Not Only Marriage

Honestly (though usually when someone says that, you ought to grab hold of your wallet): this is not intended to offend some liberals and most conservatives.

But it's not just interracial marriage. When news arose of the refusal of Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell in Louisiana's Tangihopa Parish to perform the wedding ceremony for an interracial couple, reaction was swift.

Governor Bobby Jindal asserted "This is a clear violation of constitutional rights and federal and state law. Mr. Bardwell’s actions should be fully reviewed by the Judiciary Commission and disciplinary action should be taken immediately — including the revoking of his license.”

Senator Mary Landrieu, one of the two moderate-conservative Democrats representing the state in the U.S. Senate, declared “Not only does his decision directly contradict Supreme Court rulings, it is an example of the ugly bigotry that divided our country for too long.”

Posting on firedoglake.com, twolf1 quoted Bardwell and remarked sarcastically "Nope, no racism there. None at all. Just trying to protect future children."

Jindal correctly argues that the apparent legal violation committed by Bardwell should provoke consideration of disciplinary action, though his remark that "disciplinary action should be taken immediately" suggests that he already has his mind made up. Nevertheless, his comment and those of Landrieu and the bloger have something unfortunate in common- the Justice of the Peace should be punished because he is a bigot.

Oddly- because the issue is a little more personal for a civil rights organization- the local NAACP has it right, arguing "We recommend the most severe sanctions available be imposed against Mr. Bardwell in his continuing to disobey the law he is sworn to uphold.”

In this country, we don't- or shouldn't- punish individuals for their political views or sociological perspective, no matter how noxious. Nor should we carve out in law special exemptions based on one's political views or sociological perspective.

Except that we do. On October 15, Bardwell complained about his practice of refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for interracial couples

No one’s ever complained about it before. I do it to protect the children. The kids are innocent, and I worry about their futures.

(I know, I know. Others have quipped "yeah, they may grow up to be President." A good line, but.... no, just a good line).

I don't know whether children bred of interracial couples face obstacles children of same-race couples do not. But Bardwell claims that they do, might actually believe they do, and given continuing racial bigotry in this country (and elsewhere), it's hardly inconceivable.

Which shouldn't matter. Neither Bardwell's sociological perspective nor any observations he may have made about human behavior should determine the nature of his continuing employment as a Justice of the Peace. Rather, it should be his apparent refusal to perform the tasks required by someone in his position, "the law he is sworn to uphold."

But if this point is obscured in a rush to brand Bardwell a racist (or, more accurately, a bigot), it is understandable given that not everyone is required to perform the functions of a job that other individuals in the same line of employment are expected to discharge.

I speak, unavoidably, of the "conscience exception" in abortion law. As summarized by the Archdiocese of New Orleans

For decades, Congress has respected the right of health care providers to decline involvement in abortion or abortion referrals, without exception. Since 2004 the Weldon amendment, approved annually as part of the Labor/HHS appropriations act, has forbidden any federal agency or program (or state or local government receiving federal funds under the act) to discriminate against individual or institutional health care providers and insurers because they decline to perform, provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortion. Programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, which fund the rare “Hyde exception” abortions, respect the conscience rights of providers who decline to provide any abortions at all. Other laws respect conscience rights on sterilization and other procedures to which providers may have a moral or religious objection.

Notwithstanding the language of the Weldon Amendment, there is no issue of discrimination because there is no constitutional right to a government subsidy. If a medical procedure, normally performed by health care providers, is considered legal and a provider refuses to perform that function and still retains a government subsidy, a special exemption has been carved out to accomodate that individual's perspective. Performance of the duties of the job is, well, negotiable.

Preference is clearly given to an individual or institution with a determination not to perform abortions even if that act is said to "shock the conscience" of such provider. Make no mistake about it- interracial marriage, albeit unjustifiably, shocks the conscience of Justice of the Peace Bardwell, who maintains "There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage. I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."

This suggests another parallel with abortion. The emotional burden Bardwell believes the offspring of a mixed marriage carry would result not from an inherent disadvantage, but rather from the reactions of others who find mixed marriage disagreeable. Similarly, one pro-life website which welcomes the guilt many women are said to experience after having an abortion claims "For the woman who comes to believe, at some point after the abortion, that she has consented to the killing of her pre-born child, the burden of guilt is relentless." Difficult it is not to feel guilty if half the country believes you have murdered a child while half of that contingent will not let you forget it.

The professional choosing not to perform an abortion may, or may not, be on solid ethical footing. Bardwell is wrong, though his job security, barring resignation, presumably will be determined by the Judicial Commission to which Governor Jindal refers. And that is how it should be, a legal matter in which the individual's willingness to fulfill his job duties should be paramount. Elsewhere, however, other issues intervene.

On The Fringe, Apparently

Sometimes what a politician says quite actually reflects what he, or she, really is thinking. Instead, however, the media would prefer to give the hometown, or statewide, heroine a pass and report what she would rather readers believe that she has said.

A case in point is the comment made by U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (D.-La.), whom no one has ever confused with a liberal/progressive. Greg Hilburn of the newsstar.com writes that Senator Landrieu appeared before the Monroe, Louisiana Chamber of Commerce on August 26 and

When asked after her speech if the senator would support a public option under any circumstances, she said, “Very few, if any. I’d prefer a private market-based approach to any health care reform that would extend coverage.”

Understandably, Hilburn concluded "U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu told a relatively friendly overflow Monroe Chamber of Commerce crowd that she would likely oppose any government insurance option in health care reform...."

It's too much to expect a local paper to investigate the Senator's connections to the industries she supports. Except in a few rare istances,that isn't done any more, in part bcause of a lack of financial incentive. It would have found something worth critical evaluation, such as

Sen. Mary Landrieu raised $1,676,353 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of her career. Her first day in office was January 7, 1997. In total, she has served 4,574 days as a United States Senator. This calculates out to her raising $366.50 every day from the health and insurance sectors.

But someone from Louisiana or national media might have asked Senator Landrieu what she actually meant when she asserted her preference for a

private, market-based approach (to)

any health care reform that would extend coverage.

This is not putting words into the Senator's mouth, but rather what she said. She likely would oppose "any health care reform that would extend coverage" because it is not a "private market-based approach." Her own words, if true, mean that she opposes extension of coverage. Perhaps if asked, she would deny that she meant that. Or maybe she would admit to it. Either way, she would be denied the privilege of having moderate and conservative Louisianans- as well as the mainstream media- believe that she is merely supporting a "market-based approach" while her more conservative audience, doubtless dominating the Chamber of Commerce gathering, is left happily believing that its senator opposes any extension of health care coverage. (Then she might be asked why she likes a "market-based approach" but dislikes competition.)

This is more than an exercise in semantics. Words have meaning. And negotiating with Republicans, or even as in this case, a moderate-conservative Democrat, who oppose even the modest concept of extending health care coverage is (alliteration alert) not only fruitless. It is futile. And foolish. And foolhardy.