Just as a point of clarification, a Justice of the Peace does not issue marriage licenses, the reporter misspoke. Bardwell refused to marry the couple after they already had a license.
Okay, so Keith Bardwell has decided not to marry interracial couples because he feels that the families will not love the children produced from such a union, leading them to further disadvantages and misery in their lives. (Perhaps he is afraid they will grow up to become President.) He says that he is within his rights because he did not in any fashion prevent the couple from getting married, and that he is not a racist. (He said that this is the only reason he would deny a marriage to any couple. He wouldn’t marry anyone while they were drunk or doing drugs… but they could come back later. One assumes it might also be possible for an interracial couple to come back when they’re both white.)
Where do I start here?
Oh wait, I know. Bardwell’s opinion about whether or not families will accept a child is completely irrelevant. I wasn’t accepted by my grandfather for months after I was born because he didn’t approve of my natural father, and I wasn’t accepted by my adopted father because he is a douche-bag. (Objectively speaking.) Maybe Bardwell should start testing for douche-baggery amongst the nuptually hopeful. But an elected official doesn’t get to decide who he wants to conduct his lawfully mandated services for and who he does not any more than do the police. Imagine if the police only had to uphold the law when and where it seemed to them like it was a “good idea”. (At least the donut shops would be safe.)
Bardwell says he defines a racist as someone who hates blacks… and he has “piles” of black friends. I’d like to expand his definition to a person who restricts the rights of a group of persons based on their ethnicity. You know, like him. Racists have almost always felt that they were simply upholding the truth, mere realists in an unfortunate world of hate and inequality.
I wonder how it got that way.