He justifies it by saying it disadvantages the kids. Now, I happen to think that’s just a BS excuse for his bigotry, but let’s assume temporarily for the sake of argument that he’s right… that ignorant hicks will disadvantage them socially even if there’s no genetic disadvantage (as indeed, there is not). It still makes no f***ing sense. Because…
A. Marriages aren’t all about children. Say a 60-something interracial couple came to him and wanted to get married. Think he’d do it? I bet not.
B. Even if you swallow the idea that being of mixed race is some kind of developmental risk that puts kids at a disadvantage, there are all kinds of developmental risks that put kids at a disadvantage…
Poverty. Parents with substance abuse issues. Parents who don’t emphasize the value of education. Religious conflict in the home (not necessarily being religious per se, but something like conflicting religions in the home confusing the kids). Weak parenting skills. Child abuse. And—ahem—raising kids in an atmosphere of ignorant-ass bigotry. These are just a few potentially negative influences that leap to mind.
Is he worried about avoiding all of these… or just the one he personally finds distasteful? (Again, I don’t even agree with him that it’s a significant risk… just saying that even if you do agree with it, he’s still picking and choosing which risks he cares about, which means he’s being arbitrary and discriminatory.)
Besides, he’s thinking too small… A mixed-race kid can choose from twice as many scholarships and stuff! ;-) And as @Judi noted, what could a mixed-race kid ever amount to? The Presidency of the United States or something?!?? Oh. Right. :-D