Some Unanswered Questions on the Justice of the Peace Who Refuses to Wed Interracial Couples Story

Posted by Audiegrl

Mildred and Richard Loving

Mildred and Richard Loving

It’s ironic that last Wednesday Louisiana was visited by the President of the United States, who just happens to be a biracial child of a interracial marriage. It was also the day that the story broke about the Louisianan Justice of the Peace who refused to marry a interracial couple. We all thought that in 1967, in the case Loving vs. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot prohibit marriages simply because of the race of the spouses. But E. Keith Bardwell has other ideas.

One of the things the National media has not picked up on yet… In the past, Bardwell has always campaigned as a Democratic Justice of the Peace (1996, 2002, 2008). His ward is in a historically Democratic area. As of 12/31/2008 Bardwell switched parties and is now listed as a Republican. We would like to know what prompted this abrupt change in political parties? What happened that would make a long time Democrat in a Democratic district change party affiliations?

Another thing the National media has not picked up on yet… Due to some great investigative journalism by local reporter Don Ellzey of the Hammond Daily Star, we know that:

Bardwell said the State Attorney General told him years ago that he would eventually get into trouble for not performing interracial marriages.

I told him if I do, I’ll resign,” Bardwell said. “I have rights too. I’m not obligated to do that just because I’m a justice of the peace.”

The 44 Diaries has contacted the Louisiana State’s Attorney’s office to get further clarification. We contacted Jennifer Roche, the Public Information Officer for the Louisiana Attorney General James D. “Buddy” Caldwell. We specifically asked if the LSA office had any official statement on this incident. We also asked if the LSA office had any comment on Bardwell’s claim that a “State Attorney General told him years ago that he would eventually get into trouble for not performing interracial marriages.” If a previous AG knew he was doing something illegal, then why was he allowed to run for and serve as justice of the peace all these years? We contacted the office Friday afternoon by both phone and email, and have not recieved a reply yet. We will gladly provide an update once those questions have been answered.

Newlyweds Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay

Newlyweds Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay

CNN/AP—A justice of the peace in Louisiana who has drawn widespread criticism for refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple says he has no regrets about his decision.

It’s kind of hard to apologize for something that you really and truly feel down in your heart you haven’t done wrong,” Keith Bardwell told CNN affiliate WAFB on Saturday.

Bardwell, a justice of the peace for Tangipahoa Parish’s 8th Ward, refused to issue a marriage license to Beth Humphrey, 30, and her then boyfriend, Terence McKay, 32, both of Hammond.

Gov. Bobby Jindal

Gov. Bobby Jindal

Bardwell’s actions have elicited reactions from some top officials, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who called for Bardwell’s dismissal.

This is a clear violation of constitutional rights and federal and state law. … disciplinary action should be taken immediately — including the revoking of his license,” the Republican governor said Friday.

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

E. Keith Bardwell

E. Keith Bardwell

I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. “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.”

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.”

AP—Bardwell has said he always asks if a couple is interracial and, if they are, refers them to another justice of the peace. Bardwell said no one had complained in the past and he doesn’t marry the couples because he’s worried about their children’s futures.

William P. Quigley

William P. Quigley

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.

Obama’s deputy press secretary Bill Burton echoed those sentiments.

I’ve found that actually the children of biracial couples can do pretty good,” Burton told reporters aboard Air Force One as it flew to Texas.

Bardwell maintains he can recuse himself from marrying people. Quigley disagreed.

A justice of the peace is legally obligated to serve the public, all of the public,” Quigley said. “Racial discrimination has been a violation of Louisiana and U.S. law for decades. No public official has the right to pick and choose which laws they are going to follow.”

A spokeswoman for the Louisiana Judiciary Commission said investigations were confidential and would not comment. If the commission recommends action to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the matter would become public.

U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA)

U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA)

U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said in a statement Bardwell’s practices and comments were deeply disturbing.

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,” she said.

blank
Gordon Burgess, Tangipahoa Parish President

Gordon Burgess, Tangipahoa Parish President

Tangipahoa Parish President Gordon Burgess said Bardwell’s views were not consistent with his or those of the local government. But as an elected official, Bardwell was not under the supervision of the parish government.

However, I am certainly very disappointed that anyone representing the people of Tangipahoa Parish, particularly an elected official, would take such a divisive stand,” Burgess said in an e-mail. “I would hope that Mr. Bardwell would consider offering his resignation if he is unable to serve all of the people of his district and our parish.”

Related Articles

Louisiana’s Gov. Jindal calls for ouster of judge who refused marriage license to interracial couple

Louisiana Justice of the Peace Denies Marriage License to Interracial Couple

Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By Louisiana Judge

Groups Upset Man Wouldn’t Marry Interracial Couple

Advertisements

45 Comments

Filed under Children, History, Law, News, Politics, Racism, Supreme Court, Uncategorized, Video/YouTube, Women's Issues

45 responses to “Some Unanswered Questions on the Justice of the Peace Who Refuses to Wed Interracial Couples Story

  1. Not Suprised

    Once again shows how ignorant Americans are! What if a very white blue eyed blonde haired white guy were to marry a “darker tanned black haired brown eyed white woman”. Or a white woman mixed with native american but have slightly dominating lighter features. Is that an “inter-racial marriage” ?? Would that be ok with his highness? Where do we set the boundaries when it comes to race? Can someone please tell me?
    After all the JP himself has darker features like his own black hair. So he dis-approves of his own existence? How ironic. Shows what stupidity can lead to.
    People obsessed with their whiteness or whatever the color of their skin are just plain useless human beings with all the time in the world to dwell over such things.

  2. Lance

    Since Obama became the President of the United States, it is a very obvious understanding among ALL Bigot’s that mixed race people have a higher CAPACITY to be UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED & SUCCEED on both RACIAL SIDES-with American WHITES & BLACKS, than what have been seen among BLACK AMERICANS in the past alone our often SICK SOCIETY.

    It’s an obvious fact Mix-Race people transcends more universally than any uni-race ALONE. They fit in very well with Blacks, Latino’s, Whites, etc….

    I think one of the unfortunate ways that provides an addition to Blacks Succeeding is their ability to mix races and get the credit for it, because Bigots have always suggested with great ignorance that anyone with 1% of black blood is BLACK…

    When I see this couple, I don’t see the guy as Black…He’s not White either. He’s mixed and if he has children with his wife, more than likely they’re going to look 100% WHITE.

    This judge has not traveled the world and speaks with the most disgusting TONGUE. I hope he is FIRED just because ‘he’ has the right to voice his opinion doesn’t mean he should do so in the ‘GREATEST CAPACITY OF HARM & IGNORANCE.’

    • james

      It doesn’t matter if the the children turn out purple. His insistence on protecting the children is a fanciful smokescreen used to hide his racist instincts.

  3. We are a black & white couple that have been married for 29 years this Dec. I know other mixed coupled that have been married longer than us . I beleive marriage in this country is not taken seriously enough but that is in no way based on the color of the copules skin. I know lots of divorced white coulpes…how about you? The only people that may have a negitive influence on mixed children are the racists, like the bigoted judge!

  4. Kpm

    Since Obama became the President of the United States, it is a very obvious understanding and a DENIAL OF THE FACT among ALL Bigot’s that mixed race people have a higher CAPACITY to be UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED & SUCCEED on both RACIAL SIDES-with American WHITES & BLACKS, than what have been seen among BLACK AMERICANS in the past alone in our often SICK SOCIETY.

    It’s an obvious fact Mix-Race people transcends more universally than any uni-race ALONE. They fit in very well with Blacks, Latino’s, Whites, etc….

    I think one of the unfortunate ways that provides an addition to Blacks Succeeding is their ability to mix races and get the credit for it, because Bigots have always suggested with great ignorance that anyone with 1% of black blood is BLACK…

    When I see this couple, I don’t see the guy as Black…He’s not White either. He’s mixed and if he has children with his wife, more than likely they’re going to look 100% WHITE.

    This judge has not traveled the world and speaks with the most disgusting TONGUE. I hope he is FIRED just because he thinks ‘his’ right to voice his opinion suggest he should do so in the ‘GREATEST CAPACITY OF HARM & IGNORANCE.

    You see, I am a mixed race American of British and Black American origins, born in Louisiana from poverty origins, but now living up North. I grew up not caring about how to Racially or Religiously ‘Fit-In’ with Whites or Blacks. My late Mom always told me to stay involved with people of good values and stay away from those that lack them. Now, I have achieved the status of Doctor and many other accomplishments in this society and as I look around, all my closest friends and family are of many racial backgrounds.

    I only wished this Impartial-Judge and many Bigots elsewhere, could have had the opportunity to see the life I have lived and living.:-)

  5. ogenec

    I completely reject the notion that “mixed race” children have a greater capacity to succeed and be accepted than other kids. I believe, and Obama has written very poignantly about this, that mixed race children do spend a lot of time questioning their identity and where they fit in.

    But they do that precisely because we spend far too much time and energy obsessing about race. It’s way past time that ended. Biracial kids should not have to worry about fitting in; race should not be a dividing line in this 21st century.

    And that’s why the Justice of the Peace is wrong. Attitudes like his are the very reason the problem he identifies exists. Marry the couple already, and let’s hope they have as many kids as they want.

  6. james

    While it is nice that he allows black people to use his bathroom, the real reason that he didn’t marry them is because he is a racist. He says that he is concerned about the children and that no one would love them. He says the marriage would probably end soon anyway. This is part of the justification that the rest of the citizens of Louisiana gaves to deny gay marriage. I imagine just about every heterosexual marriage would end soon. Fifty percent of marriages fail. So it is a good thing that the state of Louisiana is protecting this failed institution from those pesky homosexuals who want to partake in all that life has to offer. Problem is, all of life is not offered to homosexuals. It would be interesting to find out how this couple voted in the 2004 vote to deny marriage by way of the constitution to loving and committed gay couples. Or did they even bother to vote? They are getting a tiny taste of what the homosexual community has had to deal with forever by the majority of Christians in this land and that is state and federally sanctioned institutionalized discrimination of a minority. For the citizens of Louisiana to act shocked, shocked I tell you at this justice of the peace is hypocrisy at its finest. For the citizens of the rest of this country to profess disbelief at this justice of the peace for his discrimination is also a dramatic act of lunacy.

    • carla

      Who cares about this one couple in Louisiana. Thousands of gays were denied marriage in California after the California Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to do so. We shouldn’t be at all surprised that bigots are alive and well and represent all races. The African American community voted overwhelmingly in California and Louisiana to deny marriage to loving gay couples. Many of these gay couples have been in relationships for 50 and 60 years. I wonder how many times each of these bigoted voters had been married? I wonder how many unwed mothers and dead beat dads found it liberating to vote against gay couples? I wonder if this couple in question voted against gay marriage? When the majority of bigots are allowed to vote on the civil rights of the minority in this country, something is amiss. When it turns around and bights you on your pious a–, don’t act surprised!

      • tony

        Not only did the African American communities overwhelmingly agree to deny marriage to same-sex couples in states that already had these laws, but they found it very palatable to enshrine it into the constitutions of their respective states “for all of eternity” or until a more educated and secular society sees fit to change the constitutions (usually by a two/thirds majority). This was the really big slap in the face to their gay brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts or friends who were pleading for equality. You are right. It is comical for the citizens for the United States to feign astonishment at this justice and shameful and unbelievable that the African American community would decide to blow up this one incident when they are wholly willing to participate in a little game of inequality of their own and justified by a two thousand year old document. They have shamefully tried to elevate themselves in the eyes of God by denoting homosexuals to their rightful place of second class citizenry. A whole lesson in history lost on the people it most affected. What a shame.

      • audiegrl

        Black people and Black churches caused Prop 8 to fail

        This is one of the Prop 8 myths that seem to be circulating. I will defer to Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com. Nate is the Stephen Hawking of political math who predicted every primary and general election results of last years elections.

        Nate Silver says, “Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California’s black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters — the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) — voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

        Now, it’s true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance — they were helpful on balance. If California’s electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

        Read his whole statistical analysis on this subject here.

        Again– and this can’t be stressed enough– without the surge of new Black and Latino voters, “Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.”

      • karen

        to audigirl: You are saying that 56% of older generation African Americans and Latinos voted against extending marriage to gay people and 38% of young African American and Latinos voted against extending marriage to gay people. That works out to 94% of the African American and Latino voters denying gay marriage. You want to dilute their vote with all other votes from all other voters of all other races. That is not an accurate way to decipher the accurate numbers of African American and Latino votes. It is also confusing when you give the youthful numbers as 62% against and 38%for, then switch the for and against columns to reflect the experienced voters group with 56% for and 44% against. Keep the “for” in the first column and the “against” second column. No matter which column they are in, keep it consistent. Looks like you were attempting to fool some readers.

      • If you read the many posts here @ 44-diaries you will see that we are active proponents of equal rights, marriage and otherwise, for Gay Americans. But you’ve got this one wrong. The JOP in LA was violating an existing law, on the books, easily sighted and a firm basis for removing him or possible prosecution.

        For you to tie-in the struggle to achieve full rights for Gays by downplaying this obvious violation is another level of wrong, morally wrong. Remember?: Two wrongs don’t make a right? think about it.

      • RICK

        To GeoT: You remark that the case in Louisiana was upsetting because this justice was trying to shape “existing” laws. Well, gay marriage was an “existing law” in California and gay people of all colors and sometimes mixed races were being legally married and fully supported by the California Supreme Court until the angry masses with pitchforks had the opportunity to overrule these highly educated people with a legal vote on the civil rights of the minority. I understand that you want to get back to the existing debate, but this is where it has led.

      • David,

        I voted on Prop 8 (NO) in California and I realize you’re using hyperbole, but there were no angry crowds and pitchforks. The MOST decisive factor was the massively funded and grossly misleading YES on 8 campaign backed by conservative groups. The lies that were told and allowed on the airwave here in California were disgusting. many people were misled by the fear tactics. But that will not happen again.

        The result of Prop 8 is that it changed the constitution by popular vote. That the outcome is in and of itself UNconstitutional is now the issue.

        Again, blacks did not pass Prop 8 the fear mongers on the right handled that.

    • David

      To audiegrl: Since you repeated a passage of Nate Silvers’ site word for word, I will do the same with one of the very first paragraphs. It says, “To put it another way, had Obama not been so popular and had voter turnout been more traditional- meaning the proportion of white voters had been higher – chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed. You see, it’s like quoting from the bible. You can find whatever you want to please you on any given day and if you can’t, then you can just paraphrase, interpret differently, decipher with imagination or reject wholeheartedly. It’s the book that makes almost everyone happy except for those not so inclined to sale snake oil.

      • audiegrl

        David

        The problem is that Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee who you quoted, disagrees with Nate Silver. That is not snake oil, its just one person’s opinion against another person’s. 😉

        So you quote Dan Walters opening paragraph above, and I quote Nate Silver, who felt strongly enough about what Dan said to write his on article on the subject. Those two are never going to agree on this topic.

        My whole purpose in investigating and posting this thread was to discuss E. Keith Bardwell and the questions we have about what is going on.

        Why did a previous Louisiana Attorney General allow Bardwell to continue discriminating against interracial couples, once he knew what Bardwell was doing?

        In my mind, that is the question of the day. 🙂

      • Who is selling snake oil? I hear that phrase allot from hyper-anti-Obama types…

        In any case, we are lucky to have Obama as President IMO, and Prop 8 will reversed either by the voters or Jerry Brown, either as AG or as our next Governor!

      • victor

        Actually the religious folks, made up of church goers of all kind, plus Republicans and people 65 and over crushed this prop 8 initiative. However, of the religious folks opposed to same-sex marriage, there is no denying that a majority of the African American church folk who said that they went to church at least twice a week had higher opposing numbers. Their numbers against were much higher than white church goers. It would be false to suggest that this particular group of African Americans didn’t help put prop 8 to a halt.

        • “It would be false to suggest that this particular group of African Americans didn’t help put prop 8 to a halt.”

          That older people, of ALL stripes are susceptible to the deceptive techniques used in the Yes on 8 campaign is undeniable, older people are vulnerable and ripe for anything that will give them a sense that “things aren’t changing too fast”
          It has nothing to do with race… it has to do with human nature.

          They beat us in the Prop 8 battle but the war is country wide and California will be a big part of turning the tide.

        • It’s weird that at the end of this discussion our site gets inundated with spam from Gay porn sites… ain’t life grand?

          GeoT

  7. Becky

    Amen, James.

    Blogs upon blogs are filling up with reports and comments of how this is appalling and a step back in social justice…. almost every comment states something to the effect of “to not marry this couple base solely on the color of their skin” is ridiculous. Isn’t it equally ignorant to discriminate against homosexuals, and not allow them to marry based solely on their sexual orientation? Talk about a step backward in social justice.

    • “Isn’t it equally ignorant to discriminate against homosexuals?”

      100% absolutely YES, BUT that’s not the law YET in many places… but it WILL be.

      That doesn’t mean we downplay an obvious violation of civil rights law in the process.

  8. Joey

    He is a judge. He can marry who he pleases. And I don’t think racism was the issue.

    • serita

      He has to follow the law and marry any heterosexual couple regardless of their skin color. He cannot pick and choose. You will soon see, when he loses his job this month, that he cannot marry “who he pleases”. If he could marry “who he pleases” then there would be no problem with same-sex marriage. To deny racism had anything to do with it is either a deep-rooted denial or unfamiliarity with the story or white men of the justices age group all over the south. Get real!!

    • audiegrl

      Actually he’s not a judge. He’s a justice of the peace who is elected by the people in his district. So he is an elected official that is making up his own mind about who he feels he should marry. That’s a problem. 😉

    • Joey, did you listen to what he said?

      “I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,”

      there is no ambiguity in that statement, it IS racist.

      believe me, I am 100% pro gay rights but I can tell you, blaming blacks for the (temporary) set-back in California is a BIG mistake. You are lashing out at the wrong target.

      GeoT

  9. Steve

    Hello?
    Are most people in this country stupid or anything?
    first of all, he is not racist…
    racist = targets certain people base on their backgrounds and physical appearances.
    he just dislike mix race, which is completely legal by the law.
    if he refuses to wed african-american to others then it is racist, but if he refuses to wed any type of interracial couple, then it is clearly ok for him to do so.

    • audiegrl

      Steve

      By law Bardwell is free to dislike anyone he wants in his personal dealings. But as a elected official he is not free to refuse to marry a particular group. That’s against the law. The Supreme Court settled this issue in 1967, and Bardwell is not allowed to pretend its 1966. 😉

    • karen

      Steve
      Someone who does not like a mixed race person or races who mix is a RACIST. The problem that you are having is that the government and its laws do not see color anymore with regards to marriage. For the judge to make any type of negative decision whatsoever based on color of any kind is racist. This justice has probably never had cupid shoot an arrow in his heart. He has probably never known true love or may be too damn old to remember what it felt like if it did happen. That is sad for him. If his fires were still burning in his marriage or for a deceased partner or for a new love, he would understand again that sometimes love just happens. Sometimes it just hits us over the head and we are doomed to be struck by the bug of love forever. My favorite movie in the world is “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner” with Sydney Poiter and Katherine Hepburn. The woman who plays Mr. Poiter’s mother sums up the entire movie in one sentence to the father of the bride. She basically says that if you have something against this interracial marriage, then you probably have for forgotten what love is, what if feels like and how helpless we are against it. It comes to you like a hurricane and can last a lifetime.

    • “he just dislike mix race, which is completely legal by the law.”

      show me a law on the books (in THIS country) that backs up your claim.

      GeoT

  10. audiegrl

    Here’s an interesting video interview with Louisiana resident John Green. He’s a Rush Limbaugh listener who thinks that justice Bardwell should be given a medal.

  11. Jen

    Why don’t we categorize these MEAN-IGNORANT-HATEFUL white Men in the category of “HONKIES & CRACKERS?”….Jeeez, what a SCUM!!

  12. audiegrl

    karen
    October 19, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    Hey Karen, if you have any questions about the numbers, please direct them to Nate Silver at fivethiryeight.com.

    Looks like you were attempting to fool some readers.

    No, actually I am just sending readers to an expert (Nate Silver) who has a better grasp on the numbers regarding Prop 8 than I do.

    I feel that judging a whole group of people (Blacks and Latinos) for doing something, should be backed up by facts and not hyperbole.

    Once you ask Nate about your concerns with his analysis, please feel free to come back and post his answer to your questions. 🙂

    • ogenec

      Actually, Karen’s equation (56% of older black/latinos) plus (38% of younger black/latinos) = 94% of black/latinos is flat-out wrong. You need to know the proportion of each cohort to figure out the cumulative percentage. So, for example, if the proportion of older to younger votes was 60:40 (to be conservative), the cumulative percentage is (.56*.6)+(.38*.4), or 48.8%.

      Put another way, you would never say that if 100% of younger votes voted for Prop 8, as did 50% of older voters, then that proves that 150% of voters voted for Prop 8. That’s mathematically impossible. You don’t need to be a statistics genius like Nate Silver to see that.

  13. A licensed service entity is refusing service based upon racial mix. This is no different than a restaurant refusing to serve the couple because they are racially mixed, or a hospital refusing to deliver their child because they are racially mixed. This man is a judge and knows law. Yet he puts himself above the law.

    • elaine

      Or a hospital denying visitation rights to a gay spouse simply because the state and the federal government does not recognize their many years together as a couple. Or being denied Social Security benefits when they have been around and together since the 40’s. Or denying them adoption when 99.99% of all child abuse is from heterosexuals. The heterosexual community is trying to make too much of this story when there are bigger fish to fry with larger numbers of people who are being denied every minute of every day. This couple was allowed to marry, now let’s fire the creep who denied them and move on.

      • audiegrl

        Elaine, I understand your point. If you do a search on our blog, you will find many, many articles posted in an effort to help make our elected officials change the laws and give Gay people the rights and citizens of the US, they are owed. For me it is a human rights/civil rights issue. Period. 🙂

        The reason I posted this story and tried to get answers from the Louisiana Attorney Generals office is simple.

        If Bardwell has the right to refuse interracial couples because of his personal bias’. What will we do when Gays are allowed to marry? (which I think will come sooner, rather than later) Or it could be any other group, that Bardwell feels doesn’t meet his standards.

        If we stop elected officials like Bardwell from discriminating against any one he feels like. This will stop all the ‘future’ Bardwells from discriminating against Gay couples too. Shining the light on this shows them that their actions have consequences, and that our country is not going to stand for it. So if they do this, they will lose their job.

        In the end, this will help both interracial couples and Gay couples, and everyone else too. 🙂

  14. Ex-LA Resident

    I am from the state of Louisiana. This case only brings back memories of long ago where in LA the state justice officials were literally kings! For example, if you had the misfortune to be arrested, it was usually accompanied by a sound beating (usually with slap jacks), jailed for undetermined numbers of days, etc. (I was never arrested, but the tales abounded there!) I have not returned to LA in almost 35 years now, but apparently some things have STILL not changed! I will never go back again.

  15. Pingback: Louisiana Justice of the Peace Quits After Interracial Wedding Incident « 44-Diaries

  16. I am almost brand new to blogging and really like your post, it is really on target !

Leave a Reply to serita Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s