PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
comments
68
options
 
Tuesday, October 20, 2009

 

 

To really understand how far we as Americans have traveled on the long road to racial progress, consider the case of Keith Bardwell.

A mere 50 years ago, public servants like Bardwell were everywhere, infesting government at all levels - particularly, but by no means exclusively, in the South. When they behaved as ignorant racists, it was deemed to be no big deal because their racism was deemed culturally and institutionally appropriate. If a white woman and a black man in that era had asked a justice of the peace to marry them, and the justice of the peace had naturally refused, who would even have considered that refusal to be newsworthy, given the temper of the times and the laws on the books?

Yet today such a refusal is newsworthy.

Bardwell, a justice of the peace in a Louisiana parish, stands exposed for his aberrant behavior because the society in which he lives has markedly changed during the past 50 years; and because the laws he was supposedly sworn to obey have changed as well. Bardwell, who earlier this month refused to marry Beth Humphrey (a white woman) and Terence McKay (a black man), is now seen by society not as a practitioner of business as usual, but as an anomoly, a discredited relic of a racist past.

This is what I mean by progress.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 42 years ago that state laws banning mixed-race marriages were unconstitutional; in the court's words, such laws were "directly subversive of the principle of equality...Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state." This ruling invalidated the mixed-marriage bans that were on the books in 16 southern states, plus Oklahoma. South Carolina and Alabama kept the mixed-marriage bans that were encoded in their state constitutions, until the voters in those states excised the prohibitive language in referendums conducted in 1998 and 2000.

So when Bardwell - a Louisiana Republican who has served as a JP for 34 years - refused this month to marry Humphrey and McKay because, in his words, "I don't do interracial marriages," he basically declared that he had the right to defy settled legal precedent in the name of racial discrimination. Whereas it's actually the obligation of a JP to follow the law - all the laws - in service of the public. All of the public.

Naturally, Bardwell doesn't see the situation this way. "I try to treat everyone equally," he's quoted as saying. He says he has "piles and piles of black friends," and even though he doesn't believe in "mixing the races," he frequently performs marriage ceremonies for black couples; in fact, as evidence of his broad-mindedness, he says that "they use my bathroom."

He says that he defies the law out of the goodness of his heart, out of concern for the children. He says that mixed-race marriages tend not to work out, and that society refuses to accept mixed-race kids, who inevitably "suffer" because of who they are. (Barack Obama suffered all the way to the White House, after being accepted by the highest vote tally in American history). Anyway, Bardwell basically said all this to Beth Humphrey in a phone call on Oct. 6, when he stated his refusal to marry them.

His racism aside, and his defiance of the law aside, here's where the guy's fig-leaf rationalizations really fail:

The Census Bureau reports that mixed-race couples (of all races, not just black and white) comprise only 7.4 percent of all marriages in the United States. Each year, nationwide, there are roughly one million divorces; indeed, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, roughly 40 percent of first marriages end in separation or divorce. Ergo, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to rightfully conclude that the vast majority of American children victimized each year by marriage breakups are the offspring of same-race couples.

If Bardwell is so concerned about marriages that don't work out, and about the children of such marriages, perhaps he should abstain altogether. He may get that opportunity. Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu has demanded his ouster ("He clearly has no intention of administering the law or upholding justice for interracial couples"), and Governor Bobby Jindal has said the same ("Disciplinary action should be taken immediately - including the revoking of his license").

Landrieu is a Democrat, Jindal is a Republican...Check it out, folks, we actually have elected leaders behaving in a bipartisan fashion. That too has to count as progress.
 

 

Posted by Dick Polman @ 11:59 AM  Permalink | 68 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:07 PM, 10/20/2009
    Meanwhile, back in Washington Obama's minister of Propoganda and Information, Anita Dunn, admits she follows Mao and is caught on tape in South American bragging about how Obama's team controls and manipulates the news. Leftists like Polman try to diver America away with a smear attack on Fox News. Fascism is here.
    CD75
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:17 PM, 10/20/2009
    Is Congress in favor of a marriage between a man and a woman?
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:21 PM, 10/20/2009
    At least Bardwell didn't openly disagree with the President's agenda. That, from what I've heard, is the highest form of racism.
    jmc
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:08 PM, 10/20/2009
    You knew Dickie was going to throw in the fact he was a Republican. I suspect Polman never referred to Obama's minister, Wright, as an Illinois Democrat.
    RonaReagan
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:23 PM, 10/20/2009
    Mr. Bardwell is wrong.
    NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:24 PM, 10/20/2009
    ***Health Care Reform Following Senate Finance Committee Passage, 42% Support Health Care Reform Monday, October 19, 2009 Now that the Senate Finance Committee has passed its version of health care reform, 42% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and down four from the week before. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% are opposed to the plan. The numbers have been remarkably stable throughout the debate. With the exception of bounces following presidential television appearances, support for the plan has stayed in a very narrow range from 41% to 46%. Currently, 24% Strongly Favor the legislative effort and 42% are Strongly Opposed.*** http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
    NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:26 PM, 10/20/2009
    Is there anyone who disagrees that this nut should be retired? It brings to light the bigger question -- why does government get involved at all in this kind of thing? It serves no useful purpose, except to satisfy some power-hungry turd. This is the same dynamic for most government "authority". It serves no purpose except to perpetuate power with the powerful. Americans should be more sensitive to the ever-intruding role government takes in our lives. The federal Government has already staked a claim to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of YOUR future dollars. FOR WHO, FOR WHAT?
    Mr. Smith
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:36 PM, 10/20/2009
    I think he should be retired, but I also must admit that what happens down in a parish in Louisiana (they call counties parishes) means little to me up here in Wilmington, DE. Polman could find lots more meaningful things about which to write, like the delay in the Afghan troop decision, the 1,502 pages of the Baucus health care bill, about how healthcare legislation is being negotiated in secret despite the promise from Obama he would stop that practice. Nah, he can't do that, lest he be deemed to be not credible by David Axelrod.
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:46 PM, 10/20/2009
    ***Corzine refers to his opponent's opposition to foolish state laws that force New Jersey insurance companies to cover 45 different treatments -- from mammograms and prosthetic limbs to autism support and contraceptives. Getting rid of those requirements would lower the cost of insurance, which means more people could afford it. It would also give people choice. It would stop forcing everyone who buys health insurance to get a plan that covers mammograms, and other things they might not want. In today’s WSJ Merrill Matthews discusses the results of NJ’s mandates and community rating system: There were repeated warnings that such legislation would drive up health insurance premiums. But New Jersey legislators ignored those warnings. Today, New Jersey residents have relatively few health insurance options, and coverage is significantly more expensive than in most other states. Just across the state line in Pennsylvania, for instance, a family can buy a comparable insurance policy for a quarter to half the price. I just wish Christie had a few other good ideas. Insurance mandates ripped off people in New Jersey. Now Congress wants to do something similar to all Americans. *** http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/10/15/corzines-health-care-spin/
    NEPhilly
  • Comment removed.
  • Comment removed.
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:53 PM, 10/20/2009
    raoul, A) Nothing. B) It is not propaganda, but the truth, unless you have the facts to prove otherwise. C) I'm keeping my eye on the ball and not letting Mr. Polman or the White House distract me from the getting the facts out there on this pig of a healthcare bill. D) Perzel is small potatoes. E) Most Americans are against this bill, not for it, as some on this board would lead you to believe. I report, you decide:)
    NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:58 PM, 10/20/2009
    raoul, A) Nothing. B) It is not propaganda, but the truth, unless you have the facts to prove otherwise. C) I'm keeping my eye on the ball and not letting Mr. Polman or the White House distract me from the getting the facts out there on this pig of a healthcare bill. D) Perzel is small potatoes. E) Most Americans are against this bill, not for it, as some on this board would lead you to believe. I report, you decide:)
    NEPhilly


View comments: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.