The crAPpy global news outlet for terrorist-loving liberals comes up with another dandy. And, the title of it should tell you the direction that the AP's bias is going to go.
Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.
I am sure you are taking the most obvious thought path with that title. But, let's disect this article for the truth of the matter.
Of course, the crAPpy writer Mary Foster starts off with the most scintillating of paragraphs to set the stage.
A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
"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."
OOOOOOoooohhhhh. Evil southern redneck racist bigot preventing two loving people to marry. Now, their lives are going to be ruined for ever. Is there no solution for this? Can't we all just get along?
But, who are these people who just want to have a blessed marriage? Let's find out.
Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.
Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She is white and he is black. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.
A white woman who wants to get a degree in minority politics is wanting to marry a black man. Interesting. And, the first thing they think of from this incident is to file a federal discrimination suit. An interesting outcome from one seeking a degree in minority politics and wanting to marry a minority.
I'm just sayin'.
But, what of their story? We know the outcome, but what of the setup?
Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.
So, even after being told that this man would not marry them, they insisted on going down to his place and being told, once again, that he would choose not to marry them. And now they feign shock, surprise, anger and being fairly put-out?
"But, but, but, this man would not marry them. He is preventing their constitutional right to marry and now they can't!!"
According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.
Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.
The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.
Wait? What? So, they have three options on getting their marriage license signed? (In some states there is a fourth with Common Law Marriage) They could have gone to a local minister or even a judge? And, with certain religions, pretty much anyone on the street could have married them.
So, have they really been agrieved? Have they really been discriminated against when one person in their county refused to sign their marriage license?
They sound like they already had their marriage ceremony but then didn't get their license signed then. But now, these liberals sought out the one person whom they KNEW would refuse them. And now they want to file a discrimination suit? How about a suit against the person who married them in the first place and didn't sign their silly paper?
Although, I do have to hand it to Mary for having a perfect ending (official anyway) to this story:
"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."
hahahahahhaa Go get 'em Keith.
Now, for a part of this story that really gets my goat. (Well, my second goat) From the body of the story we read this:
"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. She said the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."
I'll look past the fact that this is an ACLU lawyer (double-negative? Oxy-moron?) or that there is something called the DOMA on the federal level and throughout many states, but focus on that last sentence.
Now, let's look at the very bottom of AP Mary's article:
(This version corrects the date of the Supreme Court ruling.))
YEP. The AP automatically corrects the statement from an ACLU attorney. Not as an inline correction as part of the story, or with the use of another paragraph citing where the ACLU attorney was wrong and citing the correct facts and history, but.... FULLY correcting the statement outright!!!
Would they have given Rush Limbaugh the same benefit? Or, would they proffer up un-sourced and third-party quotations?