Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana

[JuanBolio]

And this justice is only making things worse by continuing that cycle of racism. He could have stood up against it, but failed. His inaction allows racism to continue.

I agree, but I don't think that makes his actions and beliefs in themselves racist.

The most basic fact of the case is this: the man was showing racist behavior. Whatever the motivations or faulty logic behind his behavior, the behavior itself is racist. A person who thinks that an interracial couple should not be married/have children, for the sake of said children is serving only to reaffirm racist attitudes and is therefore engaging in racist behavior.

I disagree. I believe motive defines a person's actions, not their unintended effects. In my book this man, based on what he's said alone (I know nothing of his inner motivations, if he has any), is not racist, and therefore neither were his actions. Overstepping his authority and worthy of termination, definitely. Racist - no.

 

[thestrangequark]

The most basic fact of the case is this: the man was showing racist behavior. Whatever the motivations or faulty logic behind his behavior, the behavior itself is racist. A person who thinks that an interracial couple should not be married/have children, for the sake of said children is serving only to reaffirm racist attitudes and is therefore engaging in racist behavior.

I disagree. I believe motive defines a person's actions, not their unintended effects. In my book this man, based on what he's said alone (I know nothing of his inner motivations, if he has any), is not racist, and therefore neither were his actions. Overstepping his authority and worthy of termination, definitely. Racist - no.

And I have to disagree with that. In cases like this, motives are meaningless, actions are everything. The behavior is racist, no matter the logic or intentions behind it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And this justice is only making things worse by continuing that cycle of racism. He could have stood up against it, but failed. His inaction allows racism to continue.

I agree, but I don't think that makes his actions and beliefs in themselves racist.

Whoever, and whatever, perpetuates racism - or allows it to be perpetuated - is in itself racist.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I agree with those who find this disturbing: to deem being interracial such an adversity that it is better that such children not live--NOT a good attitude at all. What about other adversities? Disabilities? Being too smart? Being adopted by a single parent? Eeeek. I don't see how this is NOT racist.

And if there IS adversity, it is the responsibility of the parents to equip their children to handle it and to be there to support them. It is NOT the government's place, unless there is PROVEN, criminal abuse, to interfere with the right of people to succeed or fail as they will.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Well said, Nerys and tsq.

And at the risk of trivializing the situation by interjecting a fictional example: This is exactly the kind of thing Spock had to deal with in ST XI. The Vulcan Science Minister was exhibiting obviously racist behavior when he referred to Spock's human ancestry (his mother's side) as a disadvantage, since Vulcan - being a society which values logic above all else - must NEVER exhibit this kind of thing, since racism is inherently illogical.

 

[John Picard]

And this justice is only making things worse by continuing that cycle of racism. He could have stood up against it, but failed. His inaction allows racism to continue.

I agree, but I don't think that makes his actions and beliefs in themselves racist.

The most basic fact of the case is this: the man was showing racist behavior. Whatever the motivations or faulty logic behind his behavior, the behavior itself is racist. A person who thinks that an interracial couple should not be married/have children, for the sake of said children is serving only to reaffirm racist attitudes and is therefore engaging in racist behavior.

I disagree. I believe motive defines a person's actions, not their unintended effects. In my book this man, based on what he's said alone (I know nothing of his inner motivations, if he has any), is not racist, and therefore neither were his actions. Overstepping his authority and worthy of termination, definitely. Racist - no.

His actions scream racial intolerance. It is HIS opinion that mixed races marriages don't work out (bullshit) and that the children suffer (more bullshit); therefore, in HIS OPINION, they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

RACISM. End. Of. Story.

 

[JuanBolio]

And I have to disagree with that. In cases like this, motives are meaningless, actions are everything. The behavior is racist, no matter the logic or intentions behind it.

Then we must agree to disagree.

Whoever, and whatever, perpetuates racism - or allows it to be perpetuated - is in itself racist.

That's like saying a doctor who has given up on treating cancer is, himself, cancer.

His actions scream racial intolerance.

Maybe, but his stated motivations say otherwise.

in HIS OPINION, they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I don't remember reading about him saying they shouldn't be allowed to. He just said he wouldn't do it or contribute to it himself. He didn't try to prevent it from happening.

RACISM. End. Of. Story.

No, I think that's a little too simplistic for me.

 

[sidious618]

Either this guy is a racist and trying to hide it behind excuses or he's a moron. Either way, he's not looking good.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Whoever, and whatever, perpetuates racism - or allows it to be perpetuated - is in itself racist.

That's like saying a doctor who has given up on treating cancer is, himself, cancer.

Not at all. Doctors are continually striving to cure cancer. They have not given up on it. They can't cure cancer now, because that is not yet medically possible. But they are still trying to cure it.

This justice, OTOH, has the power to *eliminate* the racism that is occurring right under his watch - by simply performing the marriage. Once he's done that, everything would have been fine. But by refusing to do the ceremony, he is creating more racism. The vicious circle continues.

 

[JuanBolio]

Not at all. Doctors are continually striving to cure cancer. They have not given up on it. They can't cure cancer now, because that is not yet medically possible. But they are still trying to cure it.

This justice, OTOH, has the power to *eliminate* the racism that is occurring right under his watch - by simply performing the marriage. Once he's done that, everything would have been fine. But by refusing to do the ceremony, he is creating more racism. The vicious circle continues.

You misunderstand. I'm talking about if a SINGLE doctor refused to treat cancer because he thought it was hopeless. Far fetched, I know, but bear with me - its a metaphor. Would that doctor, himself, become cancerous for not acting to cure it?

 

[thestrangequark]

And I have to disagree with that. In cases like this, motives are meaningless, actions are everything. The behavior is racist, no matter the logic or intentions behind it.

Then we must agree to disagree.

So engaging in racist behavior and promoting racist behavior isn't so bad so long as his motives (he thinks) are pure? That's ridiculous.

Besides, even when we do take into account his motives we cannot deny that his logic is faulty.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm talking about if a SINGLE doctor refused to treat cancer because he thought it was hopeless. Far fetched, I know, but bear with me - its a metaphor. Would that doctor, himself, become cancerous for not acting to cure it?

No, because a physical ailment can only be caused by biology. Racial prejudice and intolerance can be caused, and allowed to continue, by attitudes alone.

 

[thestrangequark]

Not at all. Doctors are continually striving to cure cancer. They have not given up on it. They can't cure cancer now, because that is not yet medically possible. But they are still trying to cure it.

This justice, OTOH, has the power to *eliminate* the racism that is occurring right under his watch - by simply performing the marriage. Once he's done that, everything would have been fine. But by refusing to do the ceremony, he is creating more racism. The vicious circle continues.

You misunderstand. I'm talking about if a SINGLE doctor refused to treat cancer because he thought it was hopeless. Far fetched, I know, but bear with me - its a metaphor. Would that doctor, himself, become cancerous for not acting to cure it?

The analogy is flawed because cancer is not a human behavior. The metaphorical aside, one cannot behave as a cancer. One can behave as a racist. We can separate the behavior from the intentions for sure. But the behavior is racist, and because it is the behavior that affects the world, it is the behavior, and only the behavior, that matters. His motives may serve to appease his own mind, and you and I could debate whether his attitude itself is racist (I believe it is), but all that doesn't matter when the action is considered.

 

[John Picard]

in HIS OPINION, they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I don't remember reading about him saying they shouldn't be allowed to. He just said he wouldn't do it or contribute to it himself. He didn't try to prevent it from happening.

RACISM. End. Of. Story.

No, I think that's a little too simplistic for me.

Here you go, sport.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-15-interracial-couple_N.htm

A 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.

He doesn't believe in mixing the races. How much more proof would you like?

And some follow-up.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-16-interracial-marriage_N.htm

 

[JuanBolio]

So engaging in racist behavior and promoting racist behavior isn't so bad so long as his motives (he thinks) are pure? That's ridiculous.

I don't think his actions were racist, exactly, as they had nothing to do with one race being less than another. Segregationist, maybe, but that's not the same thing.

Besides, even when we do take into account his motives we cannot deny that his logic is faulty.

Perhaps. I think he's correct in stating that black and mixed kids will likely face difficulties in their lives that white kids would not. I don't agree with his actions (or rather inactions), but I simply can't agree that all this makes him a racist.

No, because a physical ailment can only be caused by biology. Racial prejudice and intolerance can be caused, and allowed to continue, by attitudes alone.

Tools are irrelevant. The doctor has the power to fight cancer, the JoP has the power to bring races together, one marriage at a time. Is the doctor cancerous for not treating cancer as the JoP is racist for choosing not to wed mixed couples?

Here you go, sport.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-15-interracial-couple_N.htm

A 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.

He doesn't believe in mixing the races. How much more proof would you like?

And some follow-up.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-16-interracial-marriage_N.htm

Don't call me "sport", and yes, I've read all of that. My opinion remains unchanged. Based on his stated motivations, he is not, in my opinion, a racist.

End of story.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

How else could a person morally justify segregationism other than racism??? Seriously, I cannot see that.

 

[thestrangequark]

in HIS OPINION, they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I don't remember reading about him saying they shouldn't be allowed to. He just said he wouldn't do it or contribute to it himself. He didn't try to prevent it from happening.


No, I think that's a little too simplistic for me.

Here you go, sport.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-15-interracial-couple_N.htm

A 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.

He doesn't believe in mixing the races. How much more proof would you like?

And some follow-up.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-16-interracial-marriage_N.htm

He's definitely not racist, he has "black friends!" "Piles and piles of them!" He even let's them use his bathroom!

 

[thestrangequark]

So engaging in racist behavior and promoting racist behavior isn't so bad so long as his motives (he thinks) are pure? That's ridiculous.

I don't think his actions were racist, exactly, as they had nothing to do with one race being less than another. Segregationist, maybe, but that's not the same thing.

He is treating people differently based solely on their race. That is the very definition of racism!

 

[JuanBolio]

How else could a person morally justify segregationism other than racism??? Seriously, I cannot see that.

He feels that mixed couples will have children that will face adversity in their life that they otherwise wouldn't. He steps way over the bounds (and bonds) of his authority in refusing to take part in bringing the parents together in legal union (especially since people don't need to be married to have kids), but I don't think that attitude in itself is racist. Racism stems from feelings of racial superiority/inferiority. I see none of that here.

He is treating people differently based solely on their race. That is the very definition of racism!

No, as far as I know he treats black people no different from white people. He is simply refusing to participate in marrying them together. It would be racist if, say, he refused to wed any two black people in hopes that the race would stop breeding and die out, or if he refused to marry white and black people together because he felt a black person was unworthy of marrying a white person.

 

[thestrangequark]

He is treating people differently based solely on their race. That is the very definition of racism!

No, as far as I know he treats black people no different from white people. He is simply refusing to participate in marrying them together. It would be racist if, say, he refused to wed any two black people in hopes that the race would stop breeding and die out, or if he refused to marry white and black people together because he felt a black person was unworthy of marrying a white person.

No, that's completely wrong. He is treating interracial couples differently from other couples. He is altering his behavior because of their races. That is racism.