This is a story that should be a relic unearthed from less enlightened times. Sadly, it's not. An interracial couple tried to get a marriage license, but the justice of the peace refused to issue one specifically because it was an interracial couple.
Keith Bardwell says he never marries interracial couples because he believes those marriages don't last long, and the resulting offspring have trouble being accepted by either "black society" or "white society" (my quotes). But don't worry, he's not a bigot. As he puts it, "I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way." I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure Loving v. Virginia didn't have an exception for non-racist justices
This is an example of the "new racism." defined not by a blatant hatred of people of color, but by an advocacy of ways to separate or distinguish people of different races, citing some benevolent, paternalistic, "I know what's best" reason. And it's always capped with a qualifier that one has no problem with said group of people.
How many more times do we have to see this reworking of discrimination? "I'm not racist but blacks shouldn't marry whites." "I'm not homophobic, but gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage." "I'm not a chauvinist, but women can't take the stress of corporate life."
But to be fair, he's right to worry about the children. After all, if an interracial couple marries and has a child, that child might go on to become president.