A white Louisiana Justice of the Peace has refused to issue a marriage liscense to an interracial couple because he says that he has concerns for any children that the couple might have .

Keith Bardwell says " I'm not a racist . I just don't believe in mixing the races that way ." "I have piles and piles of black friends . They come to my home , I marry them , They use my bathroom :lol:. I treat them just like everyone else . " " I'm not a racist " Oh really .

 

http://news.aol.com/article/interracial-couple-denied-marriage/719806?icid=main|main|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Finterracial-couple-denied-marriage%2F719806

Wow, check out this story.

 

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

 

You even let them use your bathroom? I think it is quite sad that this type of thinking still occurs. It really is a shame.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091016/ap_on_re_us/us_interracial_rebuff

:lol: Methinks he doth protest too much...

 

Not a racist? Yeah, right...

Is one a "racist" if one holds the personal belief that interracial marriage is a bad idea?

Is one a "racist" if one holds the personal belief that interracial marriage is a bad idea?

 

Yes...no question..I don't think it is against the law. If he isn't a racist than who is??:idunno:

Yes...no question..I don't think it is against the law. If he isn't a racist than who is??:idunno:

 

I want to make sure that we're not confusing the two concepts:

 

Clearly, it is against the law to deny an interracial couple a marriage license. I do not deny that. The law exists because to do otherwise discriminates between couples seeking a license solely on the basis of race.

 

However, "discrimination" and "racism" are NOT the same thing.

 

What I am asking is if the personally held belief that an interracial couple should not marry is a "racist" belief.

I want to make sure that we're not confusing the two concepts:

 

Clearly, it is against the law to deny an interracial couple a marriage license. I do not deny that. The law exists because to do otherwise discriminates between couples seeking a license solely on the basis of race.

 

However, "discrimination" and "racism" are NOT the same thing.

 

What I am asking is if the personally held belief that an interracial couple should not marry is a "racist" belief.

 

What would be the basis for the belief other than there are distinct differences in the races?

Is one a "racist" if one holds the personal belief that interracial marriage is a bad idea?

When they start saying things like:

 

"I have piles and piles of black friends".

 

"They come to my home".

 

"They use my bathroom".

 

One has to wonder...

What would be the basis for the belief other than there are distinct differences in the races?

 

For some, there are scriptural references, particularly during the Old Testament return from captivity in Babylon and in a few other sections.

 

For others, the belief that the psychological effects brought on by backlash upon offspring is not justified.

 

For others still, there is some documentary evidence of 1) significantly higher divorce and separation rate of interracial couples; 2) significantly higher medical numbers in children for certain medical profiles that seem to be racially connected, such as sickle-cell anemia.

 

I do not comment upon the propriety of those bases, but simply offer them as other explanations.

When they start saying things like:

 

"I have piles and piles of black friends".

 

"They come to my home".

 

"They use my bathroom".

 

One has to wonder...

 

Yes, those reactions seem typical of those who lump the concept of "discrimination" in with that of "racism."

I want to make sure that we're not confusing the two concepts:

 

Clearly, it is against the law to deny an interracial couple a marriage license. I do not deny that. The law exists because to do otherwise discriminates between couples seeking a license solely on the basis of race.

 

However, "discrimination" and "racism" are NOT the same thing.

 

What I am asking is if the personally held belief that an interracial couple should not marry is a "racist" belief.

 

Yes. If you believe that an interracial couple should not marry, then you are stating that the races are not the same. They are the same, ... both from the human race.

 

Can you hold the belief that interracial marriages can be more difficult due to outside influences and not be a racist? Sure. But not allowing them to marry is projecting your beliefs on what someone should or should not due SOLEY based on race, and that is wrong.

For some, there are scriptural references, particularly during the Old Testament return from captivity in Babylon and in a few other sections.

 

For others, the belief that the psychological effects brought on by backlash upon offspring is not justified.

 

For others still, there is some documentary evidence of 1) significantly higher divorce and separation rate of interracial couples; 2) significantly higher medical numbers in children for certain medical profiles that seem to be racially connected, such as sickle-cell anemia.

 

I do not comment upon the propriety of those bases, but simply offer them as other explanations.

 

 

I think you present a good "devil's argument" for your point.

 

But using the same reasoning (biblical or societal interpretation), then it was okay for Germany not to issue licenses for Jews to marry Aryans? Just asking out of the line of reasoning.

 

To me the two are the same, views held out of whatever conviction. One concludes that conviction to be racist/bigoted and another views that conviction as righteous.

 

As to the biblical edicts, I've often laughed at those since Jesus' own family tree contains a Moabite (Ruth) and a Prostitute from Jericho (Rahab) who was hardly Hebrew. Add that to Paul's interpretation from the Christian perspective of Galatians 3:28 and I find little to stand on IMO.

 

(BTW, I know Hearsay that you were only presenting the argument and not implying agreement or disagreement in that presentation. :thumb:)

For some, there are scriptural references, particularly during the Old Testament return from captivity in Babylon and in a few other sections.

Probably not an answer that I can give here, as my beliefs are (loosely) that the Bible taken literally can be dangerous.

 

For others, the belief that the psychological effects brought on by backlash upon offspring is not justified.

That's pure conjecture. To not marry people who have yet to have children on the basis of what those children MIGHT face is hypothetical and impossible to justify. There are a myriad of instances that this could apply to. Would he not marry two people of the same race who had a destructive relationship on the basis of the psychological damage any future progeny may encounter? He's made a determination not on facts, but conjecture. In this case, it's race which is a discrimination based on ethnicity. I simply don't know what else you can call it but racism. I agree racism and discrimination can be different, but when the discrimination is based upon the race of anyone, it's racism.

 

For others still, there is some documentary evidence of 1) significantly higher divorce and separation rate of interracial couples; 2) significantly higher medical numbers in children for certain medical profiles that seem to be racially connected, such as sickle-cell anemia.

In the overall scheme of things, is it any different than the increased incident of divorce and separation of teen parents? Is the theoretical possibility of a medical condition of children not yet born a valid reason to refuse to marry someone? Marriage can yeild children, but there's a very real possibilty that no children may be conceived. Would he refuse to marry to people who were RH- because of the future problems that would cause?

 

I do not comment upon the propriety of those bases, but simply offer them as other explanations.

I understand what you're doing. But, looking at it objectively, you have to ask yourself (or ideally him) what he would do in instances such as the examples I outline above.

 

Between the reasons he listed and his pervasive use of third party pronouns to refer to his black friends, I believe he is racist. I don't think allowing a person of a different race than you exhonerates one from being a racist. I think the belief that one has somehow shown they're not racist by using such an example means that that person needs to become more self-aware. They may not think they are racist, but they certainly harbor racist beliefs.

I do not comment upon the propriety of those bases, but simply offer them as other explanations.

 

Those are, at best, rationalizations of racism.

Probably not an answer that I can give here, as my beliefs are (loosely) that the Bible taken literally can be dangerous.

 

That's pure conjecture. To not marry people who have yet to have children on the basis of what those children MIGHT face is hypothetical and impossible to justify. There are a myriad of instances that this could apply to. Would he not marry two people of the same race who had a destructive relationship on the basis of the psychological damage any future progeny may encounter? He's made a determination not on facts, but conjecture. In this case, it's race which is a discrimination based on ethnicity. I simply don't know what else you can call it but racism. I agree racism and discrimination can be different, but when the discrimination is based upon the race of anyone, it's racism.

 

 

In the overall scheme of things, is it any different than the increased incident of divorce and separation of teen parents? Is the theoretical possibility of a medical condition of children not yet born a valid reason to refuse to marry someone? Marriage can yeild children, but there's a very real possibilty that no children may be conceived. Would he refuse to marry to people who were RH- because of the future problems that would cause?

 

 

I understand what you're doing. But, looking at it objectively, you have to ask yourself (or ideally him) what he would do in instances such as the examples I outline above.

 

Between the reasons he listed and his pervasive use of third party pronouns to refer to his black friends, I believe he is racist. I don't think allowing a person of a different race than you exhonerates one from being a racist. I think the belief that one has somehow shown they're not racist by using such an example means that that person needs to become more self-aware. They may not think they are racist, but they certainly harbor racist beliefs.

 

You make a fine response, except as to the bolded, which I disagree with.

 

In everything that we do, we make decisions based upon the evidence that we have been presented with in our own lives. If I have seen many instance of children who have been belittled, chastized, and jeered for being bi-racial, and have had social anxiety disorders and resultant behavioral problems because of it, then it is not at all conjecture or impossible to justify a personal stance that interracial couples should not marry. As with any good lawyer's stance, it is based upon actual evidence.

 

You make an excellent point, however, with your remark about our personal response.