An interracial Louisiana couple was refused a marriage permit by a state justice of the peace, prompting outrage nationwide and calls for an investigation. Now, civil liberties groups are teaming up with the governor, a U.S. Senator, and others to have the judge removed from office.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," claimed Judge Keith Bardwell of Tangipahoa Parish, who said he was concerned that the marriage’s future children would not be accepted by society. "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."

After calling the judge on October 6 to make arrangements for obtaining the state’s permission to marry, Beth Humphrey, a white woman, was informed by Bardwell’s wife that he did not sign for interracial marriages. “I was beyond shocked,” she told CNN about her reaction. Her black husband, Terence McKay, was furious.  

Bardwell, who has served in the elected position for over three decades, told the Associated Press that he always asks couples who call about marriages if they are “mixed,” and if they are, he refuses to grant permission. He estimated that he had turned down about four marriages in his career over the issue, insisting that if he granted one interracial license he would have to grant all of them. “I try to treat everyone equally," he said.    

After observing and talking to whites and blacks, Bardwell said he concluded that neither group readily accepts children from such relationships and that in his experience, mixed marriages tend not to last. “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.” In the end, he suggested that the couple seek a permission from another justice of the peace, and finally their marriage license was issued by another judge.

Civil liberties groups strongly condemned Bardwell’s decision, and the newly wed couple is vowing to have him removed from office. “I think that he should lose his position,” Humphrey said. "He's not representing all the people that he is supposed to be representing. He's only representing the people with his same opinions." The judge has said he would prefer to resign than be forced to approve interracial marriages, according to CNN.   

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican of Indian descent, issued a strongly worded statement condemning Bardwell. "Disciplinary action should be taken immediately — including the revoking of his license," he said. Democratic U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana also blasted the decision in a statement. “"Not only does his decision directly contradict Supreme Court rulings, it is an example of the ugly bigotry that divided our country for too long."

Local officials also distanced themselves from Bardwell, with Parish President Gordon Burgess saying that he hopes Barwell will resign if “he is unable to serve all of the people of his district and our parish.” The Legislative Black Caucus in the state legislature is also calling for an investigation by the state judicial review commission. Bardwell’s term officially ends in 2014.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that interracial marriages were legal in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia. "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state," the high court decided. There are now over four million interracial marriages across America.

But the case raises the question of state involvement in marriage, except for protection of contracts and enforcement from fraud. After all, if marriage is a God-ordained institution, shouldn't it rightfully fall within the realm of churches and contract law, not the state?

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (18)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Bonnie said:

Much ado about nothing, part 1 Judge Keith Bardwell has a policy of not performing interracial marriages. He has his reasons and a right to hold such views. This doesn't mean we have to agree with him. I don't. His statement that "they use my bathroom" suggests an attitude I find reprehensible. But, consider various clergy. How many will refrain from consenting to marry individuals for reason of some view they hold? I know it is (or at least was) policy for a Catholic priest to marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic. I know of protestant ministers who will refuse to marry a couple who they determine, after counseling, are not ready for marriage. Should a member of the clergy be defrocked for refusing a marriage? I don't think so. Bardwell did suggest the couple try another justice of the peace, which they did and ended up married. So Bardwell did not block or stop the marriage, he just briefly delayed it. Since the couple was able to marry in spite of Judge Bardwell, their liberties were not infringed. Should he have his license to perform marriages revoked for refusing a marriage he felt unwise? I don't think so.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 18, 2009
Votes: -5

Bonnie said:

Much ado about nothing, part 2 As to "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that interracial marriages were legal", I have looked Article III of the Constitution and failed to see any authorization for the Supreme Court to be determining the validity of state marriage laws. Marriage is a state matter. If Judge Bardwell has his license revoked for his refusal to marry a couple, a precedent will be set. Who will be next? A justice who refuses to marry a 65 year old man to a 16 year old girl because he suspects something odd going on? Some member of the clergy to refusing to marry couples of widely different faiths? Someone who refuses to be a part of a same sex "marriage"? Agree or disagree with Judge Keith Bardwell, he did not try to stop the marriage, but merely refused to be a part of a marriage which his (perhaps misguided) conscience told him was unwise. Instead of trying to make everyone in the world politically correct, why not just let the man be.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009
Votes: -4

Flu-Bird said:

	Just wait You can bet the ACLU and the NAACP will be demanding the judges head i mean same sex marrages are imoral,unethical and blastfmous and paligomy is evil and LIBERALS ARE EVIL MOST OF ALL
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009
Votes: -5

Charles MJ said:

	... Bonnie, you just don't get it. Which part of "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state" don't you understand? And Bonnie, please tell me that you know the difference between church and state. To compare clergy to the justice of the peace is illogical.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009
Votes: +1

the pulpit said:

	Stop the HYPOCRISY! Stop the HYPOCRISY! Too many Negro's are as blatant discriminatory as Bardwell!
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009 | url
Votes: -4

Bonnie said:

To Charles MJ "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state" Really? Which Article? Which Section? Which Paragraph? "please tell me that you know the difference between church and state." Yes. I do. I also know that in a judge's job description it says that he/she MAY perform marriages. It doesn't require him/her to actually do so. A judge also has the right to refuse to hear a case. This does not mean a case can't be heard nor does it mean a marriage can't be performed. It simply means that another judge or justice must be obtained. The article does contain one error, however. It states the justice refuse to issue the marriage permit. In Louisiana marriage licenses are granted by the Parish Clerk of Court, not by judges or justices. The judges/justices/clergy can only OFFICIATE such marriages. Bardwell refused to officiate. I will not deny that Bardwell may be a horse's behind. I will maintain he has a right to behave as such.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009
Votes: +0

Lee Gonzales said:

	Render unto caesar ...and unto God the things that are God's "...the case raises the question of state involvement in marriage, except for protection of contracts and enforcement from fraud. After all, if marriage is a God-ordained institution, shouldn't it rightfully fall within the realm of churches and contract law, not the state?"
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009
Votes: +1

Charles MJ said:

... Bonnie, the Fourteenth Ammendment is to what the US Supreme Court pointed. The US Supreme Court wrote that Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009
Votes: +1

Bonnie said:

Reply to Charles MJ Amendment XIV Section 1 defines citizenship. It then extends the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) to cover the states. Section 2 covers apportionment and voting rights. Section 3 excludes certain people who were engaged in the War for Southern Independence from serving in government. Section 4 exempts the federal government from legal responsibility for property lost or destroyed in the south because of federal actions. Section 5 concerns enforcement. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights concerning marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia. While the validity of the Fourteenth Amendment is questionable, after more than 140 years that becomes a moot point. What is not moot, however, is that the United States Supreme Court is reading into a amendment that which is not there, and doing so in a case in which it has neither original nor appellate jurisdiction.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 20, 2009
Votes: +0

Charles MJ said:

... Bonnie, you left out a lot from Section 1. Let me help you out. This is Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Now, Bonnie, excuse me for putting more stock in the ruling of the United States Supreme Court over your legal opinion.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 20, 2009
Votes: +1

Bonnie said:

Reply to Charles MJ All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. That is addressing citizenship No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That is extending the Bill of Rights to the States You are excused for your failure to understand and appreciate the United States Constitution. I personally will put more stock into the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the Founders original intent (as expressed in The Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist writings, inaugural addresses, and other writings of the Founders) than in an Executive or Congress or Supreme Court which repeatedly has shown nothing but contempt for such documents and acted in wildly unconstitutional (illegal) manner. Probably in excess of 95% of government today is in direct violation of the United States Constitution, and the Supreme Court has either supported or instigated the majority of it. It matters not to me what the Supreme Court says when they are acting outside their constitutional limitations.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 20, 2009
Votes: +1

Charles MJ said:

	... Bonnie, I believe you have a heck of a law suit against the Board of Education of the state where you graduated high school.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 20, 2009
Votes: +2

Bonnie said:

Sorry Charlie... You are mistaken. I did not go to a public school. I was taught to think for myself. I was taught to examine ALL the evidence, determine its merit, and make a decision based upon that research. The United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 defines the scope of cases which may be heard by the Supreme Court. Paragraph 2 defines when jurisdiction is original and when it is appellate. The Eleventh Amendment modifies Section 2, Paragraph 1 of Article III. No other Amendment modifies anything in Article III. I would also advise a thorough reading of The Federalist Papers, Numbers 78 through 83 for a better understanding of the Court. A reading of Anti-Federalist papers, "Brutus" Essays XV and XVI, is also worthwhile. It is very clear from from Article III and the Eleventh Amendment that the case in question is out of scope for the Supreme Court. Don't let other people do your thinking for you.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 20, 2009
Votes: +0

Charles MJ said:

... When you say that "there is nothing in the Bill of Rights concerning marriage", I have to question the quality of your education. Do you grasp the concept of "Unenumerated Rights"? Go back over the Ninth Amendment. Here’s how Justice Arthur Goldberg put it in the famous privacy case of Griswold v. Connecticut, which involved a state statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives: The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments.... To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment.... Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 21, 2009
Votes: +1

Bonnie said:

... Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay did not have their rights violated. They were granted a license to marry by the Parish Clerk of Court, and they did get married by a justice. That justice happened to not be Bardwell as he refused to officiate the ceremony and advised the couple to seek another justice, which they did. Humphrey and McKay felt offended. Bardwell is an a$$. There is no law against that, nor should there be. Do I understand unenumerated rights? Yes. There is no right not to be offended, although judging by the current spat of "political correctness" one may wonder about that. The case you cite, Griswold v. Connecticut, is another example in which the United States Supreme Court had neither original nor appellate jurisdiction. I might also point out that the Griswold case concerned privacy, not marriage, and the reasoning used in that case was used in part in Roe v Wade. Neither one of us likes Bardwell, but let's stick to the facts. If there is some Louisiana law addressing his action (or inaction), apply that law accordingly. Is there such a law? I don't know, I don't live there, and feel no compelling reason for me to investigate that possibility. Assuming for a moment that there is such a law, then Louisiana can determine whether removal or censure is appropriate. Don't just give a typical liberal knee jerk reaction.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 21, 2009
Votes: +1

Charles MJ said:

... Bonnie, Based on your postings, you come across as an intelligent person. That is why it amazes me that you cannot see how clear cut this situation is. This is not about his behavior. You cannot discriminate based on race. Period. End of story. If he is allowed to discriminate, then all justices can discriminate. Then what? What if every JP in Louisiana said interracial marriages were against their belief? Whether this couple had their rights violated is now a matter for the courts. The couple is suing Mr. Bardwell. Bonnie, I have enjoyed slamming you on your hairdo in this arena of ideas.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 21, 2009
Votes: +0

Bonnie said:

... This IS about his behavior. What is discrimination without a related action (behavior)? What needs to be determined is whether or not his behavior caused harm. Was Bardwell's behavior discriminatory or discretionary? You are correct that since the suit has been filed, it is now up to the courts to decide. To be more specific, it is up to the Louisiana courts to decide. As I have said before, a justice of the peace or a judge has a certain amount of leeway. He/she MAY (but is not required to) perform marriages. He/she may also decline to preside over a trial. It is a matter of discretion. I do not know if there is any Louisiana law modifying judicial discretion. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. If there is, then the courts can take appropriate action. If there is not, then the courts have to throw out the case. All justices and judges in the State of Louisiana have the same discretionary rights. What if every (or even a small but significant number of) justices in the state held the same views as Bardwell? If that were the case, then it would be "prudent" (to put it mildly) for the Louisiana state legislature to take corrective action. Charles, the one item we have not debated (and I suspect will not be debating) is Bardwell's inane view that "the marriage’s future children would not be accepted by society". MAYBE that view could have held some weight fifty years ago! My observations of mixed marriages, be they black/white, black/Asian, white/Asian, Asian/Latino, etc., show that view flawed. Yes, there are some people who do show contempt for children of mixed marriages, but for the most part people accept these innocents. And, Charles, I too have enjoyed ridiculing your haircut!

report abuse vote down vote up

October 21, 2009
Votes: +1

Charles MJ said:

	... Bonnie, You have made me smile. I am pleased to see that we can disagree somewhat civilly, given the state of political discourse nowadays.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 21, 2009
Votes: +0