In Tangipahoa Parish, a white justice of the peace, Keith Bardwell, refused to marry a white woman to a black man. Bardwell stated that he does not marry interracial couples because of his concerns about their offspring. He claims that children that are the offspring of such a union suffer because they are not accepted by black or white society and he does not want to be a part of their suffering. To spite his actions, Bardwell maintains that he is not racist.
"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." (Associated Press, October 16, 2009)
I find Bardwell’s position on the offspring of interracial couples particularly perplexing. The President of the United States of America is bi-racial. Oscar winning actress Halle Berry is bi-racial. Grammy award winning singer Alicia Keys is bi-racial. The aforementioned examples were a product of the union between a white mother and a black father. This is the exact union that Justice Bardwell is trying to ban due to the problems that the offspring will face. I wonder what President Obama, Halle Berry, and Alicia Keys would say to a decision that seeks to virtually ban their existence.
Bardwell says that in the past, he has always asked if couples are interracial, and if they are, he refuses to marry them. Bardwell has served as a justice of the peace for 34 years.
Laws that ban interracial marriages (miscegenation laws) were overturned 42 years ago. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled to overturn these interracial marriage bans in the case of Loving vs. Virginia. In this case an African-American woman named Mildred Loving was married to a white man named Richard Loving. Because of the ban, they traveled outside their home state of Virginia to get married. Upon their return, they were arrested and practically exiled. The couple took their case to the Supreme Court in hopes to legally return to their rural hometown in Virginia and live happily ever after.
Ironically, Virginia was one of the first of two colonies to ban interracial marriages in the 1800’s. However, the removal of this ban, in the state of Virginia, in the year of 1967, served as a precedent for other states to follow.
So then, why is it that in 2009, a justice of the peace (who is an elected official by the way) is refusing to uphold the removal of this ban? He argues that he did not break the law by refusing to marry the couple. He claims to have recused himself from performing the marriage ceremony and went on to say that he referred the couple another judge that would perform the marriage ceremony.
The historical debate of interracial marriage is quite reminiscent of today’s debate of same sex marriage. I would argue that just as it was ruled unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage nearly 40 years ago, it should be unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage. The premise is the same for both situations. Homosexuals are discriminated against in the same manner that African-Americas are discriminated against in this country. The fight for gay rights has followed a path that is quite similar to the civil rights movement. There are a lot of parallels in the two struggles.
So this idea of banning two adults from being married whether the reason is that they are of two different races or of the same sex is a discriminatory practice, nonetheless. In both instances, persons having nothing to do with the relationship between the two people that are in love and wanting to get married are passing discriminatory judgments about whether or not the couple should have the legal right to be married. This phenomenon of passing judgments occurs too often in life, however, it becomes very problematic when the person passing the discriminatory judgment is a person in power.
In the case of Justice Bardwell, of Tangipahoa Parish, he had the power to perform the marriage ceremony and his refusal to do so was an act that impeded the marriage process of the interracial couple. I will not argue Bardwell maintaining the position that he is not racist. But I will argue that to spite his motives, his actions were racist. Justice Bardwell used his power to put his discriminatory ideas into action. The nation is in an uproar, as it should be. The internet is buzzing with talks of this small Louisianan Parish. Justice Bardwell even appeared on Good Morning America. In the spirit of this upheaval, I wonder if anyone ever considered the idea that our country is putting discriminatory ideas into action by not legally recognizing same sex marriage. Just wondering…
No comments:
Post a Comment