Of marriage, race and contract
While Jan Moir has been issuing her homophobic drivel and being roundly castigated by the internet, another story in the news of quite astounding bigotry caught my eye.
In Tangipahoa Country, Louisiana, a justice of the peace, Keith Bardwell, refuses to give marriage licenses for mixed-race couples. Yes, you read that correctly.
The story first surfaced in the Hammond Daily Star. Mr Bardwell says he will not perform mixed-race marriages because the children will suffer as neither black nor white society will accept them.
I don’t want to get into a semantic discussion about whether this is racism. I would say that it is and, even if it isn’t, it’s simply flat wrong. I would like to point out some of the other screaming idiocies that this puisne justice has committed by his actions.
Firstly, he has awarded the state the right to choose those fit to breed.
Secondly, he has misapplied this principle in choosing a single category and not looking at others.
Thirdly, he has made childbearing a necessary consequence of marriage.
Fourthly, he has made the ability to contract marriage contingent on the approval of the state.
Fifthly, he has ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia, where the unanimous opinion said, inter alia
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
Sixthly, in so doing he has violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis added)
Seventhly, he has legalised the tyranny of the majority by making social acceptance a condition of action
Eighthly, he has confused correlation with causation and taken his small number of instances to be indicative of the bigger picture
Ninethly, he has done what he thinks is just; his role is to enforce justice. That may or not be just, but it is not his place to second guess the law in this way.
Tenthly, he has not realised that the election of a biracial president suggests, at the least, that the mood is changing.
His actions, or rather inactions, are a travesty of justice. He apparently intends not to restand for the office of justice of the peace when his term expires on the last day of 2014. I hope we do not have to wait that long for him to be removed from office.
xD.
October 17th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Well, I’ve complained about Jan Moir – I doubt I have any realistic way of at all hindering Mr. Bardwell, though, from fair Britannia? Also considering my age, lack of political experience, and general uselessness.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Glad you’ve complained at Moir – I have too. Fortunately, the ACLU are going to take up the Bardwell case, and it’s pretty open and shut. Leaving aside the morality, what he’s doing has been illegal since Loving v Virginia.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Quite a large section of the internet, whilst not admiring her as a person, is applauding the stance for free speech Moir took. This is our most precious commodity today.
jameshigham´s last blog: Ladies and gentlemen, please adjust your links and feeds
October 17th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
James,
I very strongly disagree. At no point in her article did Moir say that she had been prevented from saying her peace or that this was a freedom of speech issue.
No-one has suggested that she should be prevented from saying what she said. Re-read the article – it was a load of homophobic bile, implying that he died because he was gay, not that it should at least be allowed to be considered.
What people have said is that her comments were so far beyond the pale that they affect the credibility of the newspaper and, indeed, those who advertise with that newspaper.
Freedom of speech does not imply a right to a pulpit.
xD.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:38 am
Marriage has nothing to do with race, and people have the freedom to decide it, but not government.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:58 am
Re-read the article – it was a load of homophobic bile, implying that he died because he was gay, not that it should at least be allowed to be considered.
Yes but that’s her opinion, Dave. Now, there are two things here. If that opinion disgusts people, then they will turn from the paper in droves and readership speaks in the media. She’ll be booted out for that.
Same with Griffin. If his message accords with people, they’ll come to him. Otherwise, they’ll leave in droves. There’s a self-actualizing tendency here where people can be sent to Coventry.
What it doesn’t need is recourse to the big stick, just because someone dislikes the view. There’s a blogger who has said the most libellous things about me and I’ve been asked why I don’t litigate. Money and the principle – this society has gone too far down that track.
The mature way to settle something is for people to shun someone. If enough people feel that way, then he or she will feel it soon enough.
That’s the British way.
jameshigham´s last blog: Ladies and gentlemen, please adjust your links and feeds
October 25th, 2009 at 9:46 am
I’m not sure there is a recourse to the big stick. Complaints have been made to the PCC – a private body to which newspapers voluntarily adhere – and no-one has said we should shut down the Mail or gag Moir. Instead, they have said, effectively, that they will withdraw custom from those advertisers that put their messages out with Moir, and this has in turn led to pressure on the Mail.