doesnt matter what he wears, i believe it should be his choice. good for him, stick to his principals.

mr joe

Agreed. I imagine there are many other sympathetic justices in the area that would marry this couple.

This incessant shoving of political correctness down our throats MUST END.

It has nothing to do with political correctness. A justice has the right to interpret the law as he/she feels fit, however, the law is clear that it ended segregation. He has no grounds on which to not marry this couple.

Tramping on the Constitution? What about all of the Constitution tramping that Congress is doing? Shouldn't the ACLU be involved in that? I guess not. Why the hell is this crap newsworthy? It is newsworthy because it further separates the whites and blacks...infuses more racial prejudice on both sides...this is what the liberals want..."United we stand..."Divided we fall" is a motto that they want to change to divided. Think about it people...there are always going to be people who are going to fight interracial marriages...on both sides. We need to get over this racial bigotry and fight together for the freedoms we now have that are being infringed upon by the current Congress. Forget the racism.

mr joe and wolfyboy: It is not "political correctness" to expect public officials to do their jobs without regard to the race of those they are paid to serve. Had the couple been trying to get married in a church, fine. But they went to a government official, who is legally bound to serve the entire population equally. I cannot believe that in 2009, people like you are suggesting that a public official only owes official duties to people of whose skin color he approves. This is not 1809, it's 2009. We have moved past officially sanctioned racism. It is WAY past time for bigots like you two, and this piece of crap JP, to catch up or move somewhere that never desegregated.

Bardwell, a Republican

Ya THINK?

And Wanda: If you have a point, it was lost somewhere between the two sides of your mouth you're speaking out of. Clarify?

He should be disbarred. He doesn't have a choice in treating citizens of this country equally before the law.

It is never a choice to disobey the law, especially for a judge. He should leave his 'choices' for his personal life and do his job correctly, or he shouldn't have taken the oath to be in that job.

doesnt matter what he wears, i believe it should be his choice. good for him, stick to his principals.

His job in this case was to issue a marriage licence to this couple, period. Since he's obviously unable to perform this task as the law requires he should be removed.

mr joe

If I didn't know any better I'd say we stirred up the old Lefties pot pretty good wouldn't you?

We have in the short span of 7 posts been labelled racists, bigots, KKK supporters, haters, violent and divisive.

Damn, the Lefties sure are a loving kind of people aren't they?

Liberals, so easy.

I thought conservatives support the US Constitution, silly me.

redphish: conservatives' allegiance to the Constitution is as conditional as their support for "states' rights" or "freedom." When used to restrict people's rights, they're in favor of all 3. When used to recognize people's rights, well those people had better be white straight Christian males.

USAWolf

I guess its true - THE TRUTH HURTS. Bigots - Racists - etc. simply don't want to face (or admit) what they are. Kind of like GAYS who conceal what they are. How does it feel to be in the "same boat" as GAYS?

For those of you who appluad ths man for sticking to his "principles", they are a very weak set of principles. He has no business doing the job he is suppose to if he cannot do so fairly. Justice is after all suppose to be 1)equal 2) blind. Oh and another thing, I have many gay friends and can gaurantee their boat is way more fun than your boat ;)

USAWolf

equality in the way the law is dispensed isn't an ideal or a belief it is the LAW.........

You Liberals have to realize that forcing your ideals and beliefs on EVERYONE isn't going to work.

I'm not a Liberal in matters like this but I can't see how anyone would have a problem with censuring this JOP failing to do his job.

Wouldn't a civil, non-hate spewing discussion seem better?

You might want to take your own advice, hypocrites are so easy.

mr joe

doesnt matter what he wears, i believe it should be his choice. good for him, stick to his principals.

#1.1 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:09 PM PDT

Hey Joe, the 1950's are over. The ignorance of your attitude should have died with them. Good luck at the Palin rallies.

BTW, it's "principles", not "principals".

There are only a few thing the JP is allowed to consider in order to allow the couple to marry. They must be unmarried or provide proof of divorce, they both need a valid birth certificate, and they must pay $35 for the license fee. The JP doesn't have the option of using their race as a reason not to marry them. Those are not one of the criteria they have to meet. His opinion about the subject is irrelevant. If he does not want to perform that service, then he cannot perform the function of his job properly and he should be removed from his position.

So much distortion here by the righties, it's not even funny.

Mr. Joe: It doesn't matter that the boss (USA) says do it this way, you just put on your robe and do it your way, right? No. That is just as ridiculous as if you got hired by Pizza Hut, then decided to just deliver pizza's made with no crust, just the way you saw fit. Makes no sense.

Jstices are in place to carry out the law, not to deny people their rights that are within the law.

USA wolf.....I only see your diatribe as ranting, hateful, full of spit and ugliness. The very fact that this justice refused to do his job, because of his bigotry toward a racially mixed couple, is racist enough for me. Why put any of it on any party?

Sorry fella, each and every time I see rants like yours, it simply shows me that the name calling is more important than your point, and it proves that you never had one, in the first place.

USAWolf

This is why NO ONE believes in your party.

That's why we elected McCain and the Rep's control Congress.

Oh that's right,lol.....

Hey Joe and Wolf,

Here is some civility for you. If you think a judge can rule based on color then I guess your supported Justice Sotamayor? I would assume you to be principled and therefore extend your logic to all judges who rule based on color. What do you think, did you support Sotamayor?

Don't bother to twist their own logic back on them it will only draw silence.

People like this are only for what they claim to stand for when it suits them. Like when they claim to be for states rights and then demand a Federal law that a gun permit be observed no matter what state you travel to,lol. Or a Constitutional Amendment to deny marriage to some. Or that health insurance be allowed to be sold across state lines instead of each state being able to enforce what they see fit.

mr joe

Principles? That is not the measuring stick of his job performance. The law is. If he is found to be in violation of that law, he can be removed from the bench.

Remember our lady of the peace wearing a blindfold? Our justice system is suppose to be color blind. ACLU stands for people of all color and background. Remember incidences that ACLU stood for the white supremests?

mr joe & US Wolf: Too late to pull back the curtains. Your true color are found. hahaha...

USA Wolf has admitted to trolling.

He should be banned.

Envirologica,

After the Civil Rights Movement ended, all over the south the good ole boys left the Democratic party, feeling betrayed by Lyndon Baines Johnson for completing the legislation necessary to grant my people equal rights under the law, championed by Kennedy before him. As they abandoned us and took up camp with the GOP, many of the old school racists traded their white, klan robes for black, judicial robes. Traded their burning crosses for polished, wooden gavels to continue their opression under the color of law. Since they couldn't legally lynch us, they simply stepped over to the other side of the law to keep it going. The lynching of my brothers continues to the present day.

This old nut is one of the lightweights, but is indicative of how pervasive the problem of racism in the legal community is. The law is to be applied in an impartial manner to all. Practicioners of the law are expected to apply the law impartially AND professionally. Allowing his personal misgivings and speculations about race to affect his professional judgements in application of the law is wrong.

I hope he is disbarred and that this permanently tarnishes his record. He will come to regret "taking a stand on his beliefs."

homosexuals should be up in arms over this.. this means he won't marry interacial homosexuals.

Who cares? A mixed race couple has every right to marry and be as miserable as same race, same sex or straight couples.

Wow,

This is amazing how can anyone in 2009 in The USA not be appalled that a sitting judge would refuse a marriage license to an interracial couple. I know that bigotry and ignorance runs rampant in certain parts of our country, people like bearfootjerry(above) make sure we don't forget that. But a judge denying marriage on the account of race mixing, wow. He should be impeached and disbarred and if Gov Jindal won't move on it, then he should be impeached as well.

“A justice of the peace is legally obligated to serve the public, all of the public,”

Does this include gay people or are we still the only one's who do not have any civil rights?

No sooner did I agree with "mr joe" and your prepubescent rants and spewings of hate, intolerance, racism and bigotry started flying out. This is why NO ONE believes in your party. Not that the Republicans are much better. You Liberals have to realize that forcing your ideals and beliefs on EVERYONE isn't going to work.

If all of those people were wrong in their reaction then you might have a point, but they're not. I think it's pretty clear where your head is stuck at.

Expecting people to function and treat others as civil human beings isn't even in the same ballpark as "forcing ideals and beliefs" or "political correctness". To think that this is even a political issue at all is just plain stupid.

I’m from Baton Rouge La and it’s embarrassing to our state that this would happen in 09. I have two girls and one boy that are mixed and guess what they are doing great despite what sorry individuals like Bardwell want to assume. My wife and I have been married 11 years and lord willing will remain married until we die. However we have learned that there will always be racists and bigots no matter where we go and that we can only control how we live our lives and what we teach and how we raise our children.

There will always be ignorant individuals like him like him around, what we find amusing and striking is that the other bigots and racists haven’t come out the woodwork to fight and raise their ruckus for this couples rights, ahem ahem, Jesse Jackson, Rev Al Sharpton, and numerous more that I won’t mention where are u now oh I forgot fake rapes such as duke, and Tawana Brawley, gays and lesbians, including same-sex marriage and of course the whole rams deal are so much more important to scream about from the rooftops than true glaring violations of rights than the real constitutional violation of this couples rights. Now I am not a Obama supporter (my wife is) but god bless him on this one he at least got something right on this one with his comments and support.

I’m from Baton Rouge La and it’s embarrassing to our state that this would happen in 09. I have two girls and one boy that are mixed and guess what they are doing great despite what sorry individuals like Bardwell want to assume. My wife and I have been married 11 years and lord willing will remain married until we die. However we have learned that there will always be racists and bigots no matter where we go and that we can only control how we live our lives and what we teach and how we raise our children.

There will always be ignorant individuals like him like him around, what we find amusing and striking is that the other bigots and racists haven’t come out the woodwork to fight and raise their ruckus for this couples rights, ahem ahem, Jesse Jackson, Rev Al Sharpton, and numerous more that I won’t mention where are u now oh I forgot fake rapes such as duke, and Tawana Brawley, gays and lesbians, including same-sex marriage and of course the whole rams deal are so much more important to scream about from the rooftops than true glaring violations of rights than the real constitutional violation of this couples rights. Now I am not a Obama supporter (my wife is) but god bless him on this one he at least got something right on this one with his comments and support.

Don't listen to the antics of ignorant southern bigots. They get a kick out of pissing off people who have common sense.

Really you cannot take these @!$%#s seriously. They sit there at their PCs drinking Jack Daniels and jerking off to your reactions. They are the lowest of the pathetic low--and they're still bitter that the North won the Civil War.

So to USAwolf and mrjoe and the rest of your klan of losers.... ha ha ha ha ha!!! You LOST 140+ years ago. GET OVER IT!!!!

I've read some of these posts and I have to admit that they are quite amusing. The rhetoric of both the right and the left are right on par with what I'd expect of extremists. Thank you for validating my ability to predict the thoughts of the simple minded. Nevertheless, it is quite interesting. On one side we have people up in arms because a judge discriminated on race but yet this country discriminates on the same issue on the basis of sex. Quite hypocratical. I should probably mention that I'm neither gay nor racist despite being the thing liberals love to hate. What's that, you ask? Why, it's an upper middle class, young adult, who's both white and single AND conservative. Only thing that could make me worse would be if I was a divorced father. Then, I'd be going to hell, oh wait, I forgot, liberal extremist don't believe in religion so I guess I'd be just a living demon destined for oblivion. Lighten up. The judge made a decision based on his principles and the well being of children unborn. It may not be the right decision and I certainly don't agree with it. In fact, I find it quite ludicrous given the fact that you don't need a marriage license to make a baby. However, there is a precedence and judges are allowed some leeway when interpreting the law. Yet, liberals are going to demonize him for it because they've got the media in their pocket. Sometimes I wish they'd hit holleywood instead of NY but then they'd be blowing up their allies so I guess that's too much to ask. If you're going to scream and moan about this then level the d@mn playing field. I may be a conservative but I have no illusions about the state of marriage in this country. If you're going to complain about this issue then you better hell well be willing to support marriage of all shapes and sizes or otherwise shut your mouth.

What a dumbass! It's against the LAW Mr. Joe. I thought most people who held this opinion were already dead.

Not necessarily, ikie. If the judge wants to take the position that he feels he would be putting unborn children at risk because of his decision then he has a grounds to protest by unfair treatment of individuals. Look at other rulings where people have been kept on life support or how people are not allowed to committ suicide. It's shaky at best but it can be argued that it isn't against the spirit of the law and only judges have the ability to interpret the law so there is precedence. However, that said, I think he'll be crucified and probably for all the wrong reasons. He's taken on too many powerful special interest groups and that will destroy him. It's unfortunate, really, because it just goes to show that media and special interests rule this nation. The group with the biggest bank roll and the loudest mouths always tend to prevail. I'm not supporting his actions because I think they're wrong and ultimately futile but he'll go down for all the wrong reasons and none of the right ones...

Who cares what he wears. He has the right to marry them or not to. He didn't tell them they could not get married. He said he wouldn't marry them. So if a Black person came up to you and said to give them money and you said no. You'd be a racist. I don't think so. This justice system and these people who try make everything a racial issue need to wake up.

If the judge wants to take the position that he feels he would be putting unborn children at risk because of his decision then he has a grounds to protest by unfair treatment of individuals.

A Justice of the Peace swears to an oath- if they fail to uphold that oath then they can lose their commission. They can not refuse to marry on the basis of any racial issue whatsoever- no matter how you try to slice it.

Who cares what he wears. He has the right to marry them or not to. He didn't tell them they could not get married. He said he wouldn't marry them. So if a Black person came up to you and said to give them money and you said no. You'd be a racist. I don't think so. This justice system and these people who try make everything a racial issue need to wake up.

Mr Bennett

Nice try at rationalizing this.

If I was a bank teller and any minority or other race then mine asked me to do my job and I didn't solely based on race then I would be fired as he should.

In your mind do police officers or firefighters only have to help those of a race they feel "comfortable" with helping ?

When he refused to marry them based solely on race HE made this a racial issue, not the media or anybody else.

Who cares what he wears. He has the right to marry them or not to.

It's incredible how many people in this discussion think that a JP has discretion over which laws he chooses to follow. There are specific requirements that must be met to qualify for a marriage licence. They met those requirements so he was required, by law, to issue them a license.

So if a Black person came up to you and said to give them money and you said no. You'd be a racist. I don't think so. This justice system and these people who try make everything a racial issue need to wake up.

You can't be serious. He told them he would not issue them a marriage license because the man was black and the woman was right. Of course he is a racist.

First of all, as a biracial/bicultural individual, of course, there is no way I agree with the judge refusing to marry interacial couples. However, as a product of an interacial/bicultural marriage and family, I can understand what the judge is attempting to say when he states his reasoning is that any biological biracial children will have difficulty. I certainly had some difficulties dealing with both racial discrimination and privilege from both sides of my races and at times I didn`t feel I was accepted by one or the other. However, I learned to deal with it and find people that do accept me, for me. And for these reasons, it would have been wiser for the judge to advise the inter-racial couple to first become educated in the many potential experiences biracial children are faced with, before he agreed to marry them.

Secondly, I find it frustrating and maddening when ignorant mono-racial individuals try to act as if they know what they are talking about in regards to bi-racial or mixed race individuals, as this article shows. It`s surprising and unprofessional that the journalist of this article, Mary Foster, did not interview any biracial individuals. In addition, for the director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Justice, Bill Quigley, to imply that being biracial has something to do with one`s success is manipulating the issue into something else. At no point, did the judge talk about the success of biracial individuals. For Obama's deputy press secretary Bill Burton to say, "I've found that actually the children of biracial couples can do pretty good," is a patronizing and demeaning statement. Again, what does being biracial have to do with one`s success? Also, we can only `do pretty good` and be kinda successful like our biracial president? Right. Just because one may have diificulty in their life experiences does not mean they cannot overcome those difficulties and be successful, no matter what one`s races or ethnicities are!

I am sorry, but this is modern times, segregation was banned a long, long time ago. You can tell when someone is a big listener of Rush Limbaugh, because he is such a racist he has got his listeners thinking racism is legal and then here is this whole deal were they say they are protecting the children or whatever.

Yes, there have been some Democrats that have been less than desirable notavoter, and while one of the greatest presidents Lincoln, who freed the slaves, was a republican, doesn't mean squat as to what Republicans are nowadays. The tides have changed if we had a civil war now the Democrats would stand for the North and the Republicans would stand for the south.

They pretty much became the embodiment of evil starting in the late 50s or so, right about  Nixon's entry, who I think had JFK assassinated and probably Martin Luther, Malcom X and Bobby as well. Not to mention Hoffa! Nixon was a republican and a frighteningly crooked man. Then came Ronnie who would not vote against apartheid, followed by the way more loyal to the Saudis than America Bushes who are just as scary but they don't have jack on Cheney who by the way voted against making Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday!!! But hey not all republicans are racist they even got a couple of black ones to prove it!!!

You have got to be kidding me!!!! Have you people lost your mind??? I live in the deep south where this type of discrimination goes on everyday it makes me ashamed to be a southern girl when that stigma is attached to you. This couple should sue this person and I would not stop until this justice of the peace is drained financially and mentally from this stupidity... A kkk robe haha you are a complete f...ing moran haha

You have got to be kidding me!!! A kkk robe are you a complete f...ing moran??? I am from the deep south where this ignornace and racial discrimination is a everyday occurance makes me ashamed to me a southern girl with that stigma attached to me... If I was that couple I would make sure this so called justice of the peace aka f...ing moran number one never gets to do that to another person and then and I would his white ass for everything he has ... This world has gone to hell in a hand basket for real haha

He should lose his position. What he did was so wrong.

This is a simple argument. If his title dictates through policy that he has the right to choose who he marries, case closed, he wins. Otherwise he is wrong and should be dismissed or punished severely. Being a racist is a personal choice that should be protected. Being a racist at a job which has a policy against it, you are fired. With freedom comes the good, and the bad. Though I must say I am white, and dated a half black girl who in the summer looked entirely black and got some slack for it. I am 28 and have a hard time understanding why my generation is not better educated, even in basic genetics to see that we are all people. Good reason why every decision should be held the the standard of reson and logic.

Well said. However, it is fairly straight forward. He is a judge, a justice of the peace. He is suppose to be color blind on the bench, no matter how minor a case may be. This time he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

What is more amazing! He apparantly doesn't think this is a problem. In fact it is really other people problem for not wanting to move the case off his schedule. In fact isn't he claiming that he is looking after the welfare of the couple's children... I am kind of curious why he would jump to the conclusion that the couple will have children in the first place.

This person should not wear any robes of authority, he is truly not someone who protects the Freedoms afforded to US.

If this person cannot provide service and do due justice for all, then he should move on.

We all have Rights given by our Creator and written into law.

I feel sorry for the hurt that this person caused to this couple, it should have been a time to rejoice.

Not a fan of interracial marriage myself. That being said right is right and wrong is wrong and I believe this public official is just simply wrong in this case. I could have understood it if he had counseled them on the problems he believed their mixed race marriage "could" present to their children, but in the end it is their choice to make, not his.

Take Obama out of the equasion and this probable would not have rated news outside the parish it happened in. Now all of the sudden it is a national disaster? There is the real shame, but the bottom line is this public official did not do his job unless state law gives him the right to decide (for any reason) who to marry and who not to.

WO759 writes... It has nothing to do with political correctness. A justice has the right to interpret the law as he/she feels fit, however, the law is clear that it ended segregation.

The first sentence tells me you really have no idea what laws mean. How incredibly stupid. A justice has the right to interpret the law as he/she sees fit?? Oh really, and since when do individuals, regardless of their positions, get to interpret a law as they want... its just CRAP.....

An elected official, be it justice of the peace or senator serves all the people and follows the law of the land... Such morons posting on here.... Morons.

This is hardly a partisan issue, as much as some would like to make it one. Louisiana is one of the United States of America. This man has been breaking federal and state laws for thirty years, which violates his oath of office and the requirements of his position as a public servant. My surprise is that the other couples he has refused to issue a license to have not complained before this.

If any public official repeatedly breaks the law, he/she cannot be allowed to remain in that position. This man broke the law and disgraced the position of public trust he held. He cannot be allowed to continue this behavior, and since he has given no indication he sees himself as doing anything wrong, he absolutely must be removed. If an investigation shows that he has a pattern of breaking the law, or even if it was only in this one instance, he should be prosecuted, since he indeed committed a crime.

This has nothing really to do with race. It has to do with the law. Decades ago, when he realized he could not, for personal or any other reasons, uphold the laws he was taking an oath to uphold, he should have stepped down.

If you change the issuance of a license to him pocketing a portion of the fees paid for licenses every so often over a period of thirty years, no one would even be discussing this.

This is hardly a partisan issue, as much as some would like to make it one. Louisiana is one of the United States of America. This man has been breaking federal and state laws for thirty years, which violates his oath of office and the requirements of his position as a public servant. My surprise is that the other couples he has refused to issue a license to have not complained before this.

If any public official repeatedly breaks the law, he/she cannot be allowed to remain in that position. This man broke the law and disgraced the position of public trust he held. He cannot be allowed to continue this behavior, and since he has given no indication he sees himself as doing anything wrong, he absolutely must be removed. If an investigation shows that he has a pattern of breaking the law, or even if it was only in this one instance, he should be prosecuted, since he indeed committed a crime.

This has nothing really to do with race. It has to do with the law. Decades ago, when he realized he could not, for personal or any other reasons, uphold the laws he was taking an oath to uphold, he should have stepped down.

If you change the issuance of a license to him pocketing a portion of the fees paid for licenses every so often over a period of thirty years, no one would even be discussing this.

he didnt tell them they couldnt get married, just that he wouldnt do it. was he singled out for a political reason. trying to create a problem for notariety. just get someone else to do it. and the only thing the democrats have done is teach the people to rely on the government to give them every thing they want. heavens we wouldnt want anybody to have to work for anything

Bob, I can tell you right now you do not have any blacks as friends. Because when you are this racist, there is no possible way for you to be friends with those you obviously hate.

Blacks are not a cancer to this nation, part of this problem is the news. You hear way more about the bad ones then you do the good ones. It is as simple as that. Why? A great deal of the rich people that control the right through campaign financing also control the news, and most of the powerful and wealthy in this country are usually white and are usually racist.

So Limbaugh, let me say there is no freaking thing as a "liberal media." And, the only reason Rush may rip a certain media establishment and call them liberals, is because they are the only ones telling the truth. And when it comes to Rush, he has one mortal enemy way greater and far more fierce than any liberal, and this beast is something that he tries to cover up day after day of wacky, oxy contined out of his head ranting, Rush Limbaugh's true mortal nemesis… The Truth!

This is certainly not a left or right thing and barely a race issue. This is about a corrupt judge. There should definitely be a KKK probe and white extremist probe as well. Every time something like this happens with a public official who is deeply corrupt there should be the appropriate criminal investigation, any cop or detective would tell you this.

First of all this is how out of touch this Judge is, he was against a mixed couple right? The President of the United States is mixed!!! The most powerful man in the free world is half white and half black. Now you have people on here saying the Democrats are racist!!!! Hello, they picked a black man for their boss.

But the most racist man in government right now is either that wacko from Texas, not sure what his name is or Wilson, who is a member of the "Sons of the Confederacy" who are indeed clansmen in disguise. There are several members of congress right now that belong to them. And all of those people are republicans.

Bob...

The judge said nothing about blacks being the problem. He said he did not perform interracial marriages of any kind because he felt it was not good for the children of these marriages. He has married black couples, so his problem is definitely not with blacks, as yours seems to be.

Since you do not know the "majority" of blacks in this country, I would imagine you are getting your information from the media, regarding the small percentage of that group which does make the news. To jump from that to "most blacks in America are a cancer on our society" and also say that honest people would support that judgment is a statement I do not think you would find much support for.

That leaves it as your opinion, based on almost no actual facts. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but that does put you very close to a small category of equally minded people you may want to reconsider such close proximity with.

Can someone please remind the South the Reconstruction is over and we are now in the 21st century?

i believe it should be his choice. good for him, stick to his principals

Joe, what about this principle:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Setting racism aside, sticking to principles that violate the very mantra this country is founded upon, especially by a judge who's sworn to uphold those principles is far from honorable. Using his office to deny the rights of individuals for no other reason than a perceived difficulty the individual has already judged acceptable is way beyond the scope of the authority given him by the People. He should immediately reverse that decision and issue a formal apology.

Wasn't the constitution written during slavery? I've always thought that was ironic. But honestly those of you who hold to your conservative values, it's awful funny how in the past few years you are not considered patriotic unless you're in support of the GOP.

What the judge did is completely wrong but I wonder if it had been an African American judge and not a white judge, would people be as upset if the African American judge had done the same thing? Are people upset because of injustice or is it just white peoples injustice that people get angry at? Well, anyways.

pkd,

I am white, and would think it was wrong no matter what race the JOP is. Although I would like to see if the majority of the posts would be different.

I have black friends, that are nice, hard working, and honest people, but like I said above, most blacks are a cancer on the U.S.A.

lol, the standard cover line

Tyler, whomever you are, you do a disservice to Newsvine...

If you are going to kick somebody out, then please DELETE their racist/vulgar/otherwise offensive comments, your leaving their comments up in green makes them stand out more, your sarcasm also makes you sound somewhat less than a professional watcher, like you have your own agenda......

Not very professional at all...

LONG Beach, regarding post # 1.78:

"Tyler, whomever you are, you do a disservice to Newsvine..."

I could not disagree more with that comment, the fact that the offensive comment was left up in green, as you put it; left no doubt that it was a justified deletion. Otherwise Tyler could then be accused of suppressing free speech; because of his personal disagreement with the poster.

Which was clearly NOT the case in this instance, because Bob-472486 clearly violated #5 of the code of honor, it looks as though Tylers deletion of Racist Bobs Garbage bothers you more then the Obvious Racism, which is in-fact the real disservice to the Newsvine Community and Tylers removal of that garbage is a service to the Newsvine Community. Job well done Tyler, Keep Up The Good Work. :-)

Yeah, although its worth noting that the biggest obstacle to civil rights in the South were the Dixiecrats led by the likes of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace.

I think we are talking about 2009. Maybe the democrats have moved on from that backward era.

lib50

Doubt it!

They may say they have moved on but look at their track records in most of our democrat run inner cities. Poverty, crime, corruption at all levels, fraud and the first thing they tell their constituents is, "vote for me I'll make it better, NEXT TIME.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

lib50: Just listen to wolfyboy: he'll tell you that it's not racism as long as you're favoring the right race. Scary. Sad. Good thing people like him are a dying breed.

Boy, you hit that right on the head. The liberals have "promised" to lift these people from poverty for over 40 years...yet one generation after another are still in the same situation. Feed a man for a day, or teach him to grow his own food and he can feed himself for the rest of his life. This last campaign promised sweeping change...hope for better tomorrow....now, in reality, we are further in debt, the stimulus did nothing to help the common person, and the liberals are still trying to convince everyone that what they did was okay. They have invaded the banks, Wall Street, the auto industry and now are attempting a take over of the health industry, which will be disasterous. They have spent all the money set aside for Social Security (Pres. Johnson-Democrat - began philphering it in the mid 60's. I cannot wait until the people who have had promises made to them for over 40 years, finally realize that they have been lied to.

No more disastrous than the incompetent Republican era. In fact that is exactly how we got to this point.

Its interesting to me how all the blame for our debt gets put on Obama. Don't forget that Bush spent $850 billion on Iraq before he pushed for the first $700 billion stimulus. How quickly they forget.

Liberals haven't raised "these people' up from poverty. Okay, what have republicans done for them?

what have republicans done for them?

Oh I don't know, only free them from slavery and establish the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution.

Mr Joshua, That Republican Party does not exist any more.

USA=DrWhoo - gotta be.

LOL!! So let me get this straight Republicans are now Democrats and Democrats are now Republicans ? No wonder so many avoid wearing your labels and not get involved in politics, you are freaking nuts!

This last campaign promised sweeping change...hope for better tomorrow....now, in reality, we are further in debt, the stimulus did nothing to help the common person, and the liberals are still trying to convince everyone that what they did was okay. They have invaded the banks, Wall Street, the auto industry and now are attempting a take over of the health industry, which will be disasterous. They have spent all the money set aside for Social Security (Pres. Johnson-Democrat - began philphering it in the mid 60's.

Wanda

Just wondering, do you have a memory problem? Or just a reality problem?

Bush 43 doubled the national debt from 4.9 trillion to 10.6 trillion and had up to this year the 5 highest deficits in history and this years deficit was projected at 1.2 trillion the day Bush left office. But yet all you people who voted for him still call him a fiscal conservative don't you?

Was it just as disastrous when Bush expanded Medicare for seniors to get prescriptions?

It was the last Administration that took over the banks(TARP-Oct 08) and bailed out the auto industry(Dec 08) not the present Administration.

How many of the past Republican Administrations (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) didn't use the SS money?

What promises did Bush make about not being a "Nation Builder" and yet there we are rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan...............

Mister Joshua -

You're right about the Dixie Democrats standing in the way of the civil rights movement. In fact they were outraged when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law and punished the few southern legislators, like Al Gore, Sr., who voted for the legislation. Nixon's southern strategy — using race as a wedge issue to attract these disaffected Dixie Democrats, was very effective. The South today is almost totally red and the face of the new GOP.

My grandparents, republicans from CT who went to the South in the early sixties to register African Americans to vote were shocked and disgusted by the bigotry, ignorance and quite frankly Un American values of these former Dixie Democrats who are now republicans. I'm sure they are probably turning over in the graves looking down at what's under the tent. They are, and I'll use their vocabulary, "not the type of people you'd like to share a beer with".

REPUBLICANS ARE SO EASY

In a way, I am glad that the Republicans have collected all the bigots and wrong-headed people together in one party. It makes it easier to decide who to vote for. Pointing out what's wrong with the GOP these days is like shooting fish in a barrel. Most people target Dick Cheyney as the villain who got the Republican party into the trouble that it's in today, but I would finger Karl Rove instead. Thank you Karl Rove!

The Republicans cynically courted the ignorant and the under-educated in the American public, the ones Jesus wept for as the "sheep," in the belief that not only were they in the permanent majority, but that they could be depended on to "drink the kool-aide," even against their better interests. Well, happily that tactic turned against them because MOST, though obviously not all, of the "sheep" who can't think for themselves have an intuition for selecting the good shepherd from the bad.

IMMATURITY AND TASTE

They have spent all the money set aside for Social Security (Pres. Johnson-Democrat - began philphering it in the mid 60's

Wanda is a case in point as for the under-educated I referred to. Most people who do a lot of reading would recognize that there's something wrong with the non-word "philphering", and would check it out before presenting their ignorance to the world. The word is pilfering. (Believe me I'm not trying to humiliate her, just illustrating what is wrong with this kind of thinking.) This is exactly how they accept the guff that has been handed to them in the past, kool-aide.

O.K it jumps out at me because that's what I did for a living for 12 years of my life, but it alerts me to an understanding that there's something wrong with this otherwise intelligent person's approach to right and wrong. It's what I call an un-critical approach to factual information.

The person who said that whites should marry whites and blacks should marry blacks, is another case in point. It seems right, because recognizing similarities is part of the developmental process of every child. Most children however move beyond the stage of putting all the green Leggos with the green and the whites with the whites. Part of the maturation process is realizing all the new and exciting patterns that can created by using a variety of colors in new creations. Similarly, some children prefer to eat all the peas at one time all the mashed potatoes at another, etc..., a sign of neurosis in some children. The mature palate however finds a gastronomic delight in mixing different ingredients together on the fork to create new flavors for their enjoyment.

Ultimately however, its all a matter of taste, not to be condemned, unless they try to get everyone else to adopt their unimaginative life style; a matter of taste, and maturity.

Mr Joshua - Nice reposte. Now how about those amendments be adhered to?

The scary part is that there are people out there who actually agree with this stuff. Even on here - people who can apparently work a computer. Just wow. I love my country; I am ashamed of so many of my countrymen.

Dave, just some countrymen...ok? The bigots don't speak for me....

Nor do the bigots speak for me. I cannot believe this moronic jp has been in office for 34 years! Does this crap just happen in the south?

As for Abraham Lincoln, I am appalled Republicans claim him as one of their own. As an earlier poster put it, THAT Republican party no longer exists.

Where is the ACLU when we need it??? LMAO

Ray: Goes without saying, but perhaps it shouldn't. I am ashamed of many of my fellow Americans, but many of the others keep my pride in my country strong. I am grateful to each and every poster here who has condemned the unconscionable bigotry of this Dixie dinosaur JP - every American who argues, and votes, for justice and freedom, who keeps alive the hope that we will one day live up to our promise and our principles, and look back on the neocons as we look back on the Dixiecrats: with shame and remorse and a conviction that falls neatly into two words: NEVER. AGAIN.

The couple brought up charges only recently.

We were side-tacked by Rush's limp and lost bid for the St. Loui Rams and the "Balloon Boy" think...but we're back on track now.

Hi, Ray...making me laugh, as usual. Thanks!

ash.... this is the first post that has made sense!

You are absolutely right... if he was worried about the kids, he should be using his energy to fight the stigma of that. Instead, he chooses to take the easy way out...

That would make to much sense to those Religious - idiot - conservatives. They are among the most unintelligent, arrogant, racist individuals in this nation.

Kudos to you, ash!!

What about the fact that you can have kids outside of marriage? It's not like he'll stop biracial children from being born by not marrying the couples having them!

Right on Ash. I had to scroll almost through all the replies to find someone who pointed out why he really refused....kudos. At least Jackson and Sharpton won't be sticking their noses in on this one. They only leech off of incidents where black people are involved. The fiance is white.

It is only precedent in a legal sense if it has been challenged in court and appealed. There is not even any evidence that "they" were ever aware of it. Put the screws to this piece of crap, and make sure the rest of Dixie gets the message.

NEVER

AGAIN.

Cal Repug - So if I steal a car and get away with it the first time, does that then give me the right to steal additional cars whenever I need a ride, for the rest of my life?

Dont be a smart ass DeDe, the question is "should this man be punished", no we can't! They let him get away with it, if you want to be mad at someone be mad at his supervisor or whom ever is above him. Again I don't agree with him but clearly it was well known what he did in the past, should he be removed? I think so. But you can't punish him.

Cal, I'm not mad at anyone. I'm just applying your logic - that's all.

I guess what I am getting stuck on is the punishment part, my understanding is that this is a volunteer position, so I assume he does not get paid. How then de we "punish him". Jail? or just dissmissed?

He broke the law. He can be charged the same as anyone else for violating the civil rights of this couple. More likely though he may be sued for damages. The best thing, however, is for him to simply be removed from his post.

I don't think the postion is voluntary. He's an elected official, he has to be voted in. He is probably paid through fees from clients and through the parish/county/state he works under. And I don't think he "got away with it" either, just that no one brought it to the attention of the proper authorities until now.

Um.....so...if you volunteer...and while you are doing your volunteering.....you murder someone, say.....in 1957...when they had no DNA tests....................so if you find new evidence ....just because you were on volunteer service, and it happened 52 years ago, "oh well, we can't bring him to justice, it happened so long ago and he was a volunteer, anyway...may as well continue to let that dude we arrested for the crime way back then, continue to serve his time..."??

Naw, naw...you have to try and right the wrong, folks.

Not mad. Just applying your logic - that's all.

Jane, other than hurt feelings, what exactly are their damages?

The damages to the country are much greater. The race obsessed media get another chance to further divide the races. Divide and conquer!

what country is this? The damages are the man violated their civil rights, humiliated them, and broke the LAW. As for the "race obsessed media" getting another chance to "further divide the races", it would appear that this moronic jp was doing a little dividing of his own, by trying to obstruct their being joined in marriage.

Your fight just came along later. Interracial marriage had Loving v. Virginia. Your landmark case has yet to come, and it will be a proud day in the USA when it does. Hang tough. You will see it in your lifetime. Lots of straight folks out there, myself included, will fight for you.

nyman: civil marriage is not a matter of religious belief. Sexual orientation and race are both genetic. The only difference is in the timing of people's efforts to correct the fear and prejudice.

We are not trying to legislate a persons religious beliefs. If you do not believe in it that is fine but why not let us live the way we were born? There is what is called a seperation between church and state so religious beliefs really aren't what should be brought up here. I remember when the freedom of our african american friends was called a religious matter. People quoted the bible while saying it was ok to have slaves, not allow interracial marriage, and so forth. If there were a personal choice would anyone really make it? It is so nice to be the target of anger and hatred.

Nyman there are too many similarities to list here. You simply choose to ignore or deny them. That's ok, you can do that. But it won't last much longer. Gay marriage will happen and probably sooner than you think.

Tired: I want you to know that we are working very hard to get this wrong straightened out all across America. Specifiaclly for me, it's Referendum 71 in Washington state that needs passing in Nov. 3rd here.

NYman: First of all, I am a very religious person, but that has no play whatsoever in the Constitution and civil rights. You can not ever invoke your religious principles into civil rights. Having said that, there are only two types of religios, inclusive and exclusive. My God happens to have created and is the Boss of it all, not you and not me. The government is not in anyone's bedroom and neither should you be. To deny GLBT folks civil rights due to what YOU perceive are peoples' sexual habits, then you need to be prepared to seach everyone's bedrooms to deny even hetersosexuals their rights, based upon what you think they are morally violating. You'd better be prepared to violate all civil rights for adulters, people who practice BDSM, ......need I go on?

You are wrong, NYman, just look at the points you have not earned here, that should give you a hint. People are sick and tired of hate and the dark-minded bigotry, and we aim to stomp it out. GLBT wagons were never unhitched from the civil rights wagons, just in your mind, sir. I might want to remind you that the GLBT community wakes up in the morning, sorts your mail, cooks and delivers your food, paves your roads, stocks your shelves and bags your groveries and pays just as many taxes as you or me. That alone makes them deserving of civil rights.

Please get educated.

Nyman..

"There are no similarities in this at all. It is the gay/lesbian way of trying to attach their wagon to civil rights. For many, it is a fundamental religious belief that only a man and woman should marry, and you cannot legislate a persons religious beliefs. A man whether he is black or white, is entitled to equal protection under the law. Practicing a particular sexual preference is a personal right that the gov't does not necessarily have to advocate. "

In the above statement, did you honestly just imply that gay marriage should not be legalized because we 'can't legistate a person's religious beliefs'. Yet, it's okay that we bar homosexual couples marrying because of religious beliefs, but that's somehow not legislating religious beliefs?

Fascinating how it works one way, but not the other.

Since corporations are like people to the government and marriage is like a merger, truthfully i don't get it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Two sisters should be allowed to marry if it suits them financially and legally. The problem is the sexual relationship that is attached to what is essentially a legally binding contract.

Folks, we are getting WAY off the original subject - discrimination of race. Period. Our Constitution protects ALL Americans, regardless of race, creed, religion or color. I think what the Constitution says, is the only thing that entitles you to the same priviledges as me, is being an AMERICAN. Not being black, not being homosexual, not being religious, just being American. I was asked one day by a teen if I was going to a "gay pride parade", and I said, "absolutely not". The girl asked me if I was against gay people having the same rights as me, and I told her that she was being misled - the purpose of the parade was to "honor and support the gay lifestyle", which was entirely against my personal beliefs. It had nothing to do with gays having the same rights as me - they already have that, as Americans. That's what they should be pushing for, to end bigotry of one American over another. Our country is becoming more misdirected every day, with these minorities trying to promote "equal rights" as a minority- if you want to get down to the facts, there are no minorities - if you were born in the US or are an American citizen, you are entitled to those rights just as I am. We all are immigrants - I am told - even the Indians came from another part of the world, so WHO is the minority? And who is actually WHITE? As long as our government can keep us segregated, we won't be looking at Uncle Sam. And that's what they want.

Thanks again, tyler.............it was blinding everyone.....

You better check all the pages tyler, that Troll dropped a lot of racist poo - poo on every page. This seed needs a lot of clean up.

A judge can only recuse himself for legally acceptable reasons. In this case, the only option is to do his job, or "recuse" himself from all cases, permanently. I strongly prefer option B.

If he is recusing himself consistently and only in specific cases (which he has admitted, btw), then he is discriminating against a specific group of people and as a public servant that is illegal. He can't say he will uphold the functions of his job for some people but not for others.

Apparently these supporters of this racist judge want to make it so interracial marriage is illegal. I have never heard such ethically bankrupt arguments in my life.

He is a judge and if he is that racist against blacks wishing to marry white women we can only imagine what other judicial travesties of justice this government thug is involved in.

Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.

Wiki'd; bold mine.

Obviously there is a "bias" or "prejudice" in this case, held by the judge. Therefore, like it or not, he does have a legal right to recuse himself from this matter.

I'd also like to point out that it said he did refer them to another judge & they have subsequently married. It's not as if they were permanently denied a license or a ceremony. This judge appears to have lawfully recused himself.

That section is basically saying a judge can't decide over a case if he has a personal bias against a person like for example his nosy next door neighbor or his ex-brother in law, etc. He cannot as an elected official legally claim that he has the right to recuse himself from officiating certain marriages because he is biased against mixed race couples, it doesn't work that way.

If it did then Loving vs. Virginia would mean nothing since every judge in the South at that time would have used the exact same tactic that you are trying to use to get out of performing interracial marriages.

It doesn't matter if the couple went to another judge to be married the law is the law and he does not get to pick & choose which laws he will follow and which laws he will not follow.

He has the right to be racist. He has a right to hold whatever beliefs he wants to hold about biracial children. But, he does not have the right to hold a public office and impose his personal beliefs on the public in violation of the law of the land.

Scar_tissue, your analysis isn't quite right. Section 455 states "provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding" (bolding yours, italics mine.) "Proceeding" refers specifically to litigation. Marriage licenses are not matters of litigation, and therefore are not covered by Section 455.

Bardwell is not a judge. He's a justice of the peace. All that is required in La is that you finish high school and pass a test. And, of course, you have to be elected. He has been unopposed in the last few elections. I am from the area, although I do not live there anymore. There are several interacial couples in the area and there have been no problems that I know of. Just because the Bardwell family doesn't know it's the 21st century doesn't mean that the whole parish is like that.

I thought of the pharmacists too. There, they are licensed and regulated by the government, and should be made to do their jobs or find new ones. Here, the JP is employed by the government, and should be shown the door immediately.

The difference is that a pharmacist works for a private agency or company. A JP is an elected official and is supposed to uphold the law regardless of their personal opinion. With a pharmacy the company has the option of allowing the pharmacist to work according to his/her conscience but still be able to refer customers to another pharmacist in the store. But in an elected government position under a constitution we do not have the option of allowing a JP to refuse to do his elected job as a matter of conscience. It's not the same thing.

This is a prime example of why Judges should not be elected.

I AM WILLING TO SERVE ALL CITIZENS LAWFULLY AND EQUALLY IN THE OBERVANCE OF MY DUTIES.

Interestingly enough this whole issue, including the issue of gay marriage was recently being discussed on a Canadian blog I came across recently. A New Brunswick official wanted to pass a law stating that public officials can refuse their public service to anyone where it violates their religious principles. I enclose part of the rebuttal below. OnE commentator, however, took the position I favor. Simply pass a law requiring all appointees to public positions to declare their willingness to serve all citizens equally as a necessary requirement of public office.

http://cana7blog.blogspot.com/2005/12/mr-lords-marriage-law.html

Moreover, it has to be this way. Mr. Lord's government cannot pass an act that says "you can't discriminate in the performance of marriage against Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc., only gay people" because that contravenes the Charter. In other words, in Canada -- thank God! -- it is unconstitutional for the state to single out groups of people against which it will allow discrimination. So, Mr. Lord's government cannot confine the right of public officials -- again, on the basis of their private views -- to refuse marriage to someone only on the grounds of sexual orientation. They have to make it a general rule because otherwise it will be struck down -- rightly -- by the courts (and, folks, this one won't even get to the Supreme Court). To single out one group and say "we will allow discrimination against this one group of people only". Well, that will be struck down by the lowest order of court going because it is so blatant is its prejudice. What this means is that whether he likes it or not, in an effort to preserve some measure of discrimination against gay people, Mr. Lord is about to make it legal for New Brunswick officials to refuse marriage to anyone they feel like on the basis of their private opinions.

Chris, it's an "or", not an "and"....as in "either/or", not "both", apply. Gigi, it does say "justice" in addition to judge (many municipalities also elect judges, not appoint them, so how he got on the bench doesn't matter if he's there). Jenn, I'm sure you'll agree this guy is highly prejudiced & this prejudice could be used to interpret the recusal statute in his favor.

I'm just saying it looks as if this particular judge may indeed have a legal leg on which to stand & I'll bet he'll use it as his defense & have his conduct excused. Laws are not static & are open to a great deal of interpretation (as is the Constitution) for differing circumstances. Whether or not the world perceives his conduct as reprehensible won't matter if he can squizzle thru a legal loophole, esp as his refusal to issue the license did not result in preventing the marriage in this jurisdiction. I doubt he'll be removed or even reprimanded. If it's made illegal for him to continue to do this, the most likely scenarios are A) he obeys the new letter of the law or B) he steps down from his position (in which case, problem solved tangentially).

OK WTF is up with Newsvine lately? If it's not freezing it's putting stuff in the wrong spot; I did hit reply up above where I originally cited the statute. Sorry for any confusion.

Janeinthisworld, you are absolutely correct, as an elected official Bardwell doesn't have the luxury of letting his personal opnion interfere with his responsibility. If he cannot do his duty as a Justice of the Peace properly then it's time for him to retire and step down.

Who is this throwback insult to humanity called jamespupkcmo?

Probably a ten year old playing on mommy's computer.

No, no, no!!!!!!! What an insult to 10 year olds!!! Most of them are far more intelligent than this!

Your're right, my bad. :)

Yes.

Because their feelings got hurt Dave? That's all the harm they actually suffered. He wasn't the only JP in the area, he gave them the name of the other person, they called that person and got married without issue. Would have been no different if he had truly been already booked. He would have given them the other name, they would have called that person and he would still have married them. They are out nothing.

What a weak society we have become if we can't deal with someone who disagrees with us.

He is a judge...He does not have the right to deny ANYONE who has the legal right to get married.  A police officer cannot arrest you because of his opinion, and I was one for 5 years.  A judge cannot insert his opinion if it is his duty to UP HOLD THE LAW AS IT IS WRITTEN.  What is so hard to understand about this.  HE WAS WRONG.  why is Saytomayor an activist judge when she inserts her opinion giving a speach but this judge is justified inserting his opinion"NOT THE LAW" from the bench.  He is a racist.  Remember he even let us in his house to use the bathroom...You got to be kidding me.

The Judge should do his job. He can't just pick and choose the laws that he likes, or make up his own. If he can't follow the laws of the land then he needs a job he can do, or no job at all.

Emily: it would have been VERY different if he had had a legitimate, LEGAL reason to deny them a service. He did not; his reason was illegitimate, and I will bet you anything it was in direct violation of the state constitution (even in Dixie). Some kinds of hurt feelings are, and should be, illegal. Let me guess. You are not black? If you're not, then it's awfully easy for you to say what hurts are OK for a white man to inflict on blacks. Walk a mile in their shoes, or just respect the law as written. Try reading some judicial opinions on the subject. Start with Loving v. Virginia. And note the year it was written. Then look at your calendar to see what year it is now. We outgrew all this decades ago.

Who gives a damn about his policy....That does not count..It is the LAW! ! ! ! He cannot pick and chose what law he wants to enforce.

Emily, so...if I understand you correctly, if you were being attacked in your home, the cops could stop by and say, " Hey, you know what Em, I don't like the way your bakd head looks, so I'm just going to refer this crime in progress to the next cop who passes by...however..you just keep screaming there in your ripped and tattered dress.....have a nice night.."

They may have difficulty proving any direct harm they suffered as a result of Bardwell not marrying them. After all, they just called another JP. But that really is beside the point. In some small communities it could be a hardship for the couple to travel to get another JP and they shouldn't have to anyway. The JP didn't have the option of denying them a license based on them being interracial. It was irrelevant from a legal standpoint and he had no basis to justify denying them. His choice was arbitrary, and the law doesn't work that way.

Yes Emily, he should lose the job he's had for 34 years, because with this action, he proved himself unfit to hold it.

His feelings have no place in his workplace.He wasn't hired to express his private beliefs.

I'm guessing after 34 years he is getting senile and forgot it wasn't 1954 anymore.

They look so happy together I wish them all the best.

Ray, getting a JP lined up to perform a wedding is a hair different than calling the cops because someone is being attacked. Lets not compare apples to oranges here.

I am not defending him. I am not racist, nor do I have any issue with interracial marriages. However, I do believe that if you have a strong personal conviction about something and there is an alternate person available who is just as qualified as you to perform a duty why should there not be an opt out option? Like Drs and abortions. If there is a qualified Dr available to perform the procedure why force a Dr who has convictions against that particular procedure to do it? In every other aspect of their job the Dr who disagrees with that procedure is as capable as a Dr without that particular conviction. (and yes I know I am the one now with the apples and oranges.)

In all reality in the world we live in today, I believe he shouldn't even have those kind feelings but I can't tell someone how to feel a certain way. You all don't have to continue to respond as if I was the guy who declined to marry them. All I wanted to bring up was that there was no actual HARM done to that couple. They were married by another JP, I assume they are happy about their lives other than this drama. If this is the worse thing they deal with in their marriage, well then, they should come out ahead in life.

EmilyC -- I would not call the comparison between the JP refusing to grant a marriage license and the cops refusing to arrest someone based upon personal beliefs an issue of "apples to oranges." In fact, I would call it the exact same thing: public officials, paid by the taxpayers, who are entrusted to uphold the law, regardless of personal feelings.

You are correct in stating that you can't tell someone to feel a certain way. This JP is entitled to feel whatever he wants; what he is not entitled to do, however, is to serve as a public, governmental official, and deny the people he has sworn to serve their fundamental constitutional rights. If his belief that black and white people should not marry is so strong that he cannot bring himself to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, then he is unfit to hold the position for which he was elected.

You used the example of certain Doctors having strong convictions against performing abortions as an analogy to this scenario, but there is one key difference: the doctors to whom you refer are private actors. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not protect one private citizen from another; it only protects the private citizen from the government (with the exception of the 13th Amendment). Therefore, a doctor in private practice can refuse service to anyone he/she wishes. A JP, on the other hand, is an agent of the government. As I just stated, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects private citizens - like the interracial couple that sought a marriage license in this case - from the government. Simply stated, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are supposed to protect private citizens from having their rights infringed upon by the government or an agent thereof, which is EXACTLY what happened in this case. Bottom line: Because the JP is a government official, his actions come within the scope of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; this is much different than a doctor in private practice.

Additionally, you claim that there was no actual harm to the couple in this case, because another JP agreed to marry them. That is like saying, "Well, that bus driver doesn't let black people on the bus, but there's really no harm, because another bus will be along in 10 minutes, and black people can ride on that one instead." In that situation - like in this one - the harm is very simple: That is not how it is supposed to be in this country. Public officials, such as the JP in this case, are supposed to uphold the law, not arbitrarily pick and choose which laws they feel like upholding based upon personal whim and fancy.

I would not call the comparison between the JP refusing to grant a marriage license and the cops refusing to arrest someone based upon personal beliefs an issue of "apples to oranges." In fact, I would call it the exact same thing: public officials, paid by the taxpayers, who are entrusted to uphold the law, regardless of personal feelings.

Actually, police do this all of the time, especially in regard to drug laws. Some things are overlooked for some people while other people are nailed to the ground. The police just don't, and wouldn't, publicly admit it. That is part of the reason the drug war has been allowed to go on as long as it has.

This judge has some real audacity, i will give him that; even if he is a racist pig.

Whatever the case may be, if he cannot marry these people because of this belief i think it is fair to say he would not be able to preside over cases with African Americans involved either because there is an obvious bias. Surely he must know the disparity in incarceration rates.

While personal held beliefs, however disagreeable they may be, are fine, as a judge he is expected to put those aside to do his job isn't he?

This case should be front page news because it shows just how much of a problem still exists. Really it is not just the fact that the judge felt that way, but rather he had the brass balls to act on it. That is disrespectful to his position, to the state of Louisiana and to the country as a whole. That is why he should step down as a judge, and if not he should be let go.

WHY is it that every comment/opinion posted on here that DISAGREES or speaks their mind against interracial marraige, Why are those comments COLLAPSED by the community? This is a discussion board where you voice your opinion. MANY people have their own opinion about Homeys being with White Chicks and some are plain old DISGUSTED and sick of seeing this $hit, but yet IF we even dare to say a word of what WE believe and WE feel deep down inside, we get chastised and our posts get blocked or collapsed? Part of the reason we are becoming a weakened society is because we are afraid to say what is really on our minds, so we sugar coat it all and say nothing or just agree.

This Justice of the Peace was WRONG in that he did not do what he was legally obligated to do... However, he voiced what he feels is RIGHT (wrong time and place for it, but eventually we all need to grow a set of balls and stop worrying about how we have to sugar coat everything whether that is how we truly feel or not!) and I applaud him for saying what is on his mind rather than doing business with a fake smile.

If you don't like some of the posts or opinions because they don't match how you feel, move on or reply your opinion, don't be a sissy and click on COLLAPSE or remove. We all have a voice to be heard.

Why should those interracial couples be affected by the bias of the judge, you or anyone else. That is not their problem.

Perhaps that is part of the reason why so many minorities feel entitled to handouts. Mabe when people stop making their problems everyone else's we will all be better off.

Please...you point out the speck in Bush's eye and ignore the plank in Obama's. Don't use stupid liberal tricks to try to gain censure of other peoples opinions that don't agree with yours. HOWEVER, this justice o' the peace should lose his job for not marrying this nice couple. While everyone can agree that certain mental problems run rampant in kool-aid drinking liberals, there is absolutely nothing wrong with people of different races marrying each other. Makes me wonder whether this JOP dresses in his bed linens???

Your post is far to sensible for the white racists of this nation to accept or even understand.

This judge should not sign the marriage license of anyone who can't support the children that may result from their marriage.

And - how does the judge know that the couple involved can even produce children? If they showed him proof that they couldn't - would he sign the license?

Well, I can't argue with that.....