Loading ...Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License
ByA justice of the peace in Hammond, Louisiana has refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple. In the last few posts here, we’ve been talking about “anti-miscegenation laws” intended to prohibit intermarriage between blacks and whites. Most of this discussion has been framed as part of a distant past influencing the present in various ways, and in fact, that history continues to live as illustrated by the story about the Louisiana justice’s decision that is lighting up the Internet tonight. But, it’s ok, because you know, he’s “not a racist” and he’s just “concerned about the children” the couple might have. Here’s the story from Associated Press:
Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long. Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.
“I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for the children.”
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
“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.”
If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
“I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.
Thirty-year-old Beth Humphrey and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.
Humphrey told the newspaper 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.
“It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009,” said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzman. “The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry.”
The ACLU was preparing a letter for the Louisiana Supreme Court, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and see if they can remove him from office, Schwartzman said.
“He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it,” Schwartzman said.
Just to review, it is legal for interracial couples to marry in the U.S. but it used to be illegal. As I wrote about here awhile back, the case that overturned this stupidity was Loving v. Virginia decided in 1967 (there’s also a Lifetime TV movie about the case). And, if you’d like to school yourself on the particulars of where and when interracial marriage was illegal in the U.S., check out this cool, interactive map about interracial marriage laws (h/t Nancy Netherland for this resource).
And, to further review the evidence, children of interracial marriages do not suffer in when compared to other children provided that they grow up in an environment that’s accepting of diversity and children of interracial marriages. If children of interracial marriages encounter racism (and other structural disadvantages), then they’re more likely to experience stress, and health-related risks due to that increased stress, such as smoking and drinking. That’s a result of racism, and yet another reason to work to end racism. It should not be used – turning logic on its head – as a reason to perpetuate racism.
You’ve asked a great question! No, I’m not saying that if we pick one black man and one white one at random and have them play one-on-one we can expect to predict the outcome. I’m saying that if we take 1,000 black men and 1,000 white men and have them play round-robin, the black guys will win more games. Good question.
.
The other implication of this is that if we take 10,000 men at random and figure out who the best basketball player is, he’s likely to be black, even though blacks are only about 10 percent of the sample. The small difference in average translates to a large difference at the extreme.
.
There’s nothing to disagree with in your last paragraph. I don’t know if it’s all true (e.g., humans are more genetically homogeneous than any other mammal), but I have no reason to disagree. The point, however, is that we are not genetically identical. There are differences in populations based on where their ancestors lived. Many of those differences are irrelevant, but some are significant. Some are highly significant in terms of explaining differences in outcomes between groups.
.
The important point is not whether humans are isolated now, I agree, we are mostly not isolated. The issue is that were were isolated the large majority of our recent evolutionary history. In other words, for most of the last 50,000 years, we didn’t have jet airplanes. So people who lived in, say, Central Asia tended to mate with other people from Central Asia. Over the long haul, that made people from Central Asia a genetically distinct bunch. Not a new species, or even a sub-species. Maybe not even a race, maybe just a great big family. It doesn’t matter what you call it. What matters is that on average people from Central Asia are genetically distinct from people from, say, Northern Europe.
.
You are quite right that there are other factors that can affect outcomes — such as climate, diet, and culture. I assume (although I can’t prove) that these factors explain why West Africans from West Africa aren’t in the Olympic 100 meters, while West Africans from America are. Your example may not be a great one, however. The short limbs in cold climates seems like a genetic adaptation not a short-term environmental effect. If you take an Eskimo baby (Is it Politically Correct to call them Eskimos? I can’t be bothered to remember.) and raise him in Beverly Hills, he’ll still look like an Eskimo — he’ll just be wearing Abercrombie and Fitch instead of sealskin. He won’t be tall, blond, and thin like his classmates because his genes are unchanged. He might, however, be taller than he would have been otherwise, since he’ll be eating fois gras and ribeye instead of blubber. So it’s a combination, like you said.
.
Another politically incorrect implication of all this is that racism is probably at least partly driven by our genes. Those genes that cause us to be biased in favor of our children, our families, and eventually our race will have a better chance of surviving than unbiased genes. (You can tell this is true if you have kids. It’s amazing how biased I can be in preference to my own children.) That’s not to excuse racism or to justify bad behavior. It’s just to point out that the vision we’re all supposed to buy into of everybody living together in color-blind harmony may never be possible. It may be that nobody really wants it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No1Kstate, why don’t you let me make my own argument? As usual, your rebuttal boils down to calling me a racist. Yawn.
.
Of course, you’re doing that not because you think it will have any effect on me (it won’t since I’m fully confident of my own logical and moral positions) but for the benefit of Distance88. You believe that if you call me a racist you’ll be giving him permission to ignore anything I say. This is not a new trick.
.
The person it hurts, however, is not me. It’s Distance88, and it’s you. Rather than understanding my argument and accepting it or refuting in logically, you put your hands over your ears. The result is that, although I am fully aware of your position and its many weaknesses, you have no idea what I and people like me actually think. You have no idea whether science — real science, not the nonsense peddled by the so-called scientists on this site — supports me or not. And you have no idea how to actually debate me when the deck is not stacked in your favor.
.
This isn’t to pat myself on the back. I’m sure that there are plenty of people around this site who are much smarter than I am. Who knows, maybe you are. My only advantage is that I’m not constrained by Political Correctness. That’s it, but it’s enough.
.
Finally, I have no “premise against racial equality.” I believe that equality is a moral position, not a scientific one; and that it is individuals and not groups that are equal in moral terms. To say that all groups of people are “equal” in every way is absurd. To say that all Men are created Equal is very, very different. I believe the latter. The former is laughable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“You have no idea whether science — real science, not the nonsense peddled by the so-called scientists on this site — supports me or not.”
.
Don’t poison the well. Every type of science and methodology is subject to the same set of biases–financial, social, or political. If you disagree with a particular sociological study, then by all means, point out its faults; but dismissing an entire field of study out of hand seems a bit hasty, at best. I can’t speak for everyone here, but the science is what I use to form my political/social beliefs, not the other way around.
.
As far as humans having an isolated past, I just don’t see it. Would you call the Roman Empire isolated? Would you say that the reign of the Mongols only extended to Central Asia? Those are tough points to make. Further, I think it’s more reasonable to believe that humans started in one geographic location (i.e. Africa) and then spread out, instead of believing that different groups of humans simultaneously sprang up all at once on several different continents.
.
As far as genetics go, we’ll also just have to agree to disagree. I will leave you with a small blurb from NIH, I can’t tell if you’d consider what they do ‘real science’ or not…
“Homo sapiens is a relatively young species and has not had as much time to accumulate genetic variation as have the vast majority of species on earth, most of which predate humans by enormous expanses of time. Nonetheless, there is considerable genetic variation in our species. The human genome comprises about 3 x 109 base pairs of DNA, and the extent of human genetic variation is such that no two humans, save identical twins, ever have been or will be genetically identical. Between any two humans, the amount of genetic variation—biochemical individuality—is about 0.1 percent. This means that about one base pair out of every 1,000 will be different between any two individuals. Any two (diploid) people have about 6 x 106 base pairs that are different, an important reason for the development of automated procedures to analyze genetic variation.
.
The most common polymorphisms (or genetic differences) in the human genome are single base-pair differences. Scientists call these differences SNPs, for single-nucleotide polymorphisms. When two different haploid genomes are compared, SNPs occur, on average, about every 1,000 bases. Other types of polymorphisms—for example, differences in copy number, insertions, deletions, duplications, and rearrangements—also occur, but much less frequently.
.
Notwithstanding the genetic differences between individuals, all humans have a great deal of their genetic information in common. These similarities help define us as a species. Furthermore, genetic variation around the world is distributed in a rather continuous manner; there are no sharp, discontinuous boundaries between human population groups. In fact, research results consistently demonstrate that about 85 percent of all human genetic variation exists within human populations, whereas about only 15 percent of variation exists between populations . That is, research reveals that Homo sapiens is one continuously variable, inter-breeding species. Ongoing investigation of human genetic variation has even led biologists and physical anthropologists to rethink traditional notions of human racial groups. The amount of genetic variation between these traditional classifications actually falls below the level that taxonomists use to designate subspecies, the taxonomic category for other species that corresponds to the designation of race in Homo sapiens. This finding has caused some biologists to call the validity of race as a biological construct into serious question.
.
Analysis of human genetic variation also confirms that humans share much of their genetic information with the rest of the natural world—an indication of the relatedness of all life by descent with modification from common ancestors. The highly conserved nature of many genetic regions across considerable evolutionary distance is especially obvious in genes related to development. For example, mutations in the patched gene produce developmental abnormalities in Drosophila, and mutations in the patched homolog in humans produce analogous structural deformities in the developing human embryo.
.
What Is the Significance of Human Genetic Variation?
Almost all human genetic variation is relatively insignificant biologically— that is, it has no apparent adaptive significance. Some variation (for example, a neutral mutation) alters the amino acid sequence of the resulting protein but produces no detectable change in its function. Other variation (for example, a silent mutation) does not even change the amino acid sequence. Furthermore, only a small percentage of the DNA sequences in the human genome is coding sequences (sequences that are ultimately translated into protein) or regulatory sequences (sequences that can influence the level, timing, and tissue specificity of gene expression). Differences that occur elsewhere in the DNA—in the vast majority of the DNA that has no known function—have no impact.
..
The whole article is here http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih1/genetic/guide/genetic_variation1.htm
…
@KState–
Point well taken. My new approach to opposing viewpoints in Internet comment sections is to try to contain myself and bite my tongue 90% of the time (it usually only works out to about 50-60% tho); the rest of the time is just venting, I guess, even if it is just a waste of breath.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Distance88, the Roman empire ended 1,500 years ago. That’s not long in the evolutionary history of humans. As a point of reference, modern humans left Africa around 50,000 years ago. All the variation in non-African humans has occurred since then, and for most of that period there was little or no interaction across long distances.
.
(I’d be willing to bet that even in the Roman Empire, the large majority of children were born to parents who were born within, say, 50 miles of each other. In fact, I bet that’s true even today. In other words, I doubt there’s as much mixing as you might think.)
.
I read the excerpt you gave from NIH. Nothing, not a single word, contradicts what I’ve said. I hope you’ll take that statement seriously before you agree to disagree.
.
I do not say lightly that what goes on around here is not science. It’s advocacy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Darin, you said, “Some (genetic differences) are highly significant in terms of explaining differences in outcomes between groups.”
.
NIH said, “Almost all human genetic variation is relatively insignificant biologically— that is, it has no apparent adaptive significance…Differences that occur elsewhere in the DNA—in the vast majority of the DNA that has no known function—have no impact.”
.
You said, “So people who lived in, say, Central Asia tended to mate with other people from Central Asia. Over the long haul, that made people from Central Asia a genetically distinct bunch” and “Persians, East Indians, and Chinese are all “Asian,” at least in one sense, but you’d have to be blind to think they’re particularly close cousins genetically speaking.”
.
NIH said, “all humans have a great deal of their genetic information in common… genetic variation around the world is distributed in a rather continuous manner; there are no sharp, discontinuous boundaries between human population groups. In fact, research results consistently demonstrate that about 85 percent of all human genetic variation exists within human populations, whereas about only 15 percent of variation exists between populations . That is, research reveals that Homo sapiens is one continuously variable, inter-breeding species.”
.
These sure seem like examples of contradiction to me, but I’d be willing to soften my stance and say that they ‘don’t support’ the points you make.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re definitely paying attention. I’m impressed. Let’s tackle these one at a time.
.
First — Significance of Variations in Genes
.
NIH is quite right that most genetic variation is insignificant. The reason is that most genes have literally no effect on how you are built or how you operate. They are genetic dead-weight. Since these genes are in the majority, most mutations will occur in them, and thus have no effect. Furthermore, since these mutations don’t affect the “person,” they have no adaptive benefit. (Perhaps somebody with a stronger background in biology can explain this better.) Hopefully you can see how this does not contradict my argument at all.
.
Second — Variations in Genes Among Humans
.
The statement that humans share the majority of their genes is true, but not particularly helpful for our conversation. Humans share the majority of their genes with chimps, too, but you wouldn’t confuse a human with a chimpanzee. Of course, the reason humans genes are close is that humans are all part of the same species; and the reason our genes are close to chimps’ is that we’re genetically close to chimps — closer than to, say, fruit flies. So genetic closeness is relative. We’re close to chimps compared to dogs, but not close to chimps compared to other humans.
.
Even when intra-group variation is larger than inter-group, the difference between the groups can still be significant.
.
You should not confuse the percentage of genes that are shared with what we’re talking about: whether there are meaningful differences between groups of people based at least in part on genes. Even if only one gene out of millions were different, that may be all it takes. We’re interested in a tiny number of mutations; only those that affect the person, and only those whose effects are meaningful.
.
Third – Continuously Variable Population
.
Again, this is true, but not important. Picture your 128-crayon box from first grade. It could be a little difficult to tell exactly when you moved from the blues to the greens, but nobody ever confused goldenrod with burnt sienna. Furthermore, you can make statements about the crayons such as, “The reds are to the left of the blues.” Sure it’s possible that barn red is actually to the right of plum, but the general point is still valid. It’s probabilistically true, not absolutely true.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wasn’t rebutting you, Darin. I was addressing 88.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry, Darin. Didn’t realize you had more to say. But it’s hard to refute what’s not there. I’ve engaged you before. I guess a person could argue you have a certain kind logic. But you ignore points that nullify your logic or responde with suppositions and conjecture. There is absolutely no scientific basis for the notion that there’s any difference between “races.” I know that for a fact. So don’t think of me as ignoring you. Think of me as being more responsible with my time. Besides, you used to ignore me, right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, I guess we’ll let anyone who’s interested judge for himself who’s using “supposition and conjecture” and who’s using facts. I don’t think there’s much question about it, but I don’t expect to convince you. You’ve got your mind made up already.
.
I don’t think I’ve complained about you ignoring me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The person it hurts, however, is not me. It’s Darin said: Distance88, and it’s you. Rather than understanding my argument and accepting it or refuting in logically, you put your hands over your ears. The result is that, although I am fully aware of your position and its many weaknesses, you have no idea what I and people like me actually think. You have no idea whether science — real science, not the nonsense peddled by the so-called scientists on this site — supports me or not. And you have no idea how to actually debate me when the deck is not stacked in your favor.
JEEEEZZZZ!!!
@Darin0 LOL Understanding your argument or refuting it logically? LOL More like listen too me and accept what I’m telling you is law. Darin, apparently, somebody differs with your opinion. The only time that we attack another person’s credibility is when our ego in under attack. Maybe there’s a little truth in what everybody is saying, but to out and out tell people that their field of study is BS is like saying they are full of BS.. That’s not very nice and to be completely honest, I have enjoyed everybody’s comments, except the “meanies”, and your personal attacks are a sign of weakness on your part. Play nice:)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Darin:
>I agree that Sociology and Psychology aren’t exact sciences like physics or chemistry. However, this does not mean that these fields of study are invalid. It simply means these fields are more dynamic and fluid than math or science..in that new information is constantly changing the landscape. In fact, new information is Constantly changing the numerous fields of science..so this holds doubly true for Sociology. Again, not a basis for dismissing its studies.
> That said, I don’t think Most People would have a problem with what constitutes Being a Racist. If you claim to know what a person will do {without even meeting them} based on his race..that’s racism. Racism is total denial of the individual’s worth or feelings or belief system or abilities. It’s treating them as A Foregone Conclusion.
> Additionally, no studies I’ve ever read have proven that human races differ in any other capacity except appearance. The precepts you are positing are your individual hypothetical musings. If this…then maybe that? If that…then why not this?
>Nice to cogitate over, but not really any scientific basis for. It’s like the UFO phenomena. Show me ET’s phone and I’ll believe. Otherwise we can just ruminate til the proverbial cows come home.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ellen, I agree that sociology and psychology can be treated scientifically — along with other “soft” fields such as economics, political science, anthropology, and so on. My problem isn’t with the field per se, it’s with the way sociology is practiced or at least presented here. What we see, other than strained discussions about confronting black teenage vandals, is a whole bunch of disparate impact studies that fail to account for politically-incorrect but relevant parameters. The reason, of course, is that when you’re a “white ally” it won’t do to find that racism is not a powerful explainer of differences in outcomes between races.
.
If you’ve never read as study suggesting that races differ in ways other than appearance, then you’re reading very, very selectively.
.
Actually, this is a little exasperating. I’ve written paragraphs about the biology, anthropology, and economics relevant to the discussion. I’m far from an expert, but I know the basic facts. All I get in response is a bunch of people, including you, Ellen, saying, “That’s your opinion.” No it’s not.
.
Actually, I’ve done my best to present my point based on logic, not preponderance of evidence. The reason should be obvious: if I’m wrong, any of you can presumably identify the flaws in my logic and point them out, without knowing a great deal about evolutionary biology for example. I’m still waiting. I know Distance88 is “agreeing to disagree,” although other than my conclusions I don’t know what he disagrees with. No1KState seems to mostly be having a one-man argument. Even you are telling me I’m just musing.
.
I don’t know. Sometimes it’s enough to make me think I’ve chosen the wrong line of work. Maybe I’ll go back to pro basketball. Less aggravation. Besides, there’s not as much money in this as you might think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] ya Racism Review ililichachafya suala la Bardwell “ kujali watoto” kwa ushahidi wa watoto waliotakana na uhusiano wa rangi [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Racism Review membalas alasan Bardwell akan “khawatir akan nasib anak” dengan bukti anak-anak dari hubungan antar ras: Dan, untuk membahas bukti lebih lanjut, anak-anak dari [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0