Wow, I thought this kind of thing was done away with years ago

[Taem]

Here is an article I read from the Associated Press:

Interracial Couple Refused Marriage License in Louisiana

Thursday, October 15, 2009

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- A white Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.

Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."

If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.

Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.

Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.

"That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age."

Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.

"We are looking forward to having children," Humphrey said. "And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."

"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 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."

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

How did someone like this get into the position he's in? Is there really still that much racism "back East"? I honestly find it shocking, hence the post.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Is there really still that much racism "back East"?

Yes. And not just back East. You can change laws very quickly, it takes generations to change attitudes.

--Pete

[Taem]

Hi,
Yes. And not just back East. You can change laws very quickly, it takes generations to change attitudes.

--Pete

In all fairness, I just checked Wikipedia.org, Urban Dictionary.com, and Dictionary.com yet could not find a single definition for "Back East", yet typing it into google brings up a myriad of links with personal tastes about what that phrase means, albeit all slightly different.

I suppose what I meant by that phrase was that here in California, I hardly ever seen racism of that level, and when you do, you get the LA Riots. What was so shocking to me was the justice of the peaces exclamation, lets call it his candor for irony sake, that he did the right thing. His nonchalance about the whole situation just irks me, and I don't believe thats something you would find common on the West Coast, at least not from someone of his stature.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . I don't believe thats something you would find common on the West Coast, . . .

It's not something you would find common (or, at least, commonly expressed) anywhere in the USA in 2009. That's what makes it *news*. "Man bites dog", not "Dog bites man."

--Pete

[Lissa]

I suppose what I meant by that phrase was that here in California, I hardly ever seen racism of that level, and when you do, you get the LA Riots. What was so shocking to me was the justice of the peaces exclamation, lets call it his candor for irony sake, that he did the right thing. His nonchalance about the whole situation just irks me, and I don't believe thats something you would find common on the West Coast, at least not from someone of his stature.

Oh, you'll still find racism in any number of places in the US, it just not always as typical as you may think.

In the Southwest, there's a lot of racism between Latinos and African Americans. If you're not of one of those races or don't happen to be around those races a lot, you won't see it, but if you are, you do. In Northern Idaho there's still a pretty large contingent of White Supremists there. In the migrant farming areas; California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, you'll see a fair bit of bigotry from Caucasians and Native Americans against the Latinos as well.

I know quite well all of this from growing up and living in those areas, bigotry is still quite common in the US if you know what to look for. A lot of times it sickens me when I hear friends and colleagues may bigoted comments as I've realized that just because someone's skin is different than mine, if you remove it, we look the same. Human race still has a ways to go, but slowly, attitudes are changing, just not as quickly as some people would like.

[swirly]

I suppose what I meant by that phrase was that here in California, I hardly ever seen racism of that level,

It is amusing to me that you specifically said California. Just last night a friend was enjoying bashing California for it's "traditional marriage" laws. Specifically 2010 California Marriage Protection Act. Now I'm not going to claim that has a hope of passing or that it isn't made fun of by everybody. My point is just that it doesn't seem far, to me, to go from wanting "traditional marriage" laws (as in the no gay marriage and this one I linked) to wanting mixed marriages against the law for the same reason. I realize it isn't racism, but it seems a similar mindset.

[Chesspiece_face]

How did someone like this get into the position he's in? Is there really still that much racism "back East"? I honestly find it shocking, hence the post.

I'm not sure I would describe Louisiana as "East". I suppose that it's an accurate description geographically when related to places further west, but for social concerns most of the state would be more accurately described as "South". Or possibly even "Deep South."

[Jester]

I'm not sure I would describe Louisiana as "East". I suppose that it's an accurate description geographically when related to places further west, but for social concerns most of the state would be more accurately described as "South". Or possibly even "Deep South."

"Dixie."

Or, in a handy map:


That's the states, coloured by the year they repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. (Grey never had them, green repealed before 1887, yellow between 1948-67) The ones in red are the ones that held them right up until 1967, when the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia ruled them to be unconstitutional. One wonders how many states might have kept them on the books, and for how long, if they weren't forced to drop them.

-Jester

[Ashock]

Every race has serious issues towards other races. That's just reality. I've had enough of this white guilt crap to last me a lifetime.

Frankly, while white racism is reported about the most, and while there's definately some white racism out there, I find that whites are the only race that makes a concerted effort to be as non-judgemental as possible.... with some obvious exceptions of course, like that idiot. However, compared to wonderful people like Louis Farakkhan, Al Sharpton, or a host of supposedly "former" friends of our current president, this worm is a lightweight.

Should we start a topic of the gems that come out of any of the above people's mouths?

[Jester]

However, compared to wonderful people like Louis Farakkhan, Al Sharpton, or a host of supposedly "former" friends of our current president, this worm is a lightweight.

Do you have any evidence that Louis Farrakhan was a "friend" of President Obama? I seem to recall us having this discussion before. My understanding is that the two have no direct relationship of any kind.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Do you have any evidence that Louis Farrakhan was a "friend" of President Obama? I seem to recall us having this discussion before. My understanding is that the two have no direct relationship of any kind.

Right. But, there is one degree of separation. Not that it means much. Obama knows and fraternizes with many acquaintances with dubious philosophies. Some of them are/were a part of his administration, like Anita Dunn and her admiration of Mao Tse Tung, Van Jones and his colorful description of Congress, John Holdren and his penchant for eugenics, or Rahm Emanual and his ties to Blago, Richard M. Daley and the Chicago <strike>mob</strike> political machine. I heard the other day that there is credible evidence to the theory that Bill Ayers ghost wrote "Dreams Of My Father".

If you scratch under the surface of this administration, you will find plenty of things to raise your eyebrows over.

Obama himself has been careful to always smile and stay uncommitted to the rantings of his friends. And, as we saw with Rev. Wright, Van Jones, and others, if his friends become a liability, he is more than willing to toss them under the bus. I think this is one reason he is getting flack from the more leftist wing of his party. They feel they have a mandate for "Change" which they saw as something other than his more "centrist" approach. That is, centrist, as seen from the far left. The far right is in shock and horror. The middle is uncertain, and increasingly choosing the fence. Remember that in the Bush / Gore election the country was split pretty much 50/50. I believe the current administration knows that if they stray too far left, there will be a march on Washington. The country is ripe for it.

[Jester]

I heard the other day that there is credible evidence to the theory that Bill Ayers ghost wrote "Dreams Of My Father".

Uh hunh. And I heard the other day that there is credible evidence that Elvis is alive and working at a K-mart in Alabama. Don't believe everything you read - especially when it comes from rightist conspiracy nuts.

If you scratch under the surface of this administration, you will find plenty of things to raise your eyebrows over.

Or if you furiously dig with both hands, looking for every possible connection to everything you don't approve of. You can sure find a lot when you start playing "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" with politics.

Obama himself has been careful to always smile and stay uncommitted to the rantings of his friends. And, as we saw with Rev. Wright, Van Jones, and others, if his friends become a liability, he is more than willing to toss them under the bus.

Wright got tossed under the bus. Van Jones resigned, and his motives for doing so seemed clear - he saw the criticism he was attracting as a liability for the causes he believed in. I haven't heard anything about him being pressured to do so.

I think this is one reason he is getting flack from the more leftist wing of his party. They feel they have a mandate for "Change" which they saw as something other than his more "centrist" approach. That is, centrist, as seen from the far left.

If anyone ever saw Obama as anything but a centrist, they were clearly wearing tinted glasses of some kind.

The far right is in shock and horror. The middle is uncertain, and increasingly choosing the fence. Remember that in the Bush / Gore election the country was split pretty much 50/50.

And in the last election, the country elected Democrats over Republicans by a pretty fair margin - and polling is still bearing that divide out. You can add whatever qualifiers you like, but the current climate is not one of 50/50 division. More like a small majority for Obama, and about 30% on the right having a gigantic freakout over every issue they can get their hands on. Lord only knows congressional Republicans are polling like absolute crap, and there isn't anything resembling a leader - unless Messrs. Limbaugh and Beck can be said to lead anything.

I believe the current administration knows that if they stray too far left, there will be a march on Washington. The country is ripe for it.

I'm not sure what you're insinuating here, but it sounds like you're talking about the sore losers of an election overthrowing the government. Or are you talking about just another middling sized protest? They can have lots of those. As the left found out decades ago, they don't accomplish a hell of a lot.

Regardless, the original question stands - is there any evidence of a friendship between Obama and Farrakhan? Or even a casual acquaintance?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Uh hunh. And I heard the other day that there is credible evidence that Elvis is alive and working at a K-mart in Alabama. Don't believe everything you read - especially when it comes from rightist conspiracy nuts.

Like Jack Cashill.... He's like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory though... he makes sense sometimes and you wonder... "Should I bite off someone's nose?"

Or if you furiously dig with both hands, looking for every possible connection to everything you don't approve of. You can sure find a lot when you start playing "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" with politics.

I said, "One". If you go six, you get to me.

Wright got tossed under the bus. Van Jones resigned, and his motives for doing so seemed clear - he saw the criticism he was attracting as a liability for the causes he believed in. I haven't heard anything about him being pressured to do so.

No digging required. It's in plain site for anyone who wants to go looking. Our media (barring the Faux Network), is not looking. Like I said earlier, journalism is dead, long live propaganda. Check out the news today, quoted straight from the White House press office. Then again, if you cross the line and actually tick off the White House, you won't get to play in the sandbox with the"real" journalists (who parrot whatever the WH wants them to report). Van Jones saw the bus coming and got out of the way. No ones was stepping up to defend him either.

If anyone ever saw Obama as anything but a centrist, they were clearly wearing tinted glasses of some kind.

Actually, I think Obama is a leftist in centrist clothing.

And in the last election, the country elected Democrats over Republicans by a pretty fair margin - and polling is still bearing that divide out. You can add whatever qualifiers you like, but the current climate is not one of 50/50 division. More like a small majority for Obama, and about 30% on the right having a gigantic freakout over every issue they can get their hands on.

Yeah, it's probably 33/33/33 with the middle wildly swinging toward the candidate with the best one liner and/or haircut.

I'm not sure what you're insinuating here, but it sounds like you're talking about the sore losers of an election overthrowing the government. Or are you talking about just another middling sized protest? They can have lots of those. As the left found out decades ago, they don't accomplish a hell of a lot.

Given the right circumstances, 20 to 30 thousand can change a government. Ask Mussolini.

Regardless, the original question stands - is there any evidence of a friendship between Obama and Farrakhan? Or even a casual acquaintance?

Casual? Yes.

[Jester]

Like Jack Cashill.... He's like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory though... he makes sense sometimes and you wonder... "Should I bite off someone's nose?"

If he's making sense to you in that article, then perhaps you might want to bite someone's nose - it would be relatively sane by comparison.

I said, "One". If you go six, you get to me.

Yeah, you said one. And one is exactly what I'm asking you and Ashock to explain - one degree is Obama-Farrakhan. Likely a friendship, unless they're married, or starred in a movie together.

Two degrees would be Obama-JohnDoe-Farrakhan. You can run that one through Wright - they do at least know each other, and there was that magazine award. But the second degree of separation is a big one - once you start playing those games, you can get from more or less anyone in politics to anyone else.

No digging required. It's in plain site for anyone who wants to go looking.

... and is wearing the right tint of glasses.

Our media (barring the Faux Network), is not looking. Like I said earlier, journalism is dead, long live propaganda.

Right. Because actual journalism consists of raking up specious muck to throw at your partisan opponents, and making bizarre leaps of illogic - unlike propaganda, which would involve actually weighing the relevance and veracity of the available evidence. (Or do I have those backwards?)

Check out the news today, quoted straight from the White House press office.

Was there supposed to be a link there? Or am I supposed to go looking? CNN.com has something about balloon boy being under siege and a Korean supercar, but no Obama conspiracy.

Then again, if you cross the line and actually tick off the White House, you won't get to play in the sandbox with the"real" journalists (who parrot whatever the WH wants them to report).

As opposed to Fox, who report whatever *they* want to report - regardless of its relationship to the truth? The Weekly World News doesn't get to play in the sandbox either. Spend your time on stupid conspiracy theories spun out of nothing, and you find yourself in journalistic exile. Tough luck.

Van Jones saw the bus coming and got out of the way. No ones was stepping up to defend him either.

Wow. You really want it both ways, don't you? Obama defends people you find sketchy, it's further evidence of his dark secret past. Obama doesn't defend people you find sketchy, it's disloyally throwing his friends under the bus. Guy can't really catch a break with you, can he?

(Also, the bus metaphor is a campaign bus - Van Jones would be on the bus, and then get thrown under it. He couldn't "get out of the way" - but he could get off.)

Actually, I think Obama is a leftist in centrist clothing.

Hm. Now why might that be? Oh, right.

Given the right circumstances, 20 to 30 thousand can change a government. Ask Mussolini.

Uh, yeah. Like, circumstances where the most powerful army in the world completely loses its fracking mind, and decides not to defend the President against an *insurrection*? Either you're off your rocker, or you're just blowing smoke here.

Casual? Yes.

For starters, that's Michelle, not Barack - one presumes you can tell the difference? For second, that's not Louis Farrakhan, that's his wife - hopefully that one is even easier. For third, the Rainbow Coalition is a gigantic organization that holds all sorts of feel-good fundraisers and what have you. You could link almost anyone from the black community to the left of Alan Keyes that way. It's a luncheon and a photo shoot. That's about as feeble as connections get.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

For starters, that's Michelle, not Barack - one presumes you can tell the difference? For second, that's not Louis Farrakhan, that's his wife - hopefully that one is even easier. For third, the Rainbow Coalition is a gigantic organization that holds all sorts of feel-good fundraisers and what have you. You could link almost anyone from the black community to the left of Alan Keyes that way. It's a luncheon and a photo shoot. That's about as feeble as connections get.

You are funny. The Obama's and the Farrakhan's live in the same Hyde Park neighborhood, and I show you a photo of the two guys wives together, and you still claim there is no casual relationship. They couldn't possibly have *ever* met now could they? If I actually found a picture of them shaking hands, then you'd claim it was altered. Whatever.

Edit. And, the actual war between the White house and Fox News began when Chris Wallace did some fact checking on Tammy Duckworth's assertions on his News Sunday segment. Sounds like Chris Wallace did his job, and because it made an Obama administration official into a liar, Chris Wallace, and Fox News are being punished. FOX's programming with right wing wind bags doesn't help their position, but still, the propaganda machine in the White house is trying to black ball who they've labeled their enemy. You're ok with that?

Wow. You really want it both ways, don't you? Obama defends people you find sketchy, it's further evidence of his dark secret past. Obama doesn't defend people you find sketchy, it's disloyally throwing his friends under the bus. Guy can't really catch a break with you, can he?

I'm sorry. This is politics in the big league. You need to ensure that the people you choose to surround yourself don't have fatal flaws (financial, political, or personal scandals) or even loose strings that special prosecutors can pick at throughout your term with the hopes of having them perhaps slip up enough to charge them with obstruction, or perjury. When you back someone, and then when the political fires heat up you walk away from them, it reveals a lack of character. So take that for what its worth. Rev. Wright took a bullet for the team. Van Jones took a bullet for the team. Louis Farrakhan took a bullet for the team. What do they have in common? When it became expedient to further Obama's political goals, Obama had to speak out against them, while they all still remain ardent Obama supporters. Which means... they know he doesn't really mean what he's saying. They know Obama just has to say the words that keep the bus rolling forward.

[eppie]

Every race has serious issues towards other races. That's just reality. I've had enough of this white guilt crap to last me a lifetime.

Frankly, while white racism is reported about the most, and while there's definately some white racism out there, I find that whites are the only race that makes a concerted effort to be as non-judgemental as possible.... with some obvious exceptions of course, like that idiot. However, compared to wonderful people like Louis Farakkhan, Al Sharpton, or a host of supposedly "former" friends of our current president, this worm is a lightweight.

Should we start a topic of the gems that come out of any of the above people's mouths?

Ashok, you are always mainly discussing with yourself it seems. Some harsh words followed by a statement about something which is related but besides the topic of this discussion.

Nobody said only whites can be racist, nobody said blacks are never racists, and nobody (so also not the person that started this thread or the ones that reacted) is feeling 'white guilt'.

You could start a topic about the racisim in Iran and the discrimination of eg. homosexuals, but everybody would agree with you and there wouldn't be much discussion.....and oy yeah....they are our enemies remember......their behaviour around humand rights is why we don't like them.

So of course somebody starts a thread of something happening in his own country....at least there you can influence things (a bit), and at least there you know what you are talking about, this has nothing to do with guilt.

What would you say if we started a thread about a high murder rate in Los Angeles? Would you state that you are tired of human guilt crap because also wolves kill a lot?


Well probably you wouldn't because then you couldn't blame the president and his friends.

[eppie]

Right. But, there is one degree of separation. Not that it means much. Obama knows and fraternizes with many acquaintances with dubious philosophies. Some of them are/were a part of his administration, like Anita Dunn and her admiration of Mao Tse Tung, Van Jones and his colorful description of Congress, John Holdren and his penchant for eugenics, or Rahm Emanual and his ties to Blago, Richard M. Daley and the Chicago <strike>mob</strike> political machine. I heard the other day that there is credible evidence to the theory that Bill Ayers ghost wrote "Dreams Of My Father".

If you scratch under the surface of this administration, you will find plenty of things to raise your eyebrows over.

Obama himself has been careful to always smile and stay uncommitted to the rantings of his friends. And, as we saw with Rev. Wright, Van Jones, and others, if his friends become a liability, he is more than willing to toss them under the bus. I think this is one reason he is getting flack from the more leftist wing of his party. They feel they have a mandate for "Change" which they saw as something other than his more "centrist" approach. That is, centrist, as seen from the far left. The far right is in shock and horror. The middle is uncertain, and increasingly choosing the fence. Remember that in the Bush / Gore election the country was split pretty much 50/50. I believe the current administration knows that if they stray too far left, there will be a march on Washington. The country is ripe for it.

The line between freedom fighter and terrorist is very thin. Nobody could deny the importance of the black panther movement for civil rights of blacks, nobody can also deny the criminal offence have been commited by members of this group.
Please remember that half a century ago people were still lynched because they were black, can't you at least try to understand why some hard words are being thrown around sometimes.
And easier, try to see Obama for who he is, not for the people he used to hang around with.

[kandrathe]

And easier, try to see Obama for who he is, not for the people he used to hang around with.

I think sometimes it does matter. When Bush spoke at Bob Jones University, it made Jester nervous. If Jimmy Carter were bosom buddies with David Duke or Larry Flynt, many people would be concerned about it. When the WH communications director says that she "controls" the media, and that one of her favorite political philosophers is Mao Tse Tung I think it makes people question the political philosophies of the entire administration.

[eppie]

I think sometimes it does matter. When Bush spoke at Bob Jones University, it made Jester nervous. If Jimmy Carter were bosom buddies with David Duke or Larry Flynt, many people would be concerned about it. When the WH communications director says that she "controls" the media, and that one of her favorite political philosophers is Mao Tse Tung I think it makes people question the political philosophies of the entire administration.

Anyone from the Bush family speaking at any university anytime, anywhere should make everybody nervous.

(but I might have missed a funny reference here; is Bob Jones University the same kind of thing as clown college?)

[kandrathe]

Anyone from the Bush family speaking at any university anytime, anywhere should make everybody nervous.

(but I might have missed a funny reference here; is Bob Jones University the same kind of thing as clown college?)

Bob Jones University is considered to be probably the most conservative Christian college in the US, and it has had ties to the Republican party. Oral Roberts might be tied. Around the time of Bush's speech there in 2000, BJU dropped it's policy prohibiting interracial dating.