodate "emmancipation", new provisions -like the Acts of Arkansas of 1866- had a clause to declare that authorizing negroes to marry doesn't imply the right to cross the color line.
It's not a relevant coincidence that the phrase "separate but equal" -derived from a Louisiana law in 1890- as a doctrine to perpetuate racial segregation still is to be argued from the same State's Judge to prevent what it was deemed as legal more than a century ago but, unconstitutional more than 4o yrs ago.
It's relevant that while -as a persona- mentality can't be legislated, it's the law the only recourse for the deterrent of the actions.
In the case of Loving v. Virgnia, 1967, it was ruled to lift all exclusions and limitations on interracial marriages.
This issue has been dealt before, according to the law, regardless personal opinions.
From the Office of Attorney General, State of Texas, Opinion No. JM-1, March 8, 1983.- The Attorney General concluded that "there can be no doubt that when a Justice of the Peace performs a marriage ceremony, he is acting in the name and under the authority of the State of Texas. And he is thereby enganging in 'state actions'."
Since the Justice of the Peaces are state officials on state actions he will be in violation of the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection clause if refuses to comply with his duties on racial grounds.
More recently, as result of the ruling in the case of Kerrigan v. Commission of Public Health, 2008, based also on the equal protection clause lifting the ban on same-sex marriage...
In Connecticut, in the Bill No. 899 for disccusion of legislation to implement equal treatment to homosexual couples it was stablished on Section Seven "to ensure that clergyman and Justice of the Peace may choose not to solemnize certain marriages consistents with the rights under the free exercise of others provisions of the State and Federal Constituions."
However, as Oct 28, 2008, the Attorney General Office stated that "public official who has been authorized to perform marriages may not refuse to perform marriage for discriminatory reasons in violation of the Connecticut Constitution."
I don't know how the contradiction of the proposed Bill and the DA's Memo was solved.
I do know that the State of Massachussets did not granted Justice of the Peace exclusion from performing same-sex marriage under religious beliefs protection.
They were deemed as State officials on secular services governed by the principle of separation of the State from the Church and they must choose between to follow the law of the land or the law of their god.
Not getting into the conditions for membership to be part of the Justice of the Peace Associations at the State and Federal level, nor discussing the code of ethic for which all of them are bonded, nor the oath for compliance and respect to the letter of the law... all States and Federal laws have provisions on the law preventing discrimination based of race.
If racial segregation or discrimination is not a dead letter of the law, these Louisina's Justice of the Peace is not honoring the law he sworn to represent. | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/16/2009 10:40:50 PM | RE: Msg 56 by XOthermic
Forum Filly, where did you get all the information regarding Louisiana Justices of the Peace?
Please cite your references and acknowledge the source if you're posting legal statistical information for the forums.
Here are three sources from which I cited information regarding this topic:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_on_re_us/us_interracial_rebuff
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2289453
http://www.jpus.org/aboutjps.htm
And just what exactly were you questioning regarding my post? My viewpoint or the fact that this JP has taken it upon himself to decide who should and should not be married? Since I wrote my two posts yesterday, this story has taken off throughout the media. Do you still argue with what has been said?
I think it's especially important that Everyone consider taking an introductory college course on News and the Media in the 21st Century. To even suggest that 'Everyone' take an introductory college course on News and the Media in the 21st Century is the height of arrogance. We, who are not as well educated as you, are still entitled to our opinions. This is a public forum in which we are all allowed to participate, college courses not withstanding.
Because you feel the media has overblown this story does not mean everyone else feels the same. The Governor of Louisiana has asked J.P. Bardwell to resign from his position due to his bigoted viewpoint. I hardly find that to be overblown.
BTW, you can check with the Associated Press if you need further validation.
Edit: Thanks RelaxedRed for replying for me with the appropriate citing. I'm not a quick as I once was. It's hell being stupid AND old! LOL | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/17/2009 12:25:30 AM | Ismene:
I'm not sure what part of my post boggled your mind. Could you explain which portion you're having difficulty with?
All I've stated is that regardless of whether you agree with his beliefs or not, he cannot (as far as I've read) be forced to marry a compel...ie perform the service himself.
He does have to sign off on marriage licenses but does not have to perform that particular ceremony.
I am not referring to what a private citizen does...not sure where you got that. But that's what assuming does. | |
|
| |
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/17/2009 7:59:28 AM |
Now my thing is do you think he should still be allowed to be a Justice Of The Peace even though he is doing what he is oding. Because I see it like this and that his Job is to marry people NO MATTER THE RACE OF THE PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED. What would you have done if you was denied a marriage license and you was an interracial couple and am adding a twist here which will be Interracial Of Any Race and being denied ?
FYI:
I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE HIS LICENSE TAKING FROM HIM IF HE IS NOT GONNA DO WHAT HE IS GRANTED TO DO BY LAW Then the same must be applied to across the board, and black preachers should be forced to marry racists. Somehow, I can't see that going down very well. | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/17/2009 8:04:05 AM |
Then the same must be applied to across the board, and black preachers should be forced to marry racists. Somehow, I can't see that going down very well. There is absolutely no correlation here. What kind of logic or reasoning is this? Most likely, a couple who is racist will not go to a black preacher to be married, but anyway, this is not a parallel situation.  | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/17/2009 8:15:35 AM | I thought it would start getting fun when Jindal spoke up...
Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal said a nine-member commission that reviews lawyers and judges in the state should investigate. "Disciplinary action should be taken immediately - including the revoking of his license," Jindal said.
Yep. And here's why:
"A justice of the peace is legally obligated to serve the public, all of the public," Quigley [director for the Center for Constitutional Rights and Justice] said. "Racial discrimination has been a violation of Louisiana and U.S. law for decades. No public official has the right to pick and choose which laws they are going to follow."
The ACLU, the NAACP, and the state's Legislative Black Caucus, among others, are all on this bandwagon, too. If it went to judicial review, his license would have to be taken purely as a matter of law, but at this rate I think he'll resign first.
And I am so glad that couple went public with this. Far too many, IMO, have bought into the mad notion that racism is dead in the U.S., despite ample evidence of its continued and regrettably lively existence. Since this has been going on for more than 30 years, ignored or condoned by everyone around Bardwell, it can hardly be viewed as the behavior of just one man. It's the behavior of his entire county at the least.
Editing to add, for those who are still confused about this, religion has nothing to do with any of it. Justice of the peace is a secular public position. Bardwell is not a preacher, and if he were, that would be utterly unrelated to his public duties as a justice of the peace. | |
|
| |
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/17/2009 1:35:36 PM | | scorpiomover if he was black I would have said the say thing because no matter how you feel you should not impose that with the work you do specially if you work for any part of the goverment. But we all know that is not the case and in this one he is the one who just so happen to be caught at doing what he is doing by people who will not let him get away with it. | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/17/2009 6:37:55 PM | I am expecting to hear soon that this justice of the peace has either resigned or has been removed from office. It is surprising that no one reported him before; I'm glad this couple did.  Good for them for speaking up. | |
|
| |
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/18/2009 4:35:48 PM | This whole affair is hysterical, if only because of the idiocy of the JP at issue here. Still, it's quite sad. PREDICTION: The JP will resign (and protect any retirement benefits he may have coming) against the pressure of getting forceably ejected from office.
He has a legal OBLIGATION to marry any and all couples authorized to get married under state law. His role is NOT like that of a doctor or lawyer, who may get to selectively decide which cases they will take on. He holds a PUBLIC OFFICE and the rules are different for officials representing the state government and serving the general populace. He can no more pick and choose who to marry than can a police officer decide that he will only pursue (or decline to pursue) bank robbers who are of a particular race. The entire notion is patently absurd! 
In 1967, in the case of LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1, the U.S. Supreme Court struct down every effort across the land to preclude interracial marriages and decreed them as in violation of, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
At that point, it became illegal -- in Louisiana -- to deny members of different races to intermarry because of race. As such, any public official (who, by virtue of his/her oath and position, acts on behalf of the state) would be in direct violation of his/her oath AND State Law, by failing to discharge the duties incumbent upon him/her.
http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/Portals/0/Commissions/pdf/ss-408.pdf
Our hapless, old school racist JP in this case COULD be ARRESTED for what he has done (although that's highly unlikely); but CERTAINLY has broken the law and will be out of office before the end of his term. The only question that remains is whether he will decided to (for my I'm Gonna Get You Sucka fans out there) "take the window ... or the stairs."  | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/19/2009 8:19:26 PM | | Just heard on the news that the Gov has ask the JP to step down but not sure he will do that and all he had to say was he just has a problem with the offsprings of an interracial couple. Which as everybody knows is know of his dam business as he is not taking care of those kids or is the parent of the kids. | |
|
| Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Posted: 10/19/2009 8:47:10 PM |
all he had to say was he just has a problem with the offsprings of an interracial couple. Which as everybody knows is know of his dam business as he is not taking care of those kids or is the parent of the kids. An interesting thing about racists is that there are those who know they are racists and there are those who are but don't realize it, don't get it. That definitely doesn't excuse this guy in any way. He's a slime. But people like him will never see or accept or wake up to the fact of their racism. They think they are righteous and right and everyone who doesn't agree with them or understand where they are coming from is wrong. If the South is full of people like this, I definitely could not live there. | |
|
Home
login 
