Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By Louisiana Judge

[kgeaux]

Nova I just wanted to tell you that most times magistrates do not have any particular legal training. They are retired law enforcement or somebody's buddy who got them the job. They are loosely called judges cause thats what they do in small claims court, but they are not really judges in the sense we usually consider. So when you say, a judge of all people should not have made this mistake, I am saying they aren't really judges, they are just folks.

And they don't work for the federal government but are state employees.

Granny, I'm providing a link to an editorial that appeared in a newspaper in Central Louisiana:

http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/...view---Worried--La.--justice-turns--back-time

Nowhere in Louisiana's statutes does it give an officer of the court the authority to act as Bardwell has acted for three decades. Still, he has been elected to six consecutive six-year terms and, despite the call by the governor and others for him to resign, he plans to stick with his schedule to retire at the end of his term on Dec. 31, 2014.
(snip & note from kgeaux: since
the time the editorial was written,
Bardwell has decided to resign)
"A Justice of the Peace cannot rely solely on possession of a license that all the legal requirements regulating marriages have been satisfied. If a Justice of the Peace has knowledge of the existence of a defect regarding the proposed marriage, then the Justice of the Peace should not perform the marriage."



From the Louisiana Justice Court Manual, we learn the following:
Justices of the peace are required to attend a one day class per year, and they are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with the Court Manual and all of its contents. (Totally agree that this is "no particular legal training"!)


In regards to recusal of a j/p in hearing a COURT CASE reads as follows: (and in Louisiana j/p's can rule in limited civil AND criminal cases.

PART A – RECUSAL
Recusal means a Justice of the Peace will not hear a particular case coming before his/her court.
Recusal is proper when the Justice of the Peace may be unduly-biased against at least one of the
parties involved in a dispute before the court. The reason for recusal is simple; it preserves the
integrity of the court system. Until a Justice of the Peace is recused, they retain full power and
authority to act in their official capacity.
§ 1 – Grounds for mandatory recusal
LA. C.C.P. ART 151(A) states that a Justice of the Peace shall be recused when he/she:
1. Is a witness in the case;
2. Has been employed or consulted as an attorney in the case or has previously been
associated with an attorney during the latter's employment in the case, and the judge
participated in representation in the case;
3. Is the spouse of a party, or of an attorney employed in the case or the judge's parent,
child, or immediate family member is a party or attorney employed in the case; or
4. Is biased, prejudiced, or interested in the case or its outcome or biased or prejudiced
toward or against the parties or the parties' attorneys or any witness to such an extent that
he would be unable to conduct fair and impartial proceedings
So bias and prejudice are good, legal, legitimate reasons for a j/p to refuse to hear a case.

Concerning the performance of a marriage:

PART B – MARRIAGE REQUIREMENTS IN LOUISIANA
Marriage is a legal relationship between a man and woman created by a civil contract. (LA. C.C.
ART. 86).
The three essential requirements for valid marriages in Louisiana are as follows:
1. The absence of legal impediments;
2. A marriage ceremony; and
3. Free consent of the parties to take each other as man and wife, expressed at the ceremony.
§ 1 – Absence of legal impediments
Legal impediments are factors that render a marriage absolutely null. Legal impediments to
marriage are:
1. An existing marriage between one of the parties and another;
2. Marriages between persons of the same sex; and
3. Marriages between persons who are too closely related.
The last legal impediment listed above is defined as marriages between parents and their children
or relatives of the fourth degree (aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, and first cousins). It does not
matter whether these relatives are whole or half blood. This law also applies to illegitimate
relations, as well as legitimate relations and those created by adoption. However, it allows a
court of proper jurisdiction (not a Justice of the Peace Court) to authorize a marriage between
those related by adoption in the collateral line (those relations other than parents and their
legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted children). Such authorization must be in writing. (LA. C.C.
ART. 90).



The couple he refused to marry did not have any of the impediments in which a j/p should refuse to perform a marriage. Had he based his refusal on any of these legal impediments or lack of time, etc., he would have been completely within his rights. To base his decision on a bias that interferes with the civil rights of the couple is NOT given as a reason for recusal where marriage is concerned.


In Louisiana, a justice of the peace IS, and it's unfortunate, a judge. A limited one, and the manual specifies the limitations, but still they are considered a "judge."

 

[akashana]

This story does not surprise me one bit. I live on the MS. coast, out in the country. One of my neighbors is an african american family. Unfortunately we witness almost on a weekly basis the problems they face. They can't ride their bikes around anymore because a few people around here enjoy trying to run them off the road. The bus driver who is willing to pick up my son in front of our house when it is raining will not extend the same offer to them....the list goes on.
However, what is surprising to me is some of the comments being made here. This judge is being chastised for stereotyping interracial couples and their children but there are people here doing the same thing regarding southern families and the stereotypical "I married my brother/cousin/daddy".
And yet no one is being chastised about that stereotype....some even find it humorous.
I was not born and raised here, but my children were born here and might live their whole lives here. They will not marry each other. And I know no one in this area who is in that type of marriage or relationship. I don't see how what is being said here regarding that is any better, safer, or less offensive than what he has said.
*retreating back to lurking mode*

MY BOLD

MM, I certainly did not mean to offend you or any other Southerner, of which I am one, if not by birth than by benefit of living in LA for 27 years. I found that hysterically funny in the context that it was taken, humorously. Obviously, the quoted woman had not mistaken her brother as her husband, but had simply forgotten who had said what to her. But the accent, the choice of phrasing, coupled with the stereotypical incest scenario, make it a really funny remark. Jeff Foxworthy built an entire comedic career out of poking fun at rednecks; they make up his biggest fan base. They are laughing along with him at the jokes.

All PC aside, sometimes it's just really funny.

 

[Nova]

It doesn't surprise me when jokes are made. Jokes are made about every type of stereotype out there. BUT, I don't think everyone finds them funny or unoffensive.
Your post makes it sound like you are speaking for every southerner out there. And in my posts I'm just saying that you are not. Southerners embracing their stereotypes is like the fat kid making jokes about his weight.

I certainly never claimed to speak for ALL of any group.

I merely acknowledged my background as someone with experience of the area and considerable fondness for some of its traditions. I understand how "Southerner" jokes can sting (even while I make such jokes myself).

But I repeat: the stereotypes in question aren't just mocked by outsiders, they are often embraced by (many, not all) Southerners themselves. As such, those types remain a fair target for satire.

 

[Nova]

Nova I just wanted to tell you that most times magistrates do not have any particular legal training. They are retired law enforcement or somebody's buddy who got them the job. They are loosely called judges cause thats what they do in small claims court, but they are not really judges in the sense we usually consider. So when you say, a judge of all people should not have made this mistake, I am saying they aren't really judges, they are just folks.

And they don't work for the federal government but are state employees.

I appreciate the information. But state employees are still bound by federal law, just as all of the rest of us "folks." And however they get the job, members of LE--whether judges, magistrates or cops on the beat--have an obligation to learn and follow the law.

And by now, "folks" everywhere have heard that racial discrimination is illegal and wrong. Any individual has a right to believe otherwise, but if he or she chooses to stand on that belief, he or she has an obligation NOT to become a civil servant.