Today is the 50th Anniversary of Loving v. Virginia

Fifty years ago, the United States Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Loving v. Virginia which struck anti-miscegenation laws down nationwide that had theretofore barred interracial marriage.   It is critical to remember that not once, but twice the Virginia Supreme Court ruled to uphold Virginia's interracial marriage bans. Among the justifications cited for the ban in the litigation prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision was the Bible. As has happened time and time again both before and since the Loving ruling - and as recently as Donald Trump's appearance before the Christofascists' Faith and Freedom Coalition - the Bible has been used to justify bigotry and mistreatment of others. The reality is that other than during the early days of the American Revolution, the initial founding of the nation and the last three (3) years, Virginia has been consistently on the wrong side of history.   First through it's defense of slavery, then through it's efforts to destroy Reconstruction policies supporting equality, next by its engagement in "Massive Resistance" to oppose public schools desegregation, and most recently anti-gay bigotry. Things changed under the McAuliffe/Northam/Herring regime when the entire Democratic ticket supported same sex marriage.  Yet the Republican Party and its allies continue to push a reactionary agenda of bigotry.  Indeed, they seek to take Virginia back to its ugliest moments.  Here are highlights from a piece in U.S. News and Reports that looks at the legacy of the Loving decision:

On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional 16 state bans on interracial marriage. The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by Richard and Mildred Loving, a white man and black woman who had been jailed for being married to each other.

After the court's decision, the Lovings lived quietly in their native Virginia with their three children until Richard Loving's death in a 1975 car crash. Mildred Loving, critically injured in that same crash, never remarried and largely shunned publicity. She granted a rare interview to The Associated Press in 2007, the 40th anniversary of her legal victory, and died the following year.

In observance of the 50th anniversary of the landmark Loving decision, The Associated Press is republishing its last interview with Mildred Loving, by reporter Dionne Walker.

Born Mildred Jeter, she's mostly known by the name she took when she — a black woman living in segregated Virginia — dared to break the rules by marrying a white man named Richard Loving.

The union landed the Lovings in jail, and then before the U.S. Supreme Court, and finally in the history books; 40 years ago Tuesday, the court ruled in favor of the couple, overturning laws prohibiting interracial unions and changing the face of America.

Mildred Loving is a matriarch to thousands of mixed couples now sprinkled in every city. But she hardly considers herself a hero — just a girl who once fell in love with a boy.
"It wasn't my doing," Loving told The Associated Press, in a rare interview. "It was God's work."

While the rest of the Jim Crow South struggled to divide the races in the early '50s, blacks and whites in tiny Central Point had long been intertwined. They worked together on farms, raising chickens and tobacco. And often, they were intimate, explained Edward Clarke, who grew up in the town an hour outside Richmond, today little more than vast fields, ragtag homes and weed-choked farm houses.

Standing in the hilly cemetery in which Richard Loving is buried, he swept his hand out over the markers reading Jeter, Byrd and Fortune — black folks, he explained, many so pale they could pass for white.

[T]hey drove some 80 miles to Washington, D.C., in 1958, married and returned to Central Point to start a new life.

"I think he thought (if) we were married, they couldn't bother us," Mildred said.
Within a month, they were in jail.

Now 84, then-Sheriff Garnett Brooks vividly recalls bursting into the Lovings' home at 2 a.m., rousing the couple out of their sleep and hauling them off to face the law. Word of their marriage — nobody's sure who complained — had reached the commonwealth's attorney.

"He told me to go and check on them and if they are (married), arrest them," said Brooks, who insists the case wasn't about race but about illegal cohabitation. "I told him I'd be glad to do it."
A 28-year-old Phil Hirschkop was just a few months out of law school when he overheard a professor discussing the Lovings with another lawyer, Bernard Cohen.

It was 1964, and the Lovings had spent the past few years living in exile in Washington after being convicted on charges of "cohabitating as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth," according to their indictments. Laws banning racially mixed marriages existed in at least 17 states.

Hirschkop was convinced the Supreme Court was ready for change, too — but the right case had to come before the justices, free of any legal loopholes the state could seize upon. The Lovings presented such a case.

Hirschkop argued that the laws must treat each citizen equally, and that "when a law is based on race, it is immediately suspect and the burden is shifted to the state to show there is a compelling interest to have that sort of racial differentiation."
On June 12, 1967, the court agreed.

Each June 12, Loving Day events around the country mark the advances of mixed-race couples. Mildred doesn't pay much attention to the grassroots celebrations.

Mostly she spends time enjoying her family, two dogs, and the countryside she fought so fiercely to again call home. She wishes her husband was there to enjoy it with her.  "He used to take care of me," said Mildred Loving. "He was my support, he was my rock."

Before she died, Mildred Loving endorse same sex marriage which she viewed very similarly to her own situation: individuals should be able to marry the person that they love.   Like the Lovings, the husband and I were married in the District of Columbia since same sex marriage was illegal at the time in Virginia.  No one was harmed by the Lovings' marriage.  No one was harmed by my marriage to my husband.  Yet the same forces of hate and division that made both marriages illegal in Virginia are alive and well.   All three of the Republican candidates for governor are beholden to the Christofascists who support both bans on interracial marriage and same sex marriage.  In Virginia and elsewhere religion has been used to justify so much hared and abuse of others.  Today is a perfect day to remember that religion has no place in America's civil laws. 

Quote of the Day: Mildred Loving on Marriage

Late this afternoon, the husband and I and a number of friends went and saw the movie "Loving" that follows the case of Richard and Mildred Loving and their prosecution by Virginia authorities for their violation of Virginia's miscegenation statute and the Loving's subsequent legal battles that culminated in the United States Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state bans on interracial marriage nationwide.  For those who have not seen the movie, it is exceedingly well done and is a must see.  Indeed, it ought to be required viewing in high school government classes.  The film was a vivid reminder of just how horrible non-whites were treated in Virginia not really that long ago, not to mention the inhumanity often meted out by the majority against those who look different or believe differently.   The film was also a harsh reminder that many of Donald Trump's supporters, including the 81% of evangelical Christians who voted for him, would like to return America to the days prior to the Loving v. Virginia ruling and the civil rights laws enacted in the 1960'2.

Meanwhile, Trump has talked out of both sides of his mouth on the issue of same sex marriage as he has sought to prostitute himself to the evangelical Christian and professional Christian sets.  Mildred Loving made a statement before her death in 2008 that ought to be the guiding rule on marriage. Here are highlights via The Advocate:

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry," "I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry."

Meanwhile, what was one of the justifications used to support Virginia's ban (and other states') on interracial marriage?  Religion, of course, that great pestilence that throughout history has been used to justify so much death and evil.  If one needs a reminder, here is what Caroline County Circuit Court judge Leon M. Brazile wrote when he first convicted Richard and Mildred Loving:

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.

Frighteningly, it is judges like Brazile who Trump may now nominate to the United States Supreme Court.  That prospect ought to terrify decent, moral Americans.  

  

Anti-Gay Marriage Bill Sent Back to Committee Over Interracial Marriage Concerns

Was Carrico trying to give a pass to racist clerks?

In his quest to prostitute himself to the rabid Christofascists of the Virginia GOP base and/or stay in the good graces of the foul haters at The Family Foundation who threaten primary contests against those who do not do their bidding, Charles W. Carrico Sr. (R-Grayson) introduced the so-called "Kim Davis bill" which would allow circuit court clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses to any couples if doing so offended their beliefs.  The bill was put forward supposedly to protect "religious freedom" but really is a license to discriminate effort.  On Wednesday, the bill was passed out of committee on a partisan vote - Republicans out numbering Democrats - to move to the full Virginia Senate.  

Now, given the lack of any limits on alleged religious belief that could motivate a protesting clerk, the bill has been sent back to the Senate Courts of Justice Committee because as written, segregationist could cite the Bible and refuse to issue licenses to interracial couples.  Carrico claims that such was not his intent - only gays were supposedly targeted- but given the very strong racist undertones of the agenda of The Family Foundation that I have observed over the years, I cannot candidly believe Carrico's story line.  The fact is that the Bible was long cited as justification for slavery, segregation and interracial bans in Virginia - the Virginia Supreme Court even did so in the Loving case before being overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Washington Post looks at the chaos Carrico's bill would potentially unleash.  Here are highlights:

Virginia legislators on Friday decided to take a closer look at a bill to make sure that it would not let court clerks deny marriage licenses to interracial couples.

The measure, which passed out of a committee to the full Senate this week, was intended to protect clerks who object to issuing licenses to same-sex couples, something the bill’s Republican sponsor promoted as a matter of religious freedom.

But the legislation provided such wide latitude to refuse licenses that Sen. Charles W. Carrico Sr. (R-Grayson) initially said that it would cover clerks who objected to marriages on any grounds, including those based on objections to interracial marriage. . . . on Friday, he asked to have his bill sent back to the Senate Courts of Justice Committee for further study.

The bill would give clerks or deputy clerks the freedom to refuse to issue licenses to couples if they object to their unions on “personal, ethical, moral, or religious grounds.” Those they turn away could be issued marriage licenses at a Department of Motor Vehicle office — an option that critics liken to the “separate-but-equal” justification for segregated schools that was ultimately declared unconstitutional.

The legislation does not specify any class of couples that could be denied licenses from clerks, but Democrats dubbed it the “Kim Davis bill,” a reference to the Kentucky clerk who was jailed last year after refusing to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, contend that the measure — even as intended — is unconstitutional. But supporters, including the Family Foundation of Virginia, said it is needed to protect religious liberties in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in June that legalized gay marriage.

The bill passed the Senate Courts of Justice Committee on Wednesday night over the objections of all six Democrats and one Republican, freshman Sen. Glen Sturtevant of Richmond.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) vowed to veto the measure if it reaches his desk.

There is an easy solution: public officials need to either do their jobs or seek other employment.  Religious belief does not belong in the public square and no one in public should be allowed to cite real or feigned religious belief to ignore the law and the U.S. Constitution.  End of discussion.

Resistance to Gay Marriage Follows Path of Old Style Racists

Anti-gay Christofascists take huge offense - at least in public - at rightly being compared to the segregationists of the 1950's and 1960's (and beyond) in the manner in which they (i) use cherry picked Bible passages to justify hate and discrimination against others and (ii) are refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges last month.  Frankly, if you engage in the same type of behavior and use the same tired religious claims to justify bigotry, then the comparison is valid.  A piece at ABC News lays out the continued parallels between Christofascists opposition to interracial marriage and same sex marriage.  Here are highlights:

Legal experts suggest that history might hint at how the coming months will unfold, as a handful of defiant clerks across the South and Midwest refuse to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling last month that legalized gay marriage.

The first test is set to begin Monday in a Kentucky courtroom. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who cited her Christian faith on June 30 as she refused to issue marriage licenses to any couple, gay or straight. Other county clerks rallied around her, demanding the government protect Christians from having to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The aftermath of the Supreme Court's 1967 ruling Loving v. Virginia played out in similar ways, according to Sam Marcosson, a constitutional law professor at the University of Louisville. Now, once again, scattered patches of resistance will force the courts to intervene.

In 1967, Liane Peters and James Van Hook, turned to the NAACP, which sued the county and won. The couple received a license the following year.

They are still married, 47 years later. Van Hook is 82 and his wife is 76. They have two sons and three grandkids, she said. They still live in a little house with a big yard and garden they bought soon after their wedding.

Interracial couples across the South also had to sue, said Peter Wallenstein, a history professor at Virginia Tech who wrote a book called "Tell the Court I Love my Wife" about race and marriage in the United States. The legal battles dragged on for years.

In 1970, three years after the Supreme Court's decision, an Alabama judge denied a marriage license to a white soldier stationed at Fort McClellan and his African-American fiancee, Wallenstein wrote. The federal government sued to force the county to comply.

The question is how long they can stall and make mischief," said Kenneth D. Upton, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, a law office that specializes in LGBT issues.

Some take offense at the comparison between interracial marriages five decades ago and the religious objections to same-sex marriage that clerks are raising today.

Others scoff at the thought of letting elected officials decline to do part of their job. Marcosson compared the situation to the Catholic Church's refusal to marry people who have been through a divorce. The church and its followers have the religious freedom to decline to recognize those marriages. But a Catholic clerk in public office has no right to deny a civil marriage license to someone who has been divorced, he said.

The importance of Loving v. Virginia

With the U.S. Supreme Court scheduled to hear oral arguments later this month in Obergefell v. Hodges, which many observers believe will result in a national ruling striking down same sex marriage bans, it is interesting that even a newspaper outlet in Kansas of all places is carrying an op-ed that supports marriage equality and makes the comparison between the issue before the Court and what lead to the ruling in Loving v. Virginia.  It is worth a read - I would venture should be required for every GOP member of Congress - because it looks at bigotry and how claimed religious belief continues to deprive citizens of equal rights.  Here are highlights from the Salina Journal:

With the Supreme Court about to take up the momentous issue of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples in Obergefell v. Hodges, it’s noteworthy that 48 years ago, the court heard oral argument in Loving v. Virginia, which produced the court’s most important ruling vindicating the fundamental right to marry. Loving has figured prominently in lower court decisions upholding the right of same-sex couples to marry, and has been relied on in Obergefell by those urging the court to strike down state laws denying that right.

At issue in Loving was the constitutionality of the laws of Virginia and 15 other states that in 1967 still prohibited interracial couples from marrying. Many of those states are among the dozen or so that today deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry and that are unlikely to do otherwise, absent a ruling from the Supreme Court.

Loving arose after Virginia criminally prosecuted Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple, for having violated state law by getting married.  They pleaded guilty, and the trial judge gave them the choice of spending a year in jail or being banished from the state for 25 years. Underscoring how Americans’ concept of fairness and equality has expanded over the course of our history, the judge also uttered words that most would view as abhorrent today:

“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.”

Sounds familiar doesn't it?  The piece continues:

In Loving, the Supreme Court unanimously held that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional. The ruling had two independent bases in the 14th Amendment: that the laws were racially discriminatory, in violation of the equal-protection clause, and that they denied interracial couples the fundamental right to marry, impermissibly infringing on the liberty interest protected by the due-process clause. As the court explained, “(T)he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

On June 12, 2007, to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the court’s ruling in their case, Mildred issued a written statement detailing the history of their courageous battle, a statement that she ended with the following:

“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

“I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all.”

[W]hat a fitting tribute to Mildred and Richard Loving it would be for Obergefell to become this generation’s Loving.

The same religious extremists that condemned the Lovings - I suspect many still  oppose interracial marriage - today inflict the same bigotry and deprivation of civil rights on same sex couples.  The U.S. Supreme Court needs to end it once and for all.

The Lies and Legal Gymnastics of Gay Marriage Opponents

As the Christofascists and their political lackeys have steadily been losing the war over same sex marriage, the lies and farcical arguments that they have put forth to justify animus based bans on gay marriage have become increasingly incredible.  Indeed, one could argue that the attorneys signing briefs and pleadings ought to face sanctions for their far less than honest claims and arguments (in many states, by signing court filings, attorneys vouch for their truth and veracity).  In short, legal counsel for the anti-gay faction have becomes as big of liars as the "godly folk" who think any and every lie is justified if it furthers their agenda of hate and division.  A column in the Washington Post looks at this phenomenon.  Here are highlights:

Gay-marriage bans don’t discriminate against gays because they apply to heterosexual people, too.

At least, that’s what Kentucky is arguing — apparently with a (ahem) straight face — to the Supreme Court. This and other Onion-worthy arguments illustrate how desperate gay-marriage opponents have become, and how nakedly their logic now mirrors that used to justify the bigoted anti-miscegenation laws struck down a half-century ago.

In most states, conservatives realize they’ve basically lost the war against gay marriage, both in the court of public opinion and the literal court of law. . . . . . That’s why many opponents to gay marriage see “religious freedom” laws, such as the one now igniting a firestorm in Indiana, as the last remaining policy tool available to them. 

But in a large chunk of the country, gay marriage is not quite a fait accompli. On April 28, the Supreme Court will hear cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee relating to both bans on same-sex marriage and refusals to recognize such marriages performed in other states. The justices’ reaction to these cases is expected to finally, formally determine whether gay marriage must be legal in all 50 states.

States have thus been forced to get more creative about how they justify their remaining marital prohibitions and how they can plausibly claim that their knee-jerk restrictions on matrimony, which the court has repeatedly called a “fundamental right,” don’t violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. 

And so we arrive at Kentucky’s legalistic gymnastics. . . . . the Bluegrass State’s Democratic governor argued that gays are not being discriminated against because they’re still allowed to get married — so long as they disregard whom they’re sexually attracted to.

According to the brief: “Men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are free to marry persons of the opposite sex under Kentucky law, and men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot marry persons of the same sex under Kentucky law.”

Kentucky’s argument closely resembles one used, and rejected, in a landmark Supreme Court case about marriage restrictions: Loving v. Virginia, decided in 1967. Virginia presented similar logic as to why its law banning interracial marriage — like those then on the books in 15 other states, including Kentucky — was not discriminatory. Both blacks and whites were allowed to marry inside their race, after all, and both were equally punished for marrying outside of it. The court didn’t buy it.

These and other arguments contained in the four states’ briefs often imply that gay men and lesbians can ignore and switch their sexual orientation at will, despite the scientific community’s consensus to the contrary. In the absence of the ability to legally marry, the states suggest, gay couples will simply shrug, break up and decide to procreatively pair up with a member of the opposite sex instead. This scenario is almost funny, in a sitcom-y sort of way. Or at least it would be, if so many loving couples’ fates didn’t hang in the balance.

Arkansas Marriage Ban Struck Down

The dominoes continue to fall despite the Sixth Circuit's seemingly white supremacist inspired ruling.  Today, Arkansas joined the list of states where anti-gay animus inspired marriage bans have been ruled unconstitutional.   Unfortunately, the federal judge handing down the ruling has stayed the ruling's effectiveness pending an appeal by state officials eager to prostitute themselves to Christofascist elements of the population.  Here are  excerpts via Towleroad:

A federal judge has struck down Arkansas' ban on same-sex marriage, the AP reports:

U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker ruled in favor of two same-sex couples who had challenged a 2004 constitutional amendment and earlier state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, arguing that the ban violated the U.S. Constitution and discriminated based on sexual orientation.

But Baker put her ruling on hold, and the state is expected to appeal it to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in St. Louis.

Baker wrote in her ruling that the state's marriage laws violate the U.S. Constitution by "precluding same-sex couples from exercising their fundamental right to marry in Arkansas, by not recognizing valid same-sex marriages from other states, and by discriminating on the basis of gender."

Arkansas' State Supreme Court is also currently considering a challenge to the state's same-sex marriage ban. The justices will decide whether to uphold Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza's ruling which struck down the Natural State's marriage ban or to find in favor of the state and reverse that decision. Piazza's ruling made it possible for 541 same-sex couples to say "I do" earlier this year until the state Supreme Court intervened and ordered the marriages to cease until it could review the matter.

The full ruling of the federal District Court can be found here.  Here are some highlights from the opinion:

This Court acknowledges that some courts have recently concluded that  Baker  is still  binding precedent.   See, e.g.,  DeBoer, 2014 WL 5748990. This Court determines that the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning is not as persuasive on this point as that of the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. . . . it is difficult to reconcile the Supreme Court’s statement in Windsor  that the Constitution protects the moral and sexual choices of homosexual couples, Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694, with the idea that state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage do not present a substantial federal question.  For the foregoing reasons,  Baker does not bar the Court from reaching the merits of plaintiffs’ claims. 

[T]he drafters of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments “knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”   Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 579.  Accordingly, this Court finds that the Jernigans and Austins have adequately described their asserted right to marry. Directed by Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit  precedents, this Court concludes that the right to marry is a fundamental right.

This Court finds that the Arkansas marriage laws at issue here overstep this constitutional limit. The Due Process Clause prevents the government from infringing upon a fundamental right “unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”   Reno, 507 U.S. at 302. Likewise, under the Equal Protection Clause, if a state makes a classification that “impinge[s] upon the exercise of a fundamental right,” then the state must “demonstrate that its classification has been precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.”

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 217 (1982).

Defendants’ other rationales focus on connections between marriage and  procreation and the interests of children. These rationales run afoul of the basic tenets of the state’s marriage system, one that does not distinguish procreative from non-procreative couples. Further, the Supreme Court has held that married couples have a right not to procreate and that the Constitution protects the right of individuals to marry regardless of their ability or desire to  procreate, including those who are elderly, infertile, and incarcerated.

This Court finds that the principal purpose of Amendment 83 and the challenged statutes “is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency.”  Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694. Amendment 83 of the Arkansas Constitution and Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 9-11-107, 9-11-109, and 9-11-208 unconstitutionally deny consenting adult same-sex couples their fundamental right to marry in violation of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.