|
|
Sun, Jun. 4th, 2006, 01:14 pm On Mondays
Monday n. In Christian countries, the day after the baseball game. (Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary) Very nearly fifty years ago this month, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving did what millions of people have done for millennia -- they got married. However, they were breaking the law by doing so, and they knew it, because in Virginia in 1958, 93 years after the end of the Civil War, 182 years after another Virginian wrote "all men are created equal," it was illegal for people of different races to marry. Knowing this, they went to Washington DC to get married, then moved back to Virginia. In 1959 the aptly named Lovings were prosecuted for and convicted of breaking Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws and sentenced to one year in prison each. In the ruling the trial judge stated an opinion that: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Their sentences were mitigated on the condition that they leave Virginia for no less than twenty-five years. They moved back to Washington DC, and in 1963 brought suit against Virginia. In 1966 the Virginia Court of Appeals upheld the anti-miscegenation laws, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional on June 12, 1967. It "only" took them four years, but they were able to secure the rights for countless marriages since that day which would have otherwise been criminal. Next Monday will be the thirty-ninth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia ruling. This Monday, however, the President of our United States has chosen to address the nation on a matter of grave concern. What is this issue of such grave importance that it demands a national address by our President? Jack Cafferty asks, and so do I. Is it the war? Deficits? Health insurance? Immigration? Iran? North Korea? No -- our President wants to talk about amending the Constitution in order to ban same-sex marriage. It's difficult not to connect the dots between these two Mondays, separated in time by a mere 39 years and one week. 39 years and one week ago the nation was warned, in dire terms, that allowing mixed-race marriages would lead to the end of traditional marriage as we know it. The nation was warned that mixed-race marriage would lead to bestiality, and incest, and pedophilia, and polygamy. And yet today, oddly enough, none of these things have come to pass. The skies have not rained fire and locusts, dogs are not dancing with cats, there has been no end of days. I'm left thinking that if we, as a nation, choose to permit same-sex marriage that the skies will still not rain terror, dogs will still not dance with cats, and the end of days will still not be coming any time soon. Once again hatred in the guise of religion will be brought to bear upon our fundamental freedoms. Over the summer, for certain to peak before the elections this fall, we can expect to be drowned in dire warnings about how same-sex marriage is leading to the abject destruction of our civilization. Political hacks and scurrilous bastards from the right will campaign on the notion that they alone stand between us and armageddon hellfire and the destruction of American society. Please just remember that these arguments are old and tired and were no more compelling, honorable, or correct when they were last used, 39 years ago, to convict the Lovings. To quote Supreme Court Justice Warren, 12 June 1967: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. How true this is, and how apt today as it was then. Please, no matter what your race, creed, or color please do not be mis-lead by this vapid political maneuver. I, we, this nation, your countrymen, and the rights of millions of people are better served by focusing on issues of actual import. There are plenty of legitimate issues upon which we may choose to frame the political debate in this nation as we head towards the next elections. Let's not be distracted by this sound and fury to the detriment of our society, culture, and future. Wikipedia on Loving v. Virginia Sun, Jun. 4th, 2006 06:24 pm (UTC)
equiraptor

To the trial judge on the case in 1959: It's almost certain that you are white, and if not that, than certainly not Native American. If you truly believe that God placed the races on separate continents to keep them separate, get back to you own damn continent. Sun, Jun. 4th, 2006 06:54 pm (UTC)
snaxxx: A reminder

Can't really describe in less than 50 words the discrimination I dealt with in my childhood, and how it impacted much of my life. Suffice to say, my mother's family did not approve of her marrying my dad, because he was of Hispanic origin. "what are you going to do when they put a brown baby in your arms"? my grandmother said. "Love it as much as I can because it will be my own" was my mother's reply. I was treated differently, often shunned, because I resembled my dad so much. So I tried so hard to be "white" for so much of my life, I never took advantage of the funding opportunities for college... Sun, Jun. 4th, 2006 08:16 pm (UTC) (Anonymous): morose
I am deeply saddened by this news. In fact I'm speechless. Well no, maybe I do have a zillion thoughts racing around this track......Who's narrow mind is to say what makes another man or woman happy? When it comes down to it there's even been funny debates stating that the male gender will disappear all together. If this happens in the scheme of evolution is this to say women cannot love one another in their absence? I know as silly as that example, isnt it true that healthy love in the true sense, given in any permutation - man/woman, man/man, friend/friend, dog/cat- fills the world with much more support and positive energy than fighting it? What happens under the umbrella of love will happen with such a law in place or not, and is not our business as long as it is not without consent or endangerment of someone's life. When it comes down to it marriage really simply is the celebration of two individual lives connecting. In America we respect all religious holidays. So we are certainly not a church and democratic regime, why would we become a straight and democratic regime. As far as i can tell neither gender is waging any serious holy wars but just trying to love freely. so why are we banning this celebration? and Why don't we suddenly approve of love? What is it that Bush really has his tidy whities in a bundle about? Sun, Jun. 4th, 2006 08:28 pm (UTC)
cowbert

This is why separation of church and state is vital; some of the advocates against allowing civil gay marriage are worried that if civil gay marriage is allowed, people may start suing religious establishments for the right to use their facilities in performing or celebrating gay marriages. In this case, the anti-gay marriage people want to be the first to abuse SoCaS to fend off some hypothetical gays. (Although religious establishments in other countries have been successfully sued for speaking out against gay marriage as hate crimes because such countries had no real legal basis for freedom of speech). Sun, Jun. 4th, 2006 09:20 pm (UTC)
goulo

Well said. The ridiculous thing is that many of the politicians are simply pandering to the religious right. Cheney's daughter is gay, as are many of the GOP bigwigs, yet they're working to pass anti-gay legislation just to get more votes. Pathetic. I see similar anti-gay demagoguery happening here in Poland also, sadly. Your linking to the Wikipedia article inspired me: http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_kontra%C5%AD_VirginioAlso remember that several states kept such laws (unenforced) until Alabama finally got rid of theirs last in 2000. Incredible. Sun, Jun. 4th, 2006 09:51 pm (UTC)
mduell

Why is the government in the business of marriage at all? If you'd like to take part in a religious ceremony, find a church who will perform one for you and your choice of other people. If you'd like to create a long-term legal contract with another person or people, go ahead and create one under normal contract law. Why is the government in the business of marriage at all? Mon, Jun. 5th, 2006 06:54 am (UTC)
captspastic

I am SO completely sick of religion in our politics. It's disgusting. Mon, Jun. 5th, 2006 03:11 pm (UTC)
anamacha

I can not and will not tolerate the legislation and condoning of hatred and intolerance. This is utterly atrocious, and it makes me ashamed to be an American. Wasn't it people fleeing this sort of persecution that started this country in the first place? Tue, Jun. 6th, 2006 12:07 am (UTC)
kylakae

Well said. I hope you don't mind but I've linked to your post. Tue, Jun. 6th, 2006 07:36 pm (UTC)
jlhlinnell

Amen. Tue, Jun. 6th, 2006 08:30 pm (UTC)
princesscurly

I was linked to your post from a friend of mine, and I just wanted to applaud you for writing it. It's insane how much attention this gets down here in the south, where people who are advocates of gay marriage are considered "godless", and conservatives are considered, "god-fearing". I've also heard the term "pro-family" applied to those who are against gay marriage. As if gay people are anti-family? Anyway, thank you for putting into words the beliefs that I hold dear. :) Tue, Jun. 6th, 2006 08:37 pm (UTC)
jlhlinnell

It's anti-family to want your own family. "Pro Family" means you advocate a father-centered family wherein a man and woman are monogamously married and raise children to believe Christian values, as defined by a conservative American church. Tue, Dec. 26th, 2006 09:13 am (UTC)
sexycamelia

Interesting post! Thanks for it. I think that same sex marriages were inevitable as same sex relations. Wed, Feb. 28th, 2007 06:14 am (UTC) (Anonymous): Same Sex Marriage
Nugget, Couldn't have said it better myself. Excellent connection with the inevitable constitutionality of the right to marry, for everyone.
Thanks for a good piece. I came for the M Roadster, but I stayed for the polemic.
Bob S. Davis, CA |