Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell in Tangipahoa Parish’s 8th Ward refused to perform an “inter-racial” marriage (see here).  Now Gov. Bobby Jindal is calling on him to have his license revoked.

While they are right, this “Justice” is anything but someone who dispenses “justice” and should be forced to resign, will the same standard be applied to the racist, sexist Justice Sonia Sotomayor who repeated, over two decades statements such as:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” – Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 2001 (similar statements were made in 1994, 1999, 2000 and 2003)

Racism and sexism have no place any court and yet the Obama Administration and Congress have appointed a racist, sexist Supreme Court Justice and heralded it as a step forward.

Racism and sexism on the court is a step backwards.  (And the concept of “race” being defined by skin color makes about as much sense as saying “she is a green” because her eyes are green, or “he is a blue” because his eyes or blue, or “he is a red” because he has red hair.  It is absolute insanity to think that skin color would change someone’s “race”.  We’re all part of the human race, let’s just get over it.  Too bad Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Bardwell are too uneducated and bigoted to appreciate reality.  And too bad Congress and the President support a sexist, racist like Justice Sotomayor.)

It wasn’t until approximately 120-140 years ago (depending on the area) that the government began getting involved in the marriage licensing business and providing differing impacts based on your marital status.  Until that point it was a religious issue.  If you found someone to marry you, you got married.  Imagine how that would make the political arguments today like this one?  They’d go away, it would be the private business of the parties involved.  It would be no one else’s business.  Likewise it wasn’t until well after the income tax was passed that it was used to encourage (or discourage) marriage.  Again, if the government treated individuals equally, it would not be an issue.  At the time of the Founding, the thought that the states would be involved in licensing marriage would have been a foreign concept.

As you can see by the comments below, when government gets involved, you end up with a political fight. Which is the intent.  That is why (as described here) power-hungry politicians want the government involved in the maximum of issues – they can then divide us and keep their power.

Finally, it is not the business of the Justice here to determine whether or not he personally approves or whether he believes it will harm any potential children.  His job is to enforce the law and the laws of the state do not prohibit inter-‘racial’ marriage.  Legislation from the bench is wrong no matter who is doing it.  If he can not uphold his oath to enforce the laws of the state (or Federal) he should resign.  A judge who will not enforce the law is not qualified to serve.  Whether he likes it or not, it is just too bad.

Racism is discrimination based on skin color, aka “race” (“colorism” or “skinism” would probably be a more accurate term).  Anyone, no matter the language they speak, the color of the eyes, skin or hair, gender or where they are from, who makes distinctions based on the color of someone’s skin is not just racist, they are ignorant.  Discrimination for someone’s idea of a good cause is as evil as discrimination for a bad cause.

No doubt the KKK thought their racism was for a “good cause,” but that does not mean it was not ignorant and was not racism.  The government must be color-blind in all its affairs or it is condoning racism – for example, affirmative action is not color blind. Just as slavery is bad whether it is “for someone’s idea of a good cause,” “for no cause,” or “for a bad cause” discrimination based on the color of someone’s skin is bad no matter what the motivation. People who discriminate “for” one group are discriminating “against” another and it is wrong, evil, and only encourages strife.  Discriminating against the innocent today for the sins of the guilty of the past is fair to no individual, but blatantly promoted by the race peddlers today.  Discrimination in favor of the innocent today against other innocents today does nothing to help the people harmed in the past.  In short discrimination today will do nothing to remedy the discrimination of the past. Everyone’s ancestors were discriminated against at one point or another.  But I am not owed a debt by the people that did it to my ancestors, nor does anyone owe the reverse.  The sins of the great-grandmothers are not the sins of the sons.

Anyone who favors discrimination based on skin color is a racist.  Period.  Anyone who is against Martin Luther King’s dream of people being judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin is a racist by the definition of racism.  Affirmative action judges people differently based on the color of their skin.  It may be uncomfortable to hear, but affirmative action advocates are racist just as the KKK, no matter that they think racism for a good cause is justified.  Just as Robert Byrd, Democrat Senator, former KKK was a blatant pro-KKK racist until at least 1982, affirmative action advocates will eventually have to confront the fact that they are judging people by the color of their skin, just as the KKK does.  There are plenty of racists who think “racism for a good cause” is okay, but the impact is the same, you are judging based on the color of someone’s skin, the most evil and  ludicrous distinction that can be made.

When the government uses force to enforce racism it is even worse.  Being an ignorant individual is protected in a free society, but government racism is not.  Everyone is free to be stupid, ignorant, smart or anything else as long as they are willing to bear the cost of so being. People are free to make good decisions and bad decisions as long as they are the ones who pay the price for doing so.  However, as the Justices above are both ignorant racists, it is impossible to uphold the law of the land while continuing their racist statements.  Being a racist officer of the court is not protect nor should it be tolerated.