Under the Oak

I have not yet seen this on the national news, but an AP story was posted on the website for our local paper reporting that a justice of the peace in Louisiana has been denying interracial couples marriage licenses. To clarify, it is not as though the couple could not get married. They simply had to find another justice of the peace, judge, or minister to sign the license. However, this story gets under my skin a little because it reminds me how often I’ve heard brethren express similar sentiments.

“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press today. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

It seems logical enough, right? Its not that he doesn’t like black people. It’s just that black people should marry black people and white people should marry white people. That’s not racist. Right? In fact, I’ve known black folks who make the same argument (so it can’t be racist! err..right?).

The problem lies in one little word – why? Why does it give us a problem if a person with black skin marries a person with white skin?

Here, the “reasons” begin to pour out just as they do from this guy. He hits the talking points, though, by mentioning the two “reasons” for opposing interracial marriage that I’ve heard most often:

Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

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.

Aren’t those valid arguments?! Uh…no.

First of all, there are a several studies that validate the statement “Interracial marriages tend not to last long.” That being the case, we must ask, ‘Why not?’.  Surely we are not suggesting that the presence of black skin in a marriage somehow “taints” the marriage such that God does not bless it like any other marriage! Then why don’t they tend to last as long? I don’t suppose it would have anything to do with added stresses and pressures brought on by those (particularly amongst the in-laws) who refuse to accept the marriage – because it is interracial. Nah…that couldn’t be it.

The fact is any marriage in which there are significant differences between the two parties – be it cultural, religious, regional, linguistic, etc – tends to face difficulties not faced by other couples. Yet, we generally accept that a person from Maine has a right to marry a Texan and a good Southern boy can marry a girl from California. We might joke about how they will get along, but we don’t refuse to sign their marriage license. In our society, we get to choose who we marry. Denying that a person’s choice of a member of another race is acceptable because the “marriage probably won’t last long” is both unfairly selective and self-fulfilling. If the two people think they can work through whatever cultural differences exist because of race, then more power to them.

Nevermind that most marriages in this country “don’t last that long.”

To me, the second argument is even more depraved, yet it is the one that has given me pause in the past.  “What about the kids?” The argument is essentially that the children of interracial couples face prejudices and therefore it is wrong to bring them into the world.

“There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage,” Bardwell said. “I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.”

So the argument goes something like this: “Why do I attach a stigma to interracial couples? Because there is a stigma against the children of interracial couples. Therefore, it is wrong on some level to have biracial children.” Of course, no one would actually say it like that, but that’s the essence of the argument. Like I said, this used to give me pause, but I’ve come to see how ridiculous an argument this is. By the same logic, we could say that all black people, asian people, and hispanic people should not have children because they will likely face prejudices in our society.  By the same logic, a person who has had one Autistic child should not have any more because the others may also be Autistic and thus be ostracized as a child. By the same logic, a Christian couple should not bear children because they, if they choose to follow Christ, will face persecution from others. I could go on. The argument just doesn’t hold up. If racism is leading to biracial children being ostracized then the solution is to confront the racist children and parents – not to stop having biracial children or to prevent them from being had.

But I don’t think these arguments were ever intended to hold up to any kind of critical thought. Excuses usually aren’t. (I haven’t even bothered mentioning the horribly flawed argument which attempts to use the bible to say that since Jews weren’t supposed to marry outside of Israel that God does not approve of interracial marriages.) The whole point of an excuse is to offer a cover for the real reasons behind whatever it is we are excusing.

The real problem that people have with interracial marriages was aptly expressed to me once by a young teenager from a Christian family – “its just not natural!” This teen, in childlike innocence, expressed what adults instinctively know is not an acceptable argument (thus the plethora of flimsy excuses). It just seems unnatural for a black man and a white woman or a white man and a black woman to marry.

Is it? Lets think about it. Surely we would all agree that it is perfectly natural for a human male and a human female to marry. That is the way God intended it. Indeed, it is pretty much the definition of natural. So natural, in fact, that we have to fight to keep things within the bounds that God set. Yahweh created male and female to compliment one another in just about every way. So what is it about the pigmentation of one’s skin that makes it unnatural for one to marry another?  You see, the only way that such a marriage could possibly be unnatural – against the design of God – would be if one party were to be considered inhuman or subhuman. And that is why adults instinctively know that it is not acceptable to say that such marriages are “unnatural.” It is the very definition of racism to suggest that one race is superior to the other or more perfectly human than the other. If you believe that black people are 100% human and white people are 100% human then there is no more justification for calling interracial marriage “unnatural” than there is to call a marriage between a blonde and a redhead “unnatural” or to call a marriage between an Italian and an American “unnatural.” Whether we want to admit it or not (indeed whether we even realize it or not), thinking of interracial marriage as “unnatural” is based upon racism – not “racism” like the word is thrown around flippantly today, but real, true racism of the vilest kind.

This is the type of thinking that led to chattle slavery, eugenics, and the holocaust.

Whether he realizes it or not, this Louisiana justice of the peace has racism in his heart, and frankly, you do too if you oppose a marriage based solely on the fact that the two parties are of different races.

(By the way…where is all the opposition to a white man and a Hispanic woman? an Asian-American man with a white woman? Surely this isn’t only about the African race.)

UPDATE: The “big name” politicians from Louisiana are scrambling to go on record as being opposed to this guy. I loved this little gem of sarcasm:

“Perhaps he’s worried the kids will grow up and be president,” said Bill Quigley, director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Justice, referring to President Barack Obama, the son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas.

UPDATE: Now, several weeks later, the justice in question has resigned.

Tags: interracial marriage, justice of the peace, Louisiana, Racism