http://www.antipelagian.com/2009/10/keith-bardwella-racist-democrat-or.html

…oops.

B-Rob:
Wondering why you changed the subject from racism against an interracial couple.

That’s a rather ignorant criticism, don’t you think, given that my comment was a direct reply to:

Joseph Slater: Apparently, a story like this is annoying for the “racism doesn’t exist anymore” lobby.

A quote which you helpfully left out, because your complaint would look rather silly with it left in, on the grounds that one might think that if you were going to complain about thread derailment, you would criticize the person who started the derailment, not someone who replied to him.

is Sandy just ignorant about history, or is he/she just so embarassed by the pro-segregation arguments of the conservatives that he/she would rather lie about what happened than deal with that unfortunate reality?

Are we not allowed another option: ‘all of the above’?

Of course, they already do. In fact, Liza married two gay men. But I can’t marry one. Sad, isn’t it?

Sandy MacHoots: You have this wrong. It was small-government, anti-FDR Republicans who worked to stop segregation. It was big-government, FDR-supporting Southern Democrats (like Fulbright) who fought to save it.

I am not sure if this post is influenced by the writer’s ignorance or if she is simply being dishonest. At any rate, the fact that small government, anti-FDR Republicans like Barry Goldwater, Robert Bork, William Rhenquist, William F. Buckley and the National Review, etc., and the GOP 1964 all OPPOSED DESEGREGATION makes me wonder:

is Sandy just ignorant about history, or is he/she just so embarassed by the pro-segregation arguments of the conservatives that he/she would rather lie about what happened than deal with that unfortunate reality?

The GOPers who bucked their party and supported the Civil Rights Act were moderates and liberals, like Rockefeller and Chuck Percy. Indeed, I noticed that you did not identify a single supposed “small-government, anti-FDR Republican” who supported the anti-segregation efforts.

No no, Sandy, the facts are the facts. Conservatives from both parties fought, unsuccessfully, to permit the continued degradation of America’s minority citizens, and they did it using arguments about “freedom from government intrusion” and “state’s rights” and “custom and tradition.” Cons opposed Loving v. Virginia; they did not celebrate it. Cons picked the losing side back then and the present day Dem lock on minority voting is a natural consequence of past conservative opposition.

Ryan Waxx: You’re right! The existence of one nutcase proves the evil that lies in every white man’s heart.I wonder if I get to paint All Blacks based on some random black rapist or carjacker, now…

Wondering why you changed the subject from racism against an interracial couple.

troll_dc2: Yes, it works in both directions.

JustAStudent: Could someone do a 14th Amend. / Loving analysis? Is there any subtlety or distinction here? Or does Loving simply 100% control?

JustAStudent asks about the effect of a United States Supreme Court decision. Such decisions are “the law of the land.” The Supreme Court ruling in 1967 declared unconstitutional Virginia’s “Racial Integrity Act.” That law prohibited marriage between whites and blacks (also called an “anti-miscegenation statute”) and the United States’ Supreme Court decision overturned that law. The effect was to end all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

Tne United States Supreme Court itself engaged in a Fourteenth Amendment analysis, stating “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. 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.”

Government officials, like justices of the peace, are required to follow the law of the land, even if they don’t like it. Thus, Justice of the Peace Bardwell, who has, according to his own account, been a justice of the peace for 34 years, started out as a justice of the peace ten years after the Loving v. Virginia case was decided. Any time he has treated the marriage of a couple where one is black and the other is white in a manner differently than marriage where both people are of the same race is a blatant violation of law.

It is inexcusable that Bardwell subjected this couple to his personal prejudices.

I really doubt that. The JP they find to do the ceremony will probably do a fine job, and one of the joys of their golden years will be telling their half-incredulous (mixed-race) grandchildren once again the story about “how the justice of the peace tried to keep your grandma and granddaddy from getting married.”

Joseph Slater: Apparently, a story like this is annoying for the “racism doesn’t exist anymore” lobby.

You’re right! The existence of one nutcase proves the evil that lies in every white man’s heart.

I wonder if I get to paint All Blacks based on some random black rapist or carjacker, now…

Sandy MacHoots: You have this wrong. It was small-government, anti-FDR Republicans who worked to stop segregation.

Yes, small-government, anti-FDR Republicans like Martin Luther King, Jr., Bayard Rustin (a former member of CPUSA and labor organizer), A. Philip Randolph (Socialist and labor organizer) and John Lewis (a current Democratic House of Representatives member).

Chris R: I suppose next he’s gonna suggest that Gay men and women can’t marry.

If gay men and women married, there wouldn’t be an issue .

I rather enjoyed that set of links, zuch. Honestly, I don’t feel in any way embarrassed to be lumped in with “those people.” I’m sure you could have found much better links to shock the conscience if you had really tried at it. Yeah, a couple of funny posters and a little bit of impassioned rhetoric — so what? What’s the alternative, to be a lefty protester, content to cause bodily injury and trash property when railing at their own injustices?

I always find it strange when conservatives claim to be so high above their fellow conservatives who have wacky views like ‘birthers’, yet demand all ‘lefties’ be lumped together.

That sort of hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.

B-Rob: WHAT? Conservatives simply picked the wrong side in the race battles, both in 1860 and in 1965.

You have this wrong. It was small-government, anti-FDR Republicans who worked to stop segregation. It was big-government, FDR-supporting Southern Democrats (like Fulbright) who fought to save it. Virtually the entire country was racist in 1860. But only some people thought government should have the power to enslave people. You need a powerful government to keep an entire race in bondage — few free market libertarians are likely to vote for it.

You may be confused by the fact that “conservative” is often simply a perjorative term applied to people. For example, if you read the New York Times, it’s the the hardline Marxist-Leninists who are described as “conservatives” in Russia, while the Reagan-loving free-market pro-democracy folks are “liberals.”

Growing up in Detroit I saw enough of that sort of politics to last a lifetime.

Cohen’s last primary was encouraging.

You sound kookier than the people in the posts you linked to.

Nick

Steve: Yes, it works in both directions.Is Steve Cohen a racist campaigner? I’m not aware of that.

No, he isn’t, but then that I don’t think troll_dc2 was suggesting he is. Herenton is a racist campaigner, though. And I think it can be argued that politicians like Sharpe James have shown themselves to be racist campaigners when attacking opponents their own race (Corey Booker) as inauthentic.

neurodoc: Bardwell is a justice of the peace in Louisiana, a state with much experience of racial classifications and a desire to be precise in such matters. Homer Plessy of Plessy v Ferguson fame, though of fair complexion, was officially an “octaroon” in the eyes of that state.

That should have been “octoroon,” but I guess I didn’t hit the save button after making the correction.

matt c: there is no race discrimination here. he refuses to marry interracial couples–not just black man, white girl or white man, indian girl. this is the epitome of being race neutral. now is he racist? maybe, but is not practicing racial discrimination by any definition.

If I am not allowed to marry a certain woman because she and I are of different racial backgrounds but there would be no bar to you marrying her because you and she were both of the same racial background, then there is race discrimination.

Joe: When I hear “maroon,” I think Bugs Bunny cartoon.

And when I hear Maroon, I think of Marianis and other Italians in Chicago where the voice of Bugs Bunny came from, with their characteristic oath, calling on Mary, which sounds an awful lot like “Marroan!”

There are lots of derivation of similar words, but if one of them was ever tied to a slave rebellion, well, then you must be racist….

sheesh

richard: And, of course, this paragon of judicial wisdom is able to tell, by looking at the couple, who is black, white, mixed, etc. (I presume the marriage license doesn’t ask the couple to state their race). What a maroon

Bardwell is a justice of the peace in Louisiana, a state with much experience of racial classifications and a desire to be precise in such matters. Homer Plessy of Plessy v Ferguson fame, though of fair complexion, was officially an “octaroon” in the eyes of that state.

ricky: If you think that the Civil War was about slavery, you have already accepted the liberal revisionist history.

Ok, you had the South versus the North. All were states and all had people in them. Now what is the ONE THING that distinguished the South from the North? Anyone want to guess?

C’mon! Don’t be dense. On course the war was “about” slavery. It was about abolishing WHAT peculiar institution? It was about preserving the Union that was riven over WHAT? Conservatives simply picked the wrong side in the race battles, both in 1860 and in 1965. You played the bad hand and the demographics are coming back on you guys like a mofo. But don’t be obtuse.

Dunstan: Society is pretty tough on mixed-race children. Why, last November, one of them got stuck with the toughest job in the country.

Or as The Onion put it: “Black Man Given Sh*tty Job”.

Yeah, a couple of funny posters and a little bit of impassioned rhetoric — so what?…

Couldn’t find the link I really wanted, where one person interviewed them and started asking them … well, simple … questions. It’s hilarious … and appalling. Maybe I’ll look some more when I get a chance. They’re nitwits that need the GOP and its PR minions to print the instructions on the bottom of their shoe to know what to do.

… What’s the alternative, to be a lefty protester, content to cause bodily injury and trash property when railing at their own injustices?

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, and a fallacy of bifurcation to boot.

Cheers,

Is an elected official different than a preacher in this case?

Is Steve Cohen a racist campaigner? I’m not aware of that.

No, it makes perfect sense. You see, people in LA will argue that gays are not discriminated against because they still have the right to marry. they can marry any old person of the opposite sex. Likewise, straights are burdened just as much as gay people are, in that they *cannot* marry anyone of the same gender.

Therefore, since gays and straights are treated the same, there is no discrimination. (Which, by the way, is used with a straight face by several commentators here at the VC)

In this case, the judge can easily make the exact same argument by denying these two people a marriage. He can say that the white person has exactly the same marriage rights as the black person — they can each marry a person of their same race. Likewise, they are each equally burdened — they cannot marry a person of a different race.

Therefore, since blacks and whites are treated the same, there is no discrimination.

What he is on to is the travesty of sullying the pure flower of white womanhood. How icky that is to him.

I see more and more interracial families all the time. Further, an astounding number of kids nowadays are born out of wedlock. His reason is a very transparent excuse for his transparent racism. I’d like to ask him how many white couples, and how many black couples, he has refused to marry out of concern for their children.

zuch: These people and these people and these people and these people and these people are not liberals.The “birthers” and “Tenthers” and so on are all yours…

I rather enjoyed that set of links, zuch. Honestly, I don’t feel in any way embarrassed to be lumped in with “those people.” I’m sure you could have found much better links to shock the conscience if you had really tried at it. Yeah, a couple of funny posters and a little bit of impassioned rhetoric — so what? What’s the alternative, to be a lefty protester, content to cause bodily injury and trash property when railing at their own injustices?