Mixed-Race Couple Denied Marriage License

Beth Humphrey, 30, and Terence McKay, 32, both of Hammond, La. were in love and decided to get married. They went to Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell for the marriage license. He refused because Beth was white and Terence was black and he doesn't do mixed-race marriages.

He suggested that they get someone else to sign the marriage certificate....which they did. They are now happily married....no thanks to Keith Bardwell.

Before continuing any further, I am going to go ahead and call Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell from Hammond, in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana a racist. A racist who has no business being a Justice of the Peace, sworn to uphold the laws of the United States of America.

This issue was decided by the Supreme Court on June, 12, 1967 when it declared: "The Government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry." See Loving vs Virginia and the story behind the ruling.

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival,” wrote Chief Justice Warren. “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

This has been the law of the land for over 40 years.

According to JP Keith Bardwell, he refused to issue a marriage license out of concern for the children of such a marriage and that it has been his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long. He refutes the notion that he is a racist.

"I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way," Keith Bardwell told AP. “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” Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."

After having discussions with both blacks and whites, he said he has come to the conclusion that: "Most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society."

"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."

Beth Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples.

According to the Census Bureau, Tangipahoa Parish is about 70 percent white and 30 percent black.

Humphrey says the case boils down to discrimination.The couple said they plan to consult the U.S. Justice Department about the matter.

Beth Humphrey is an account manager for a marketing firm. Terrence McKay is a welder and they had just returned to Louisiana. Humphrey says she plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.

"That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age. We are looking forward to having children, and all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."

The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."

"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. "He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it."

The NAACP branch of Tangipahoa Parish has also gotten involved. It has forwarded the case to the state and national levels of the civil rights group, calling for Keith Bardwell to resign because of his refusal to issue the marriage license.

“He’s an elected public official and one of his duties is to marry people, he doesn’t have the right to say he doesn’t believe in it,” said Patricia Morris, president of the NAACP branch of Tangipahoa Parish, located near the Mississippi line. “If he doesn’t do what his position calls for him to do, he should resign from that position.”

Keith Bardwell said that in the 34 years he has been a justice of the peace he has never married couples of different races.

“I do not, do not, do mixed-race marriages,” he said. “I  always guide them to another justice of the peace. They can go other places and get married. A justice of the peace does not have to marry anybody,” Bardwell said.

In my opinion.... No one should have to put up with the racist attitudes of a bigot masquerading under the pretense that he cares what happens to the children of mixed-race parents. It is none of his business. No one asked for his opinion much less his permission to get married. If he can't do his job without interjecting his personal biases then he should not be a Justice of the Peace. He should resign or be removed from office.....in my opinion.

Follow me on Twitter

Principal "Outs" Gay Student and Gets Sued

A Senior at Ponce de Leon High School in Florida went to her principal with a problem. She was a lesbian and was being harassed by other students. She naturally expected the principal, David Davis, to take care of the situation so that she could return to classes free from the ridicule and intimidation of other students.

Instead of being sympathetic towards the student's predicament, principal Davis went on the attack. He told her that homosexuality was wrong. He said she should not tell people she was gay and he informed her parents of their conversation. He even ordered the student not to talk with other "middle school" girls.

After learning about how this student was treated by the principal, some of her friends began a protest on her behalf. They wore gay pride T-shirts and dressed in rainbow colors. The principal was livid and proceeded with his own campaign of intimidation. He questioned the students about their own sexuality and their association with other gay students. Some of them were suspended from from school.

"Davis embarked on what can only be characterized as a 'witch hunt' to identify students who were homosexual and their supporters, further adding fuel to the fire," U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak recounted in his ruling. "He went so far as to lift the shirts of female students to insure the letters 'GP' or the words 'Gay Pride' were not written on their bodies."

One of the protesting students, Heather Gillman, an 11th-grader, who was suspended from school complained to her mother, Ardena Gillman, who got in touch with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Ardena, who wanted to support her daughter, understood that tolerance needed to be taught in school. Ardena also knew that her actions might cause problems in the small "Bible Belt" town.

Ponce de Leon is part of Holmes County, Florida, very close to the Georgia line. It has about 20,000 residents. There is some agriculture, but most people are employed either by prisons or schools; some commute to the Gulf Coast to work in tourism. Ponce de Leon, with fewer than 500 residents, has a cafe, a post office and an antique store.

"What happens when these kids get out in the real world after they leave Ponce de Leon and they have a black, homosexual supervisor at their job?" she said.

The ACLU took the case on behalf of Heather Gillman. They contacted the lawyers representing the school trying to clarify the school's position on wearing rainbow clothing, the initials “G.P.” (for gay pride), and whether students could wear T-shirts that say “I support my gay friends.” See a copy of the letter here.

The school lawyers replied saying that they would not tolerate any gay-themed expressions in the school and referred to any such symbols as support for an illegal organization or secret society. The school said that it would not allow any expressions of support for gay rights at all because such speech would “likely be disruptive.” See the letter here.

After receiving this response from the school, the ACLU began court proceeding against the school and its principal, David Davis. They claimed that the school violated the students civil rights. See the complaint here.

The case went before Judge Richard Smoak of the United States District Court, Northern District of Florida, Panama City Division. Principal David Davis admitted under oath that he had banned students from wearing any clothing or symbols supporting equal rights for gay people.

Davis also testified that he believed rainbows were “sexually suggestive” and would make students unable to study because they’d be picturing gay sex acts in their mind.

After a two day trial the judge ruled against the school district which was ordered to pay $325,000 in ACLU attorney fees. See his comments here.

Principal David Davis was demoted by Steve Griffin, Holmes County's school superintendent, and school employees must now go through sensitivity training. However much of the community find it hard to understand what Davis did wrong.

"We are a small, rural district in the Bible Belt with strong Christian beliefs and feel like homosexuality is wrong," said Steve Griffin who keeps a Bible on his desk and framed Scriptures on his office walls. "I don't think we are that different from a lot of districts, at least in the Panhandle, that have beliefs that maybe are different from societal changes."

Many in the community support Davis and feel outsiders are forcing their beliefs on them. Griffin, who kicked Davis out of the principal's office but allowed him to continue teaching at the school, said high schoolers here aren't exposed to the same things as kids in Atlanta or Chicago.

"David Davis is a fine man and good principal, and we are a gentle, peaceful, Christian, family-oriented community," said Bill Griffin, 73 and a lifelong Ponce de Leon resident who is no relation to the district superintendent. "We aren't out to tar and feather anyone."

The lawsuit could reflect a division between the high school students who have grown up in an era of gay tolerance and the community's elders, said Gary Scott, a school board member. The judge's scathing rebuke left Scott questioning how his community's beliefs could be so different from the judge's opinion

Maybe Scott like many in the community did not fully understand what the judge was saying when he ruled against the school and ex-principal David Davis:

"I emphasize that Davis's personal and religious views about homosexuality are not issues in this case. Indeed, Davis's opinions and views are consistent with the beliefs of many in Holmes County, in Florida, and in the country," Smoak wrote in an opinion released last month. "Where Davis went wrong was when he endeavored to silence the opinions of his dissenters."

School Apologizes to Student Janitor

It never fails to amaze me how asinine and full of bigotry some people can be. The following racially-charged story is set in an institution of higher learning......yes, a university!! It involves a student, Keith John Sampson, working as a janitor; a co-worker, Nakea William; a book: Todd Tucker's "Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan"; the school's affirmative-action officer, Lillian Charleston, and the school's administration. Before the situation is resolved the ACLU, FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) and the Wall Street Journal all got involved.

It all began at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI), when Keith Sampson, a white man, brought a history book to read in the break room of the university where he studies and works as a janitor. The book was about the defeat of the Ku Klux Klan by Notre Dame students in a 1924 street brawl. Sampson, who is part Irish explains it this way:

The book was Todd Tucker's "Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan"; I was reading it on break from my campus job as a janitor. The same book is in the university library.

Tucker recounts events of 1924, when the loathsome Klan was a dominant force in Indiana - until it went to South Bend to taunt the Irish Catholic students at the University of Notre Dame.

When the KKK tried to rally, the students confronted them. They stole Klan robes and destroyed their crosses, driving the KKK out of town in a downpour.

I read the historic encounter and imagined myself with these brave Irish Catholics, as they street-fought the Klan. (I'm part-Irish, and was raised Catholic.)

One of his co-workers, Nakea William, complained about his reading material which started the following ridiculous chain of events in motion:

• Mr. Sampson was in short order visited by his union representative, who informed him he must not bring this book to the break room, and that he could be fired. Taking the book to the campus, Mr. Sampson says he was told, was "like bringing pornography to work." That it was a history of the battle students waged against the Klan in the 1920s in no way impressed the union rep.




• The assistant affirmative action officer who next summoned the student was similarly unimpressed. Indeed she was, Mr. Sampson says, irate at his explanation that he was, after all, reading a scholarly book. "The Klan still rules Indiana," Marguerite Watkins told him – didn't he know that? Mr. Sampson, by now dazed, pointed out that this book was carried in the university library. Yes, she retorted, you can get Klan propaganda in the library.

The matter was brought to the attention of Lillian Charleston, the school's affirmative-action officer who responded to the incident by writing Sampson the following letter:

Upon review of this matter, we conclude that your conduct constitutes racial harassment in that you demonstrated disdain and insensitivity to your co-workers who repeatedly requested that you refrain from reading the book which has such an inflammatory and offensive topic in their presence. You contend that you weren't aware of the offensive nature of the topic and were reading the book about the KKK to better understand discrimination. However you used extremely poor judgment by insisting on openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black co-workers. Furthermore, employing the legal "reasonable person standard," a majority of adults are aware of and understand how repugnant the KKK is to African Americans, their reactions to the Klan, and the reasonableness of the request that you not read the book in their presence.

During your meeting with Marguerite Watkins, Assistant Affirmative Action Officer [sic] you were instructed to stop reading the book in the immediate presence of your co-workers and when reading the book to sit apart from the immediate proximity of these co-workers. Please be advised, any future substantiated conduct of a similar nature could result in serious disciplinary action.

After the official judgment against him, Mr. Sampson turned to the Indiana state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, whose office contacted university attorneys. The case also got some sharp local press coverage that threatened to get wider......it was a great story:  A university had brought a case against a student on grounds of a book he had been reading.

Bowing to the pressure of the publicity surrounding the case, Lillian Charleston decided to revise her comments and wrote another letter to Simpson to clarify the first one:

And so the new letter to Mr. Sampson by affirmative action officer Charleston brought word that she wished to clarify her previous letter, and to say it was "permissible for him to read scholarly books or other materials on break time." About the essential and only theme of the first letter – the "racially abhorrent" subject of the book – or the warnings that any "future substantiated conduct of a similar nature could mean serious disciplinary action" – there was not a word. She had meant in that first letter, she said, only to address "conduct" that caused concern among his co-workers.

What that conduct was, the affirmative action officer did not reveal – but she had delivered the message rewriting the history of the case. Absolutely and for certain there had been no problem about any book he had been reading.

What, then, was the offense? "Harassing behavior." While reading the book? What the behavior was, one learned, could never be revealed. There was, of course, no other offensive behavior.

University Chancellor Charles R. Bantz, after being pressured by FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) as well as the ACLU, finally sent them a letter expressing regret over this affair, and testifying to his profound commitment to freedom of expression. After it was pointed out that the Chancellor "forgot" to express his regrets to the person most affected by the entire incident......Keith John Sampson, he also sent the following letter address to Sampson:

I want to offer you my apology for the problems associated with the letter you received from the Affirmative Action Office.........A recent column in the Wall Street Journal reminded me that while I had expressed my regrets to......the Indiana Civil Liberties Union and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.....I had not done so to you personally.

I can candidly say we regret this situation took place....