Next Question
RSS
I was rather hoping to see how the mechanics of removing a JP played out. Also, I predicted that the State Supreme Court would send him into involuntary retirement and now we'll never know. Additionally, that would have raised another question later on: it turns out retired JP's in Louisiana can still perform marriages. Would it have been ok or another scandal for a retired JP to pick and choose his marriages?
Permalink | Report
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
From this it seems his reason for not performing the marriage is not that he's opposed to interracial marriages per se, but that he thinks that children from interracial couples will have more difficulty being accepted by society.
In this case, the couples were not prohibited from being married, he just referred them to another justice of the peace because he wasn't comfortable performing the ceremony himself. So, the question is, can a justice of the peace refuse to perform marriages because of personal reservations? Would it be acceptable if he refused to perform a marriage because he thought the husband would be abusive?
Judges are permitted to recuse themselves from trials where they believe they will be unable to judge the case without bias, so it would seem that a justice of the peace could recuse himself from performing a marriage he believed would be harmful to the children. However, he is a government employee, and his views on the couples future are not directly relevant to his duties in performing the marriage, so I can see a case being made that he's required to perform it.
In any event, it's not obvious to me from the information given in that article that he's made any truly offensive racist comments (no throwing around of the N-word, for example), so I'm not sure he should have been pressured to resign.
For the record, I have no problem with interracial marriage and think that any people that would not accept children from interracial couples need to get over their biases.
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$1
November 04, 2009 07:17 AM
Are you glad that the Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to marry an inter-racial couple resigned, or should he have fought for his
action?
We had an interesting discussion about this a few weeks ago (thanks, Albanian) - http://www.mahalo.com/answers/other-areas-of-law/what-can-and-should-be-done-about-the-louisiana-justice-of-the-peace-who-refuses-to-perform-marriages-between-blacks-and-whites - and now he has quietly (and tersely) resigned. 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
(Interesting sidebar: near the end of this report, it notes that the couple has indeed filed a federal civil rights action. It remains to be seen whether they will pursue that in light of the resignation.
We had an interesting discussion about this a few weeks ago (thanks, Albanian) - http://www.mahalo.com/answers/other-areas-of-law/what-can-and-should-be-done-about-the-louisiana-justice-of-the-peace-who-refuses-to-perform-marriages-between-blacks-and-whites - and now he has quietly (and tersely) resigned. 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
(Interesting sidebar: near the end of this report, it notes that the couple has indeed filed a federal civil rights action. It remains to be seen whether they will pursue that in light of the resignation.
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| November 04, 2009 01:52 PM |
| Asker's Rating: |
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (3)
November 04, 2009 08:45 AM
Yes I am. Just because that person doesn't agree that they should not marry doesn't mean that it is no longer legal to do so. It's sad that we still see discrimination like this. I hope the couple has a wonderful wedding.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage
Permalink | Report
Reply
November 04, 2009 03:47 PM
Yes I am glad to see he has left his job. Racism has no place in our government which should be fair to everyone. If he shows racism during a marriage ceremony, makes you wonder how many non-white people have had the book thrown at them by him. I am glad he is gone from office.
Permalink | Report
Reply
November 04, 2009 06:21 PM
He was just a Justice of the Peace, not a full judge. And I don't think JP's even do traffic fines in that parish, so he didn't have an opportunity to do much harm. In fact, there were practically no non-whites in his particular ward which is why he only ran into trouble recently. Still, I'm glad to see him go too.
Report
November 05, 2009 06:27 AM
That's interesting. Justice of the Peace Courts in various parishes have different restrictions placed on the types of cases they can handle? (In AZ, the jurisdiction for JP's is set statewide.) Wow, that seems like it could raise all sorts of issues.
Report
November 05, 2009 03:31 AM
I find this to be an interesting case. The justice refused to marry them because of how he thought it would affect the children. In his words, "There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage ... I think those children suffer, and I won’t help put them through it.” From this it seems his reason for not performing the marriage is not that he's opposed to interracial marriages per se, but that he thinks that children from interracial couples will have more difficulty being accepted by society.
In this case, the couples were not prohibited from being married, he just referred them to another justice of the peace because he wasn't comfortable performing the ceremony himself. So, the question is, can a justice of the peace refuse to perform marriages because of personal reservations? Would it be acceptable if he refused to perform a marriage because he thought the husband would be abusive?
Judges are permitted to recuse themselves from trials where they believe they will be unable to judge the case without bias, so it would seem that a justice of the peace could recuse himself from performing a marriage he believed would be harmful to the children. However, he is a government employee, and his views on the couples future are not directly relevant to his duties in performing the marriage, so I can see a case being made that he's required to perform it.
In any event, it's not obvious to me from the information given in that article that he's made any truly offensive racist comments (no throwing around of the N-word, for example), so I'm not sure he should have been pressured to resign.
For the record, I have no problem with interracial marriage and think that any people that would not accept children from interracial couples need to get over their biases.
Permalink | Report
Reply
November 05, 2009 06:15 AM
Thanks, daigakuinsei. I'm glad you recognize that there is a case to be made that he was required to perform the marriages and was not permitted to discriminate based on race (even if he's not a racist). Because, I think the rest of your analysis - before and after your recognition - is stretching a bit too far to justify his actions.
Report
November 05, 2009 01:10 PM
Just arguing devil's advocate.
The interesting questions to me, again, are how much leeway a justice of the peace is allowed in selecting which marriages to perform. Is he required by law to perform all legal marriages? Do the requirements differ for non-government employees, like clergy?
What if gay marriage were legal--would a justice of the peace be allowed to pass the marriage on to someone else because he opposed the practice? Would a clergyman?
What if polygamy were legal? Or marriage to minors? Does the simple legality of something require the justice of the peace to be involved in it, or does the law allow him room to recuse himself (with the end result being that the marriage is still performed anyway). How about clergy members?
Report
The interesting questions to me, again, are how much leeway a justice of the peace is allowed in selecting which marriages to perform. Is he required by law to perform all legal marriages? Do the requirements differ for non-government employees, like clergy?
What if gay marriage were legal--would a justice of the peace be allowed to pass the marriage on to someone else because he opposed the practice? Would a clergyman?
What if polygamy were legal? Or marriage to minors? Does the simple legality of something require the justice of the peace to be involved in it, or does the law allow him room to recuse himself (with the end result being that the marriage is still performed anyway). How about clergy members?
November 05, 2009 08:33 PM
Just to clarify, I think that you were at your best when you said "However, he is a government employee, and his views on the couples future are not directly relevant to his duties in performing the marriage, so I can see a case being made that he's required to perform it."
I think your series of questions in your most recent reply start to stray from the key points that he was employed by the government and that he had a requirement to not discriminate against anyone. Declining to marry them because their skin colors didn't match - even if they could go elsewhere - was a discriminatory act. Even if he is not required to marry a couple, he cannot refuse to marry them for a discriminatory reason.
Report
I think your series of questions in your most recent reply start to stray from the key points that he was employed by the government and that he had a requirement to not discriminate against anyone. Declining to marry them because their skin colors didn't match - even if they could go elsewhere - was a discriminatory act. Even if he is not required to marry a couple, he cannot refuse to marry them for a discriminatory reason.
November 05, 2009 08:53 PM
I'm not sure my series of questions strays all that far from the key points. If declining to marry someone because of different skin colors is discriminatory, then so would be declining to marry them because their genders match ... as would the other hypotheticals I cite. However, I think I have your answer to them when you say that his refusing to perform the marriage meant that he had not performed his duty as a government employee. I.e., justices of the peace have no leeway in deciding which cases to take--the simple fact that the marriage is a legal one compels them as government employees to perform said marriage. If that's the sense of the law in situations like this, then he was clearly wrong as a gov't employee and should have been reprimanded or fired.
But if the law allows justices to pick and choose which marriages they perform, it's a bit murkier of a situation—and one that more closely resembles what a clergyman would face were he to decide not to marry an interracial couple (or a gay couple, etc…). I’m not entirely sure how the law would rule in that situation….
Report
But if the law allows justices to pick and choose which marriages they perform, it's a bit murkier of a situation—and one that more closely resembles what a clergyman would face were he to decide not to marry an interracial couple (or a gay couple, etc…). I’m not entirely sure how the law would rule in that situation….
November 08, 2009 07:15 AM
Thanks, and we might find out how a court would rule in that (this) situation, if the civil action makes it to a ruling. Murkier it might be, but not much. The JP is only in a position to perform any marriages because of the state's laws. (I guess that, technically, you COULD say the same about clergy, which some people have pointed out in suggesting that the state should get the heck out of the wedding business altogether - in favor of civil unions.) Therefore, picking and choosing based on discriminatory reasons likely violates the Constitution and opens him (and the state?) up for civil liability.
Report
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- crzyz, November 22, 2009 09:07 AM
- ridhimakochhar, November 22, 2009 08:58 AM
- rahul04, November 22, 2009 08:34 AM
- churchofjason, November 22, 2009 08:28 AM
- mly1996, November 22, 2009 07:56 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
But, that is interesting about retired JP's still being able to perform - they may still need to proceed to strip him of that *privilege*. He would still be acting on behalf of the state.
So, do you think that the couple's 1983 will proceed or fizzle? I'm betting they'll still get a settlement (with monetary and non-monetary aspects) from the state.