Marriage is one of the happiest moments in a person’s life, a celebration of two people joining together in love. No one should deny that union and live to tell the tale. That is the case with Louisiana Justice of the Peace, Keith Bardwell, who refused to perform a marriage ceremony for an interracial couple in October. He instead referred the couple to a justice in a neighboring ward.

Bardwell “recused” himself from officiating four other marriages during his time in office. I wonder how the news of this particular refusal became public…? Regardless, the nation cried foul as the story hit the media circuits. Governor Bobby Jindal declared that, “Disciplinary action should be taken immediately – including the revoking of his license.”

In an interview with CBS, Bardwell pointed out that he did not prevent the couple from getting married, but merely didn’t want to be the one to solemnize their union. Despite this, the combination of media attention, a federal lawsuit, and public outcry reached fever pitch and Bardwell ultimately resigned on November 3, stating that he would rather step down than change his policy.

In the aftermath of this incident, I had a few thoughts. Although I disagree with Mr. Bardwell’s actions and feel his perspective is too dated to qualify him as a leader of a community, I can’t help putting myself in his shoes. He was raised in a different era, one we now view as fundamentally backward, yet the twenty-first century has its own controversies.

Is it possible to uphold our personal beliefs without infringing on another’s civil and constitutional right? What can be said of Ob-Gyns who refuse to perform abortions? Yobie Benjamin of the San Francisco Chronicle poses whether elected officials can deny marrying a gay couple in a jurisdiction where same-sex marriage is allowed.

People are entitled to their own opinions yet freedom of speech and choice is what makes America unique to many other countries. Should Bardwell lose his job for exercising what he believed was his constitutional right? In the last 50 years society has become more liberal, times have evolved; is rallying against those who can’t keep up a symptom that we have become less forgiving and more litigious?

Oh, and Bardwell cited the children of interracial marriages as his basis for un-action. Where have we heard that one before? Just as marriage was restricted to same-race couples fifty years ago, they are being restricted to same-sex couples today. Those who challenge gay marriage often use “the children” – and their potential identity and socialization issues – as grounds for opposition. Is gay marriage the interracial marriage of yesteryear? Can Bardwell salvage his reputation? Only time will tell.

Posted by Rebecca on November 11, 2009 at 8:00 am.