For the children?

[Paully_44]

So this justice of the peace refuses to marry inter-racial couples because the children will suffer for it

"I'm not a racist," Bardwell, justice of the peace of Tangipahoa Parish, told The Hammond (La.) Daily Star. "I do ceremonies for Black couples right here in my house. My main concern is for the children." He also said that most interracial marriages don’t last.

i wonder where he gets that stat from?

It still amazes and saddens me that people still think this way.

[Poimen]

It actually is grounded in experience and has a good bit of merit. In many places all over this country bi-racial kids are subject to added scorn, ridicule, hate, and isolation. It's not as bad as it used to be. BUT, it does exist and it is something to be concerned about. I know cause I have family and friends who are bi-racial. Now, there is no valid reason for them to be treated this way. Still, the fact that it happens makes it a valid concern (IMO).

As for this Justice, I respect his abiding by his convictions (we need more politicians who are men of conviction and not popular consensus). It's not as if he forbade them marriage. He just could not, in good conscience, perform the marriage union for them. As long as his stated reason is the true motivation and/or his preference here is not racial bigotry, then I personally don't have a problem with it. Rest assured the thought police will seek to have this man made a public example of because he doesn't fit the popularist notions regarding race relations -- and he will most likely be branded a racist, driven from office, shamed, his family drug through the mud of it all with him. Why? because some self important bi-racial arrogant couple feels the need to force others to whole heartedly accept and embrace such relationships.

The real problem here, to me, is the fact that this couple is seeking vengeance and retribution (clearly a sinful action, not just a legality issue) because this man opted not to perform their ceremony, but instead referred them to a Justice who would.

My how intolerant those screaming for tolerance and acceptance can be.

[macgulley]

The real problem here, to me, is the fact that this couple is seeking vengeance and retribution (clearly a sinful action, not just a legality issue) because this man opted not to perform their ceremony, but instead referred them to a Justice who would.

Can you reference the supplementary information you used to come to this conclusion? I'm not sure that "we would like him to resign" rises to the level of sinful vengeance and retribution. Maybe they just want to prevent others from going through what they did.
The JOP presumably has sworn to uphold the law, not impose his own beliefs on his constituents.

In the interest of full disclosure (to quote Ollie North) Poimen, would you marry an inter-racial couple? Why or why not? Where does one draw the line: black/white, black/asian, white/asian, hispanic/asian, hispanic/white, etc.?

[Pastor Gary]

In the interest of full disclosure (to quote Ollie North) Poimen, would you marry an inter-racial couple? Why or why not? Where does one draw the line: black/white, black/asian, white/asian, hispanic/asian, hispanic/white, etc.?

Almost every couple I marry in Hawaii is bi- or multi-racial. If I refused to marry anyone except those who can prove racial purity, I could turn in my marrying license.

I have married back/white, asian/white, and almost every combination of other racial mixtures. In my opinion, they are all of the same race - the HUMAN race.

[macgulley]

I have married back/white, asian/white, and almost every combination of other racial mixtures. In my opinion, they are all of the same race - the HUMAN race.

[MacUser]

HUMAN race.

I love these words. Where are we running to in such a hurry?

[Brian]

It actually is grounded in experience and has a good bit of merit. In many places all over this country bi-racial kids are subject to added scorn, ridicule, hate, and isolation. It's not as bad as it used to be. BUT, it does exist and it is something to be concerned about. I know cause I have family and friends who are bi-racial. Now, there is no valid reason for them to be treated this way. Still, the fact that it happens makes it a valid concern (IMO).

Chris your right, it does happen and the kids that hang in the balance do sometimes pay the price. The question is not whether it happens but how to stop it from continuing to happen. It is not very practical or logical to ask those of different races who are in love to stay apart, not gonna happen, and shouldn't. But the people who hold the views of racial separation shouldn't be embraced as though there position is one of equal value and merit, it is not. For the christian, there is no biblical foundation for racial separation at all. And from a family perspective it isn't very loving or inclusive.

For example: I have relatives for say that if there daughter dates or marries a black guy that they would disown them....real great there bucky, lot's of love in that kind of statement. So they would rather kick there family member to the curb and possibly have them out of there lives all for the cause of keeping someone else out of a relationship that doesn't really effect them at all. Crazy.

I also knew a guy one time who, when we would go to the club, would get mad if he seen a white girl with a black guy. He would say things like thats one less girl for him to potentially date cause the black guy took a white girl. I asked him one time if he would feel better if the girl was with a white guy, he said yes, I said WHY? she is still not with you ya idiot! He didn't seem to understand. I guess he thought that even if she was taken by the white guy that he still had a shot, but not if she was with the black guy. I don't know, seems ridiculous to me.

As a people, even more so as a church, we should stop embracing those ideas of separation and prejudice. If those who hold those racially separating views are made to feel a little uncomfortble then maybe they will be less likely to hold them

[Paully_44]

It actually is grounded in experience and has a good bit of merit. In many places all over this country bi-racial kids are subject to added scorn, ridicule, hate, and isolation. It's not as bad as it used to be. BUT, it does exist and it is something to be concerned about. I know cause I have family and friends who are bi-racial. Now, there is no valid reason for them to be treated this way. Still, the fact that it happens makes it a valid concern (IMO).

As for this Justice, I respect his abiding by his convictions (we need more politicians who are men of conviction and not popular consensus). It's not as if he forbade them marriage. He just could not, in good conscience, perform the marriage union for them. As long as his stated reason is the true motivation and/or his preference here is not racial bigotry, then I personally don't have a problem with it. Rest assured the thought police will seek to have this man made a public example of because he doesn't fit the popularist notions regarding race relations -- and he will most likely be branded a racist, driven from office, shamed, his family drug through the mud of it all with him. Why? because some self important bi-racial arrogant couple feels the need to force others to whole heartedly accept and embrace such relationships.

The real problem here, to me, is the fact that this couple is seeking vengeance and retribution (clearly a sinful action, not just a legality issue) because this man opted not to perform their ceremony, but instead referred them to a Justice who would.

Really?

[Poimen]

Can you reference the supplementary information you used to come to this conclusion? I'm not sure that "we would like him to resign" rises to the level of sinful vengeance and retribution. Maybe they just want to prevent others from going through what they did.

It seems I misunderstood here MacGulley. After re-reading the article it is the ACLU that's being vindictive. I am sorry for misrepresenting the actions of this couple. There is nothing in the article to indicate this couple solicited or instigated the ACLU's involvement or actions.

The JOP presumably has sworn to uphold the law, not impose his own beliefs on his constituents.

I don't see where he failed to do that. He provided them with a legal outlet for securing their union. He just preferred not to perform the union himself. I know of no law that requires a justice of the peace to perform weddings. And if such a law exists I would advocate repealing it. NO individual should be forced to act against the conscience, even if a duly elected official, granting they do not bar an otherwise legal action. This JOP didn't bar anything -- he simply referred them to someone who had no qualms with performing an inter-racial marriage, sense as a matter of conviction he opposed them.

But again, the "tolerant crowd" ain't to tolerant of dissenting views now are they!

In the interest of full disclosure (to quote Ollie North) Poimen, would you marry an inter-racial couple? Why or why not? Where does one draw the line: black/white, black/asian, white/asian, hispanic/asian, hispanic/white, etc.?

Yes, I would -- at least if I knew them or had a ministerial connection to them.

However, I would require pre-marital counseling where as an addendum to normal marital counseling topics I would add the inherent issues bi-racial unions potentially invite. I would feel remiss otherwise. However, if after counseling, they were committed to seeking a valid, God honoring marriage, I would perform it.

[Poimen]

Chris your right, it does happen and the kids that hang in the balance do sometimes pay the price. The question is not whether it happens but how to stop it from continuing to happen.

Agreed.

It is not very practical or logical to ask those of different races who are in love to stay apart, not gonna happen, and shouldn't.

I think it very practical, and logical. I do not think it necessarily fair or likely.

But the people who hold the views of racial separation shouldn't be embraced as though there position is one of equal value and merit, it is not. For the christian, there is no biblical foundation for racial separation at all. And from a family perspective it isn't very loving or inclusive.

I disagree. One eats meat, one doesn't -- or in this case one is okay with bi-racial relationships, one is not. We are not to judge or despise one the other for such personal preferences. Period. Instead, we are to tolerate and respect them. To each his own, so long as we can walk charitably toward those who are of a different persuasion or conviction in such non-essentials and they toward us.

For example: I have relatives for say that if there daughter dates or marries a black guy that they would disown them....real great there bucky, lot's of love in that kind of statement. So they would rather kick there family member to the curb and possibly have them out of there lives all for the cause of keeping someone else out of a relationship that doesn't really effect them at all. Crazy.

That's entirely different. That is bigotry. That's sinful on various levels. Not least of which, that's not a permissible preference that is willing to tolerate charitably the other. It fails the meats and drink test.

As a people, even more so as a church, we should stop embracing those ideas of separation and prejudice. If those who hold those racially separating views are made to feel a little uncomfortble then maybe they will be less likely to hold them

I don't agree. I think we should be more charitable and accepting of differences while also being free to hold our own preference, expecting others to be charitable and respectful of our differences as well.

[Darling]

Our family is blessed with a wonderful daughter in law whose heritage is Philippino. And from this marriage are two wonderful boys. Their heritage is parents and grandparents and Great grandparents who loved Jesus. That is what matter most to me. I repeat. we are blessed.

[dolfan]

There are two different things happening here, as I see it. One is the official duty of a government official. One is the personal convictions or prejudices of the official in his individual capacity.

A person who issues drivers' licenses may not refuse to issue a license to a 79 year old driver on the basis that the issuer thinks that the elderly should not drive because they pose a risk of harm to other drivers and passengers.

In Louisiana, a justice of the peace has quite an extensive authority; most states don't even have justices of the peace anymore. But, in Louisiana, they act most closely to what Alabama calls district courts --- they have jurisdiction over small claims, misdemeanors crimes, evictions. And, like circuit, district and probate court judges in Alabama, they can perform weddings.

They must follow the law --- at least, they are supposed to follow the law. Whether they "must" is a political question answered by either the elected officials with power to pull the rug on him or the people who vote for his office. But, the law is that interracial people can marry and that race is not a test for eligibility for marriage in the United States. If they otherwise met all of the eligibility requirements to qualify for a marriage license, the judge's own convictions are irrelevant. The only thing remaining to do is to solemnize the marriage and issue the license. Concern for hypothetical children --- or even real ones --- is legally irrelevant and immaterial. It may strike a certain moral or philosophical chord (an issue for moralists and philosophers to debate as long as they have air in their lungs to do it), but the denial of the license is discordant with the law and the whole matter ends with the official, legal duties of the justice of the peace here. All other noise about it is just a bunch of ... well, noise.

[Poimen]

Our family is blessed with a wonderful daughter in law whose heritage is Philippino. And from this marriage are two wonderful boys. Their heritage is parents and grandparents and Great grandparents who loved Jesus. That is what matter most to me. I repeat. we are blessed.

Darling,

Just so you know, I think that is a wonderful and loving tribute to your family. That is certainly a blessing. Also, for the record, I agree that a heritage of loving and serving Christ is what is MOST important -- racial issues aside.

I'm not advocating bi-racial relationships are sinful, or even morally wrong. I'm simply saying I can understand and respect the JOP's stated point of view and have no problem with his personally passing to perform the union so long as he is not barring the union.

[Poimen]

There are two different things happening here, as I see it. One is the official duty of a government official. One is the personal convictions or prejudices of the official in his individual capacity.

Yes. It is a dichotomy.

A person who issues drivers' licenses may not refuse to issue a license to a 79 year old driver on the basis that the issuer thinks that the elderly should not drive because they pose a risk of harm to other drivers and passengers.

Agreed. However, could an individual not opt to excuse themselves and permit a substitute to handle the issue for personal reasons? If not, why not?

In Louisiana, a justice of the peace has quite an extensive authority; most states don't even have justices of the peace anymore. But, in Louisiana, they act most closely to what Alabama calls district courts --- they have jurisdiction over small claims, misdemeanors crimes, evictions. And, like circuit, district and probate court judges in Alabama, they can perform weddings.

Does can perform weddings mean must perform weddings?

They must follow the law --- at least, they are supposed to follow the law. Whether they "must" is a political question answered by either the elected officials with power to pull the rug on him or the people who vote for his office. But, the law is that interracial people can marry and that race is not a test for eligibility for marriage in the United States. If they otherwise met all of the eligibility requirements to qualify for a marriage license, the judge's own convictions are irrelevant. The only thing remaining to do is to solemnize the marriage and issue the license. Concern for hypothetical children --- or even real ones --- is legally irrelevant and immaterial. It may strike a certain moral or philosophical chord (an issue for moralists and philosophers to debate as long as they have air in their lungs to do it), but the denial of the license is discordant with the law and the whole matter ends with the official, legal duties of the justice of the peace here. All other noise about it is just a bunch of ... well, noise.

What law did this JOP violate? Can you cite an actual law that says he must personally marry any and all legally eligible couples who come before him in his official capacity without exception?

[one love]

So this justice of the peace refuses to marry inter-racial couples because the children will suffer for it

"I'm not a racist," Bardwell, justice of the peace of Tangipahoa Parish, told The Hammond (La.) Daily Star. "I do ceremonies for Black couples right here in my house. My main concern is for the children." He also said that most interracial marriages don’t last.

i wonder where he gets that stat from?

It still amazes and saddens me that people still think this way.

It is racism! He just does not realize it. This is one thing that is so different between NC and Va Beach. When I moved here I was shocked how many people point out a interracial couple. I never notice.. But it has been the norm my whole life. I have never looked at it as "Black and white" "asian and white" "Mexican and white" etc. But I have always seen it. I have dated a lot of asian girls when I was younger as well. I have black cousins, Mexican, puerto rican as well, so maybe I am biased.