No, this doesn't count as racism...

[badstar]

I wonder what constitutes "racist" in this guy's little universe?

Bardwell did not return calls left on his answering machine Friday. He has said he always asks if a couple is interracial and, if they are, refers them to another justice of the peace.

"No one's ever complained about it before," Bardwell said Thursday. "I do it to protect the children. The kids are innocent and I worry about their futures."

Humphrey and McKay were eventually married by another justice of the peace, but are now looking into legal action against Bardwell.

Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to ask about a marriage license. She said Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell would not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples.

Uhhh...at least he refers them to another justice of the peace?

More here.

"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."

Silly me. Well, you sure have change my mind! Okay, you're not a racist...

And his reason?

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."

Right. Because you're so not helping the cause of interracial children and acceptance as it is?

(I orginally read the story here http://blogs.lancasteronline.com/smartremarks/2009/10/16/black-and-white-and-denied-all-over/)

Comments

[dragonprince72.livejournal.com]

Ok first off - you pointed out about annoyed by you - You misunderstood what I said I think - I was more referring to the how parents tell kids to dispute the racist arguments w/ logic and hate to say this but if someone's making fun of someone, mocking, being a racist, or otherwise illogical in general, rational discussion and logical discourse will rarely if ever work. To think someone's opinions are wrong are one thing and nobody may blame someone for their opinion, however it's the expectation of someone (a child or really anyone) to fight a battle they themselves are not really a major combattant in but more a victim - like a parent of a mixed-race child telling the child to tell people attacking her child where to shove their words...the child doesn't care :P My parents told me as a child when people called me fat and ugly to tell them that God doesn't make ugly creations - that's such a weak argument though. But someone (the comment before me) had mentioned telling the child to tell people where to shove their ameteur sociology or something like that...and that annoyed me because I hear parents say that a lot to their kids (not ameteur sociology but the situation).

I guess I dispute the concept of a "public servant"...the term makes them sound like a slave. I know for a fact doctors are not obligated to help everyone. It depends on the institution first and the hippocratic(sp?) oath. The hospital could be private and be more restrictive, whereas most public hospitals do help most anyone that is not trying to like commit suicide or hurt themselves somehow. For example, abortions - from what I understood, catholic owned hospitals would not participate in abortions in any state(pro-choice or pro-life) because they prohibit it by religion and the law does not say it has to be done by them. Same w/ marriages and that was his and my point - he didn't tell them they couldn't get married...He just would tell them they have to go to another justice of the peace. There are judges in regular courtrooms that refuse to hear cases for certain reasons of their own and they don't get crap so why can't he?

As for what you said about having friends of different races does not preclude one from the possibility of being racist - everybody's a little racist in some way or another - but his reasons were not by a general dislike of the race but just a knowledge / belief that the pairing statistically just do not work out. Because I haven't seen those statistics and my experience concludes nothing of the sort, I disagree with his reasons, but think he's right in what he's doing. I think if he was racist more than just a little bit, he would have told them that they couldn't get married but he very politely told them they could go to another one and if I recall right gave them options.

[chironcentaur.livejournal.com]

There are judges in regular courtrooms that refuse to hear cases for certain reasons of their own and they don't get crap so why can't he?

Judges get to pass on cases when for some reason they are not able to preside over the case unbiased, which is necessary for them to do their job properly. This guy doesn't need to be unbiased, he needs to make a pronouncement and sign a paper. Not the same thing. Also, a Justice of the Peace is not a judge.

whereas most public hospitals do help most anyone that is not trying to like commit suicide or hurt themselves somehow

Um, what? Where are public hospitals allowed to turn away people that hurt themselves deliberately? No, they'll treat your wounds and then put you in the psych ward. They don't get to turn you away. Hell, if they pulled me out of a car wreck half dead tomorrow and I had no medical insurance, the hospital still legally has to treat me in an emergency situation.

As for the Catholic hospitals example, like I said public institution verses private institution. What a Catholic hospital can get away with a public hospital can not, likewise a church pastor verses a Justice of the Peace. If you don't like abortions then work in the Catholic hospital, you don't get to choose to be the sectary at Planned Parenthood and sit there behind the desk with your arms folded across your chest refusing to admit anyone on moral grounds, while expecting to keep your job and get paid. Even there private institutions are not always exempt from the law, I can think of a Catholic run orphanage in MA that opted to close down when they found out they were required to follow state law and allow gay couples to adopt.

Its not like this guy didn't know what his job would entail, not like this was sprung on him all of a sudden. If it was that big a deal to him, you know how many jobs are out there that do not require him to officiate at mixed marriage weddings? I'm assuming its lots. That way he can be happy doing something that doesn't brush up against his "morality" and the couples looking to marry don't have to be inconvenienced with their local Justice of the Peace who doesn't feel like doing his job. Everybody wins.

Again, I don't see why one man and his opinions deserve so much extra special consideration (and being about to shrug off responsibilities you willingly signed up for when you took the job in the first place is special consideration) at the expense of everybody else.

[dragonprince72.livejournal.com]

I never said that "public hospitals turn people away that hurt themselves deliberately" meaning as in self-infliction of pain and that sort - but more - you can't go to a hospital for a tattoo, piercing, or for your morphine fix...all acts which don't heal you but in a manner of speaking injure you...THAT'S what I meant...if you go into a hospital and say "Doc...I need to drive this stake through my heart"...they won't do it...they'll send them to a psych ward and that's that....to say that all public hospitals would refuse is a lie as I'm sure if one looked, one might find a hospital willing to participate. However as I said most public hospitals WILL perform abortions if legal in the state that they're in which if one wanted to be picky - is hurting, not healing.

You're right - a Justice of the Peace is NOT a judge - but both are public servants so why are they held to different standards and expectations? As for getting another job - you try telling someone who loves his job to get another one...A job to many people isn't a job but their life ... but still marrying people is an important responsibility! If you marry people, you're participating in their union and if it doesn't work out and they had children, YOU are responsible for their children being put into that situation. He isn't just signing a piece of paper...he's officiating a ceremony too from what I've read. The morality isn't about the mixed couple merely getting married but about them having children later. I would disagree too if he made it purely about them being mixed and it having nothing to do about children, but honestly as it has been said before - he didn't prohibit them from getting married, just they had to go to another one...there are more than one justice of the peaces and it's not like it's hard to find one lol.

[chironcentaur.livejournal.com]

They are held to different standards because they have completely different jobs and responsibilities, there is no comparison here. And he can't love his job that much, since it causes him moral distress. And either way if he can't and won't do his job, then why should he be allowed to keep it?

Try that at your job, whatever it is. Start telling your boss you won't do some part of what you know is your responsibility, something in the guidelines of your employment that you knew about signing in, how well do you think that would go over? Better yet, if a co-worker of yours started passing his responsibilities onto your shoulders because he no longer felt like doing it himself?

Sorry, this please think of the children bullshit is not winning me over. Not just because the idea itself is crap. What about the children from *any* marriage he performs? There is no screening process, he doesn't get to know these people on an intimate basis. That white couple he has no problem signing that paper for could be alcoholics, they could have temper problems, they could have any number of problems that could fuck their kids up in any number of ways, there is simply no way of knowing. But is he thinking about the children there? I doubt it, they are the same race so therefore it will all be fine; if it was all about the children you'd think he'd run background checks on every couple he weds (since, according to you, he would be responsible for every gods damned decision they make from then on, and of course people can't have children unless they are married). This is nothing but bigotry talking.

And either way, it doesn't fucking matter. Since you so love comparing them to judges, well JOP and a judge do have one thing in common: they both have to follow the law and their own feelings don't get to come into play. It doesn't matter if a judge strongly feels a suspect did it, if the prosecution didn't meet the legal burden of proof, they ave no choice but to set them free. Likewise, if a marriage is legal you have to perform it, it doesn't matter if you feel races shouldn't mix, they would be horrible parents or they just seem like assholes and I hate them, you do it anyway because it is your job to follow the law.

Despite that I've asked this three times now, you have yet to explain why a person who doesn't feel like doing their job should be allowed to keep it (except that they love their job, sweet but who cares?), or why one man's bigotry should be coddled at the expense of everyone else? Sure here we can find another JOP since its only one piece of crap that thinks he can do whatever he wants, but let's let that attitude spread around. You could make it next to impossible for some people (especially people that don't live near a metropolitan area, who have limited options) to ever be able to get married, if every JOP is allowed to make up their own stupid reasons for not doing what they were legally appointed to do. I suppose you would be okay with that, as long as those poor gentle souls never have to dirty their hands doing something they knew they had to do when they got into their line of work.

This argument is beyond pointless.

[dragonprince72.livejournal.com]

If I went to my boss that I wasn't going to do a project for a particular client because of grounds that I disagreed w/ some practice of that client or for some other reason, some other programmer would be assigned to it and I would get another project...If that was our only client or a major client, I'd probably lose my job but I've done that on only one occasion and it's helped me feel like my job was worth something because I wasn't a total sellout.

The children argument doesn't apply to the same race marriages because married or not, all black, all hispanic, all white children are not ostricized by the public. Blacks will respect other blacks but his point was that even blacks would ostricize mixed race children...a statement I disagree with but if he has data to the contrary I'm open to that as I know society in general is mean and will ostricize someone for the littlest things. In this case and more than likely in all the other ones too that he refused, they didn't have children 'yet'(operative word)...but planning to have them.

You keep making this claim of they both have to follow the law and he NEVER broke the law...the law does NOT state that 'he' must marry them...it just states that they can't be prohibited from being married for reason of all those discrimination things...He followed the letter of the law, plain and simple, while not the intent of the law.

I agree it's pointless because it's obvious nobody's going to agree.