Does a justice of the peace have a right to decide whose marriage licenses they sign? Apparently not. (Seems like a good thing to me.) This is the second article I saw on the topic in as many days. Bardwell, the justice of the peace in question says that "he doesn't marry [interracial] couples because he's worried about their children's futures." The article quoted many people who say that his refusal to marry these couples is racial discrimination.
Is it racial discrimination to make a decision based off one's knowledge of others' racism? Republican Governor Bobby Jindal wants Bardwell's license revoked immediately. I think this is may be too harsh, if Bardwell is truly acting in the best interest of any future children. However, I do not know the laws in this matter and a justice of the peace must obey the law.
But why is this particular instance such a big deal? Bardwell has denied other interracial couples their marriage licenses, and I am certain that there have been many other occurrences of justices (of the peace and others) breaking the law. I just hope that an attempt is made to treat all such justices fairly, since those who make the news tend to get a harsher punishment then those who do not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this whole story is really bizarre.
ReplyDeleteHe claims he's not racist because he's wed black people together before, and it may be that he doesn't have a problem with people of other races (however, racist people tend to have only had problems with mixing the races).
But even if he isn't racist, his actions are racist in terms of the law, because they're preventing two people from doing something they should be legally allowed to do but aren't based only on the "fact" of race.
In my personal opinion he's enforcing the law as if there is an "individual problem" (how dare those interracial parents irresponsibly bring an interracial kid in to the world, that's selfish) rather than a "society problem" (people having racist views --> harassing interracial kids, because they hold bigoted views).
What if every justice for peace thought the same way he did about the same or different issues? What about other professions, like doctors, can they choose who they treat based on moral reasons, or should they treat all equally?
Technically, it doesn't seem it's illegal for him to take that stance on anything, as he is only legally "obligated" to "serve the public, all of the public," but he's deciding to exclude people based on, perhaps, prejudice. But even if it's not illegal, it still makes him lose credibility as a justice, and that could justify the invoking of his license.
What he's doing clearly contradicts the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings. Interracial marriage is not a grey area legal issue, and yet he's still making a judicial leap, as you'd expect the Supreme Court on never-before-answered questions, except unlike the Supreme Court he's not even following the Constitution as a basis. How can you fail that hard at your own job?