A relic of the racist past
A justice of the peace, and the long road to racial progress
A relic of the racist past
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
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.
Talvenada...typical liberal spin. I notice you did not refute the story, just the site from which I posted it. So find for me where the story is not true? Is an American President supporting a UN resolution that will curb free speech? How about this one from the Washington Times (also not in the MSM) "KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party. The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice"..In a letter dated Aug. 17, the city received the Justice Department's answer: Elections must remain partisan because the change's "effect will be strictly racial. Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office," Loretta King, who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, wrote in a letter to the city. Ms. King wrote that voters in Kinston vote more along racial than party lines and without the potential for voting a straight Democratic ticket, "the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more." This from the same person who dropped the case against the New Black Panther party in Philadelphia.— tom - wilmington, de- yobill...I guess you missed the exchange between Gibbs and Jake Tapper of ABC at the White House briefing yesterday. How about the Sunday talk shows on ABC and CNN where both Axelrod and Emmanuel talked about alienating Fox? OF course the MSM is not reporting much on this else they also be singled out and villified. Obama and the art of intimidation. Did you also miss the story of how the entertainment industry is putting agenda messages into their network shows? Kind of like how the NEA was going to propagandize their artists work. When Bush tried to get anti-drug messages on air, he was criticized for using television shows for political purposes. Where is the same outcry about Obama's administration urging messages on healthcare, climate change, etc on shows like "The New Adventures of Old Christine"?— tom - wilmington, de
- This DOJ ruling on eliminating party affiliation is ludicrous. Voters (two thirds of which are black) in the town overwhelmingly voted to do away with party affiliations. But the DOJ decision states..""It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that results in enough white cross-over to allow the black community to elect a candidate of choice," she wrote." Does that mean the black community's candidate of choice is only the Democratic candidate? Does that mean that whites vote more for the party than the candidate? A member of the civil rights commission criticized the decision thusly..""The Voting Rights Act is not supposed to be compensating for failure of voters to show up on Election Day," she said. "The Voting Rights Act doesn't guarantee an opportunity to elect a 'candidate of choice.' ... My 'candidate of choice' loses all the time in an election." Welcome to Obama's America. How's that hope and change working for you?— tom - wilmington, de
- Wow. What this board shows is that the right isn't ready to run the government again. To accuse the Obama administration of being Maoists is just off the charts and shows that CD75 doesn't have a clue what Maoism is. And yes, Mr. Smith, there is a reason to have the government involved in marriage (or "civil unions" if that's better). Marriage is, at its heart, a contract, and governments are very useful in regulating and enforcing contracts.— DavidGtown
- imR- I do not think that you called anyone racist. So my apologies to you but I was referring to the large majority of liberals who use the racist accusation tactic . But are you oblivious to Polman's article above? Do you not get what Polman is implying? Are you that much in a bubble of denial that you cannot see the daily barage of insuation that anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist? I never you see you stick up for a conservative viewpoint.
- NE, swede--If you are going to throw mud at liberals for "not wanting to solve the problem" or only seeking power, then I'd expect you to come up with some plausible alternatives to liberals' proposals to solve the problem. With regard to health insurance, I haven't heard anything yet from the republicans that seems even remotely useful.— liberal
- tom and others--as for the free market solution for health care, I grew up with that solution--it involved borrowing money from relatives to pay hospital bills since health insurance was unaffordable. The market has had decades to work out a solution to universal health care and of course, it hasn't happened and won't happen because of the basic economics of the insurance business. Please try to get real about this. If you don't, we will be stuck with the kind of big-government solution that you republicans don't like, instead of a rational, lightweight arrangement like they have in France or Germany.— liberal
- tom: "Take New Jersey, where guaranteed issue and community rating have limited competition to only two companies". Where do you get this cr@p? My business alone offers plans from three insurers (Horizon Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Amerihealth, Aetna), and those are only the EPO/HMP/PPO types. I also know of CIGNA, Oxford, and HealthNet. And those are all just off the top of my head.— still_independent
- Talvenada, how about this from USA Today by Jonathan Turley (I know, he is a conservative, so it must be wrong) "While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping." The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the "Muslim street" and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech." An American president siding with those who say ""freedom of expression has been sometimes misused" and showing that the "true nature of this right" must yield government limitations." Talk abour a relic from the racist past!— tom - wilmington, de
- liberal..how long ago was it when you grew up? As for free market solutions, as noted in the WSJ yesterday, the only government entitlement program coming in under budget is the Medicare Prescription Drug program. As Peter Orszag testifed to Congress while he directed the CBO, the "primary cause" of the cost savings is that "the pricing is coming in better than anticipated, and that is likely a reflection of the competition that's occurring in the private market." The centers for Medicare and Medicaid said "the drug plans competing for Medicare benificiaries have beena ble to establish greater than expected savings from agressive price negotiation." It adds that when given choices "beneficiaries have overwhelmingly selected less costly drug plans." It notes that liberal Democrats fought this portion of the plan.— tom - wilmington, de
- tom: aren't there other windmills you could chase? A meaningless, unenforceable resolution? From the AP on the same issue "The resolution has no effect in law but provides Muslim countries with moral ammunition the next time they feel central tenets of Islam are being ridiculed by Western politicians or media through 'negative racial and religious stereotyping.'" Uh-oh, moral ammunition. In the words of many of your conservative friends, "Why are we discussing this and ignoring the pressing issues of today?"— still_independent
- still_independent...my bad. I meant to say New York instead of New Jersey. It also is primarily about individual insurance plans, not employer based group plans. That what happens when you type late at night after downing several Heinekens I guess.— tom - wilmington, de
- still_independent...to me it goes to how Obama will bend over to appease other nations. Sure, it has no enforcement provision. However, I believe it does say something about the administration. So are you saying it has no international significance that an American President, from the country that to so many symbolizes freedom around the world, supports a UN resolution limiting free speech? It is okay to have a cross dipped in urine and call it art, but you cannot criticize Islam? Do you not see the symbolic importance of a statement like this coming from America?— tom - wilmington, de
- tom: and I'm saying that while holding the views that the "blasphemy laws" that many European countries (and Canada) are inmplementing or have implemented are a hideous thing. I'm just not going to make a big deal out of it until they start with it here. ... As for the other, I have no clue about NY. How do NY's rates compare with NJ's or PA's? I'd expect them to be higher than either if rates were directly driven by competition within a state.— still_independent
- An example of government run health care...how's that H1N1 vaccine working out?— tom - wilmington, de
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.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
