vulgarweed (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
vulgarweed) wrote2008-10-01 09:13 pm
vulgarweed) wrote2008-10-01 09:13 pm
A very relevant meme
Got this first from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
celandineb; lots of other people on my f-list too.
As was demonstrated in an interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court Case other than Roe v. Wade.
The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN lj to spread the fun.
In "honor" of my home state, I choose the most aptly named Supreme Court case of all time, Loving v. Virginia (1967).
This was the case that struck down VA's (and several other Southern states') anti-miscegenation laws.
From Wikipedia: "Mildred Loving (nee Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent, 1939 – May 2, 2008)[2][3] and Richard Perry Loving (a white man, October 29, 1933 – June 1975), were residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Ms. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom, and that, instead of defending them, became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge since it showed they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified "miscegenation" as a felony punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia."
"The trial judge in the case, Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed 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. ”
[editorial comment: Oh, look, religious justification. Sound familiar? It should. I'll get around to that.)
The Lovings fought for 9 years. The ACLU came to their defense. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled thusly: “ 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 discrimination. 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. ”
The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
(For the record, Alabama did not formally repeal its laws against interracial marriage until 2000.)
Mildred Loving passed away in May of this year. In 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the decision that validated her love and her life, she issued a powerful statement talking about her experience, and the insight it gave her about love and the meaning of marriage:
"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. 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'm not surprised Sarah Palin doesn't know about this one. But I knew it all along growing up, because by some people's definition, I might have been "illegitimate" if not for this decision. (If Palin's running mate's rival Obama had been born in Virginia instead of Hawaii he definitely would have been.) I hope in the next generation, marriage discrimination based on gender or orientation will be looked at with the same revulsion that thinking people now have for the race-based version.
celandineb; lots of other people on my f-list too.As was demonstrated in an interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court Case other than Roe v. Wade.
The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN lj to spread the fun.
In "honor" of my home state, I choose the most aptly named Supreme Court case of all time, Loving v. Virginia (1967).
This was the case that struck down VA's (and several other Southern states') anti-miscegenation laws.
From Wikipedia: "Mildred Loving (nee Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent, 1939 – May 2, 2008)[2][3] and Richard Perry Loving (a white man, October 29, 1933 – June 1975), were residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Ms. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom, and that, instead of defending them, became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge since it showed they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified "miscegenation" as a felony punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia."
"The trial judge in the case, Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed 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. ”
[editorial comment: Oh, look, religious justification. Sound familiar? It should. I'll get around to that.)
The Lovings fought for 9 years. The ACLU came to their defense. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled thusly: “ 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 discrimination. 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. ”
The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
(For the record, Alabama did not formally repeal its laws against interracial marriage until 2000.)
Mildred Loving passed away in May of this year. In 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the decision that validated her love and her life, she issued a powerful statement talking about her experience, and the insight it gave her about love and the meaning of marriage:
"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. 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'm not surprised Sarah Palin doesn't know about this one. But I knew it all along growing up, because by some people's definition, I might have been "illegitimate" if not for this decision. (If Palin's running mate's rival Obama had been born in Virginia instead of Hawaii he definitely would have been.) I hope in the next generation, marriage discrimination based on gender or orientation will be looked at with the same revulsion that thinking people now have for the race-based version.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Roe vs Wade
Brown vs the Board of Education
and Lawrence vs the State of Texas.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Being a native, this does not in any way surprise me. I knew of only one interracial couple when I still lived there, in 1988. I worked with the woman, and the owners of the tiny little company were very cold toward her after they found out. Though they couldn't find any legal reason to fire her, neither of us doubted they were looking for one.
The Loving story is astounding, and the judge's words make my guts boil. I With our increasingly mixed-race society, somewhere down the road we'll all finally look the same because we'll all have intermixed for so long. And that's a good thing.