Louisiana judge does not understand that miscegenation is an outmoded concept.

Robear wrote:

Eh, not so true any more. Genetics can do some interesting things.

Yeah. I forget where I saw it, but I remember seeing a video on determining a person's race based off of their DNA. There isn't one particular gene they can point at and say, "Ahha! That person is Black." Instead, they simply compare it to the DNA of people that they know the racial ethnicity of and can determine a person's ethnicity based on the similarities.

As much as I wish it WAS still the 90's, they ended nearly 10 years ago. Now I think I'll go put on my old doc martens, a pair of shorts, an old flannel shirt, and a stocking cap and listen to Alice in Chains, Love Battery, and the Screaming Trees.

Claiming that race doesn't exist isn't really beneficial to the conversation. It's an interesting mental exercise, but holds little value in practice, where studies have shown people have an alarming ability to discriminate race based on nothing more than vocal cues.

Semantically, we should of course use the term perceived race, but its potency is no less strong than if race were an actual thing.

That's clearly not racism, since it's not based on skin color. Anyone can have any accent. What you are describing is culturalism.

And yes, stating that race isn't real is absolutely critical to understanding and fixing the problem. If skin color doesn't matter, then skin color really doesn't matter, and any policy that revolves around skin color mattering is broken.

If you REALLY believe that a person with black skin has every capability that a person with white skin does, then have the courage of your convictions and stop laws that enshrine that difference as being meaningful. We cannot stop being racist as long as race is legally significant. The problem is clearly not genetic; the problem is mental conditioning. And the only way to stop conditioning is to stop reinforcing it. If the conditioning is that skin color matters, laws that benefit subgroups based on skin color, even if it's a minority, make racism stronger, not weaker. It reinforces the idea that skin color is important. And when it's the idea that's causing all the problems, rather than anything real, then the first and most important goal must be to stop strengthening the idea by enshrining it in the legal code.

Affirmative action isn't "anti-racist", it's putting racism on a pedestal and worshiping at its feet.

Focus instead on what really matters, which is removing all traces of racism from the system, especially in the criminal-justice environment, where it is incredibly bad. And then work on fixing poverty and poor education, which are the real underlying problems that allow the racism to continue.

The REAL problem is NOT skin color. And if you think the real problem IS skin color, then by definition, you are racist.

Seth wrote:

Claiming that race doesn't exist isn't really beneficial to the conversation. It's an interesting mental exercise, but holds little value in practice, where studies have shown people have an alarming ability to discriminate race based on nothing more than vocal cues.

Semantically, we should of course use the term perceived race, but its potency is no less strong than if race were an actual thing.

Furthermore, if you bese a moral judgement on a science that's as fluid and developing as genetics, you run into problems if the science changes. If it's wrong to discriminate based on race because we can't discern race based on DNA, does it become ok to do so once we can? Unless you want to run the risk of either compromising your morals or having to deny valid science, it's better to step back and base your objections on something else.

Oso wrote:

As much as I wish it WAS still the 90's, they ended nearly 10 years ago. Now I think I'll go put on my old doc martens, a pair of shorts, an old flannel shirt, and a stocking cap and listen to Alice in Chains, Love Battery, and the Screaming Trees. ;-)

That was the joke. Even in those distant barbaric times when the Spice Girls ruled the charts, we knew that this was unacceptable. :p

I did consider going with the seventies for historical accuracy, but the nineties was funnier to me.

Robear wrote:

Eh, not so true any more. Genetics can do some interesting things.

Oh wow. Hadn't seen that before; quite fascinating research there!

Malor wrote:

That's clearly not racism, since it's not based on skin color.

Racism is a significantly more complex issue than skin color.

You are confusing race and culture.

I was waiting for someone to ask this:

Robear wrote:

How is this different from, say, the Mississippi law that lets pharmacists refuse to provide services that they object to because of their beliefs? And turn it around - how are those laws different from institutional racism?

So I could say this:

Staats wrote:

One is a government institution with a monopoly on providing a service and a legal mandate to provide that service to everyone, and the other is not?

And FSeven, the guy should definitely be fired. He shouldn't be disbarred though. Racists (and idiots, and a bunch of other undesirables) are allowed to practice law too.

And cute kid!

Teneman wrote:

And FSeven, the guy should definitely be fired. He shouldn't be disbarred though. Racists (and idiots, and a bunch of other undesirables) are allowed to practice law too.

Can't you be disbarred for being a really crappy lawyer though? The kind that conveniently forgets Brown v. Board of Education and such?

Nomad wrote:
Bardwell wrote:

"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."

This is by far my favorite part. I can't marry his daughter, but I can leave a colossal deuce in his bathroom.

LilCodger wrote:
Teneman wrote:

And FSeven, the guy should definitely be fired. He shouldn't be disbarred though. Racists (and idiots, and a bunch of other undesirables) are allowed to practice law too.

Can't you be disbarred for being a really crappy lawyer though? The kind that conveniently forgets Brown v. Board of Education and such?

Technically possible, but really, really unlikely. Besides, if you disbarred every crappy lawyer...

Seriously though, we ignore precedent all the time - or try to. If you think about it, in pretty much every conceivable action one side is going to want to do whatever they can to ignore or distinguish their facts from whatever precedent is out there.

He might not be a lawyer. In some districts, you can get these justice of the peace or small claims court judge slots as a layman.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:

That was the joke. Even in those distant barbaric times when the Spice Girls ruled the charts, we knew that this was unacceptable. :p

Ok, so I look like a fool with no sense of humor. At least I got my grundge on!

A few issues:
1) I'm going to rework this one, so for now this is a placeholder.
2) Does a justice of the peace have to give a valid reason for recusing himself from the process? I would say that he probably should have to perform such services as they are a part of his job description, but had she not said anything about why he couldn't/wouldn't perform the civil union would it even be an issue.
3) Can you "fire" an elected official? Or would you not need to have a vote to impeach?

Funkenpants wrote:

He might not be a lawyer. In some districts, you can get these justice of the peace or small claims court judge slots as a layman.

Arizona has no requirement for legal training to be a Justice of the Peace. It is an elected position. Of course, their duties are exceptionally limited.

So, is the woman or the guy black? I`m kinda thinking the judge is in the "Them are stealing our pretty white wimmin" mode. I could be wrong but I think white guy and black woman would be more acceptable to him cause that`s just white guy excersizing his rights and perks.

Most wrote:

So, is the woman or the guy black? I`m kinda thinking the judge is in the "Them are stealing our pretty white wimmin" mode. I could be wrong but I think white guy and black woman would be more acceptable to him cause that`s just white guy excersizing his rights and perks.

The woman is white and the man is black.

Thankfully, they found another JP who issued the license and they are married.

From CNN this morning:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is calling to have Bardwell's license revoked, and Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu is calling for his dismissal.

I'd almost had an early morning glimmer of hope that Bobby Jindal might be using his powers for good, but my inner cynic won out.

Really, anyone with anything to lose who comes out in support of this guy is going to get pilloried. This is several orders of magnitude worse than Trent Lott "being nice to Strom Thurmond on his birthday". Utterly indefensible.

GioClark wrote:

From CNN this morning:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is calling to have Bardwell's license revoked, and Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu is calling for his dismissal.

I'd almost had an early morning glimmer of hope that Bobby Jindal might be using his powers for good, but my inner cynic won out.

Really, anyone with anything to lose who comes out in support of this guy is going to get pilloried. This is several orders of magnitude worse than Trent Lott "being nice to Strom Thurmond on his birthday". Utterly indefensible.

So much so that I wonder if there's any truth to the senility question someone joked about earlier.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Most wrote:

So, is the woman or the guy black? I`m kinda thinking the judge is in the "Them are stealing our pretty white wimmin" mode. I could be wrong but I think white guy and black woman would be more acceptable to him cause that`s just white guy excersizing his rights and perks.

The woman is white and the man is black.

Thankfully, He referred them to another JP who issued the license and they are married.

Fixed that for accuracy.

Nosferatu wrote:

Fixed that for accuracy.

Does that somehow make him any less racist and unqualified for his job? It's very similar to a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for the Pill because they don't happen to agree on the use of contraceptives.

If your job is to serve the public (and you get paid by the public), your personal views on things matter for sh*t. You're there to fulfill a function. Either you do it or you should be fired.

If your job is to serve the public (and you get paid by the public), your personal views on things matter for sh*t. You're there to fulfill a function. Either you do it or you should be fired.

Yep... as I posted at length in a Metafilter thread about the pharmacist and birth control, for whatever reason, society has determined that this is a gate that you should only be allowed to pass through under the auspices of the state. As such, the judge is functioning as a gatekeeper. When you are a gatekeeper, you don't get to inflict your values on those passing through; you are there to enforce society's values. If you impose your own instead, or refuse passage to those you've been explicitly instructed to pass, you are abusing your power, and should be removed.

You may be a gatekeeper, but it is not your gate.

OG_slinger wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:

Fixed that for accuracy.

Does that somehow make him any less racist and unqualified for his job? It's very similar to a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for the Pill because they don't happen to agree on the use of contraceptives.

If your job is to serve the public (and you get paid by the public), your personal views on things matter for sh*t. You're there to fulfill a function. Either you do it or you should be fired.

What I find disturbing about the lack of action on removing this guy is how quickly I would be removed as a notary if I was a bigot like this guy and used that as an excuse to not notarize documents. The local notary trades always have stories of notaries who refuse to notarize domestic partnership documents or adoption documents to single parents, etc. and are perma-banned from serving as notaries.

Do your job as a public servant or leave the public sector and be replaced by someone who can and will do the job they are paid to do.

There is no defense for this disgrace of a human being. If he won't resign immediately, the JP oversight board needs to remove him, publicly castigate him for the racist he is and draw a firm line in the sand that anyone else refusing to do their jobs will be terminated immediately. And then do just that.

OG_slinger wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:

Fixed that for accuracy.

Does that somehow make him any less racist and unqualified for his job? It's very similar to a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for the Pill because they don't happen to agree on the use of contraceptives.

If your job is to serve the public (and you get paid by the public), your personal views on things matter for sh*t. You're there to fulfill a function. Either you do it or you should be fired.

He is fully qualified for his job, he was elected, you don't need any special training or even job experience to get elected to a position of responsibility (see our current president). If you don't think he is fulfilling his duties I don't care, it only matters what the law saws about it and what the people that elected him to that position think. If he broke the law/violated his duties there are ways of dealing with him (IANAL, and have no idea what the legal duties of a justice of the peace are in LA, hence the conditional).

As for calling the man a disgrace of a human being, I personally think that is excessive, just because I find his ideas repugnant doesn't give me the right to say that he is somehow worth less as a person. I wonder if he were to issue a marriage ceritifcate to a homosexual couple, which there is no legal standing for would be crying for his head this loudly or do you only care about his personal views entering the equations when they are against the views that you hold?

Nosferatu wrote:

As for calling the man a disgrace of a human being, I personally think that is excessive, just because I find his ideas repugnant doesn't give me the right to say that he is somehow worth less as a person. I wonder if he were to issue a marriage ceritifcate to a homosexual couple, which there is no legal standing for would be crying for his head this loudly or do you only care about his personal views entering the equations when they are against the views that you hold?

The definition of what it means to be a disgrace is exceptionally apropos. There is no nobility in one's humanity by being a racist and it is even worse when you try to cover your antediluvian beliefs by saying you let African-Americans use your bathroom.

And, as a matter of fact, I was adamantly opposed to Mayor Gavin Newsome of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gay couples before there was a legal mechanism in California to do so. I had this debate with others and was very clear that such actions would be fodder for opponents of gay marriage who would cite that incident as part of the mythic "gay agenda," and - voila! - that is exactly what happened.

Contrary to popular belief, the gay community is not lockstep on issues, even on gay marriage or show tunes.

The First Amendment dictates that, yes, you do have the right to call him whatever you want. There may be consequences for doing so, but the right does exist. In this day and age, someone who would in any way, shape, or form cause an interracial couple difficulty in getting married solely because of their race is a disgrace of a human being, for many reasons.

1) If you're an elected official, or even if you're just hired to do the job like you'd hire someone to sweep the floor at the supermarket, there's a list of rules and regulations that you're expected to follow. This is true for all positions, regardless of rank, location, or capacity.

Unless someone who is a lawyer can prove me wrong, I feel safe in saying that the Supreme Court's findings in Loving vs. Virginia can not be overridden by local or state statutes, by nature of where the decision was made, and by the wording used in the decision that brought about that law. Thus, in his line of work, one of the rules and regulations is that any male-female couple, regardless of racial combination, may marry if both are legally able to enter the state of marriage (which if I remember right can vary in meaning from state to state). This couple is a male-female couple, legally capable of entering the state of marriage. He had zero right to decline them in his role. This alone, however, doesn't make him a disgrace. This just makes him a bad employee.

2) In this day and age, racist views, such as he espoused, are highly frowned upon. He has every right to say what he said (First Amendment), but modern culture is going to push back and tell him how unacceptable those views are. In 2009, the great majority of Americans aren't going to look favorably upon someone saying that a mixed-race couple is inherently less capable of staying married than a same-race couple, and will additionally understand that saying something akin to "I'm not racist, but..." means that the statement following will show that, yes, you are racist. You don't get a free Get Out Of Jail card for prefacing your statement with that phrase.

Frankly, everyone has prejudices, and many of these are in forms that are highly frowned upon. A more evolved person is able to either look at what they're thinking, realize what's going on, and modify it, or can accept that they're having that feeling, but not act upon it. This man has shown he can't do either. This, alone, doesn't make him a disgrace. This just makes him a buffoon.

The combination of points 1 and 2, as well as a dash of "Why'd you take the job if you can't do it?", are what make him a disgraceful human being. If he feels this strongly about mixed-race marriage, which I would highly doubt only came about during his tenure in the position, he should have avoided being in a position where he'd have to make such a thing happen. He didn't, and is thus rightly being called on the carpet for it.

Finally, regarding the whole gay-rights side of it, two things: First, that's a separate issue, and unless you're just trying to play Devil's Advocate for the hell of it again, or you're just trying to get Phoenix Rev and/or me to get our hackles up, I don't understand the reasoning for mentioning it. Second, even if it were relevant, people do hold different levels of regard for different issues, regardless of how they self-identify. Someone can be against this guy doing what he did, but would applaud someone preventing a same-sex couple's marriage, even if they're a liberal-leaning person. Conversely, even someone who's conservative-leaning might view any laws preventing two people from entering the marriage contract with the state with distaste, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc.

Hell, there are gay folks who are anti-gay marriage. There are also probably minorities against mixed-race marriage, and there are religious minorities against mixed-religion marriage, and yet each of those groups might be abhorred looking at prejudice against one of the others. It's just how things go. Don't assume, it's likely to backfire.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:

As for calling the man a disgrace of a human being, I personally think that is excessive, just because I find his ideas repugnant doesn't give me the right to say that he is somehow worth less as a person. I wonder if he were to issue a marriage ceritifcate to a homosexual couple, which there is no legal standing for would be crying for his head this loudly or do you only care about his personal views entering the equations when they are against the views that you hold?

The definition of what it means to be a disgrace is exceptionally apropos. There is no nobility in one's humanity by being a racist and it is even worse when you try to cover your antediluvian beliefs by saying you let African-Americans use your bathroom.

Quoting the definition, he is not yet a disgrace as he has not lost favor to humanity in general, as I'd rather say that racism for the species in general is still fairly common, even among "minorities"

And, as a matter of fact, I was adamantly opposed to Mayor Gavin Newsome of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gay couples before there was a legal mechanism in California to do so. I had this debate with others and was very clear that such actions would be fodder for opponents of gay marriage who would cite that incident as part of the mythic "gay agenda," and - voila! - that is exactly what happened.

But did you state that he should resign or be impeached/fired if he refused?

Contrary to popular belief, the gay community is not lockstep on issues, even on gay marriage or show tunes.

I never said it was, you however, have been pretty vocal on your stance on gay marriage

Nosferatu wrote:

But did you state that he should resign or be impeached/fired if he refused?

At the time, I did state he should resign because I felt he was doing more harm than good.

However, I also said that I thought drawing and quartering him would be a bit much.

But I am soft like that.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Contrary to popular belief, the gay community is not lockstep on issues, even on gay marriage or show tunes.

I never said it was, you however, have been pretty vocal on your stance on gay marriage

Yes, on the aspect of equal treatment under the law vis-a-vis marriage. Anything else regarding how I perceive the intricacies of gay marriage or marriage in general is pure conjecture on yours or anyone else's part (with the possible exception of Rubb Ed).

Rubb Ed wrote:

Finally, regarding the whole gay-rights side of it, two things: First, that's a separate issue, and unless you're just trying to play Devil's Advocate for the hell of it again, or you're just trying to get Phoenix Rev and/or me to get our hackles up, I don't understand the reasoning for mentioning it. Second, even if it were relevant, people do hold different levels of regard for different issues, regardless of how they self-identify. Someone can be against this guy doing what he did, but would applaud someone preventing a same-sex couple's marriage, even if they're a liberal-leaning person. Conversely, even someone who's conservative-leaning might view any laws preventing two people from entering the marriage contract with the state with distaste, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc.

I actually hope that this issue causes outrage at the denial of this couples' basic civil rights amongst all political parties and once everyone is patting each other on the back in affirmation of being on the right side of this issue, the light is shone on gay couples and the denial of their civil rights. It will really show who's full of sh*t and who is genuinely interested in equal rights. Period. With no stipulations.