Friday, October 16, 2009

Racism alive and well in Tangipahoa Parish, LA


We've come a long way in this country. But I think we can all admit that we will most likely never kill off racism. Given our country's history, racism will always be the permanent stain on our collective conscience.

We have come far enough though, that everyone pretty much acknowledges racism as a bad characteristic. Remember the old Chappelle routine where he talks about the racism down South? Well...Dave might as well have been talking about Tangipahoa Parish, LA.

See...Tangipahoa Parish is home to Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell. Bardwell got in the news this week for refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple "out of concern for any children the couple might have."

(Bardwell) 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.



If I may point out a few things. First, if "success" was really a criteria, you shouldn't be marrying anyone, dipshit. Last study I saw showed something like 50% of marriages fail. Second, how beautifully racist is it for Bardwell to also blame his decision on Blacks? See...they can't accept those mixed kids--It's their fault. Lastly...it takes a real mouth-breathing, ignoramus to preach these views and then have the gall to say "I try to treat everyone equally."

Let me say this to Mr. Bardwell. This is America. You are certainly free to have these views and to let us all know about them. Unfortunately, you hold a public position: Justice of the Peace. As such, you let these views affect your carrying out of that office, you can't have it anymore. You don't get to tell people to go to another one. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Resign, asshole.

Maybe you could open a "colored" restroom or something.

Hattip to Polkey for the article.

3 comments:

Mike Reino said...

Yeah, I saw this too. Personal opinions aside, if two people want to get married, it's the JOP's job to do so, not to decide if they should be married or not. It is awfully nice of him to let blacks use his toilet, don't you think?

Back to the Cro-Mag display, Keyrock...

Cheesefrog said...

Let me preface this by saying the guy is obviously wrong, but I'm just wondering how he can be dinged with racism when technically he is discriminating against both black and whites?

Just for my information, is a justice of the peace obligated to marry anyone who comes to him or can he dismiss couples as he sees fit? Is there any precedent for this in the law? I mean, other than constitutional rights of course. :-)

pluvlaw said...

To answer the first question, he obviously basis his actions, or more specifically: failures to act, on the races of couples that appear before him. I'd say that makes him racist. (Come on Danny...I know you like the crumudgeon-Devils-Advocate-horse, but even you don't really ride it that hard).

As to the second question,while I have no knowledge of LA state law or the official capacity that law empowers a JOP with, the short and simple answer is "Yes."

This jagoff doesn't get to decide which members of the public get to enjoy the execution of his public office. To deny them to some is to deprive people of equal protection under the law, as you acknowledge a Constitutional right, which would take precedent over any state law. But bans on interracial marriages were struck down by SCOTUS back in the '60s if I am not mistaken.