40 years since out-of-control judges destroyed marriage

[Enrico Palazzo]

at least according to conservatives and the majority of Americans at the time, using the Bible and religion as their main argument. From Andrewsullivan.com:

Mildred Loving. She was the woman who had to fight for her right to marry a man of a different race in, yes, Virginia - in my lifetime. She won the case forty years ago, in the historic decision "Loving vs. Virginia." She has just issued a public statement on the anniversary of this act of "judicial tyranny" against the clear wishes of a large majority in Virginia. Here it is in full (hat tip: Jonathan), continued after the jump:

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn’t to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.
We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn’t allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.
When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is?
Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong kind of person.

Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “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.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.
We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.
Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn’t have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.”
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 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. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

[go_disc_golf]

Great post.

This subject will be widely ignored by the tuffbob's, bullwrinkel's and bee's out there.

[The Great Danton]

So you're calling Republicans racist...

[AvgMSUJoe]

Originally Posted by Hecklers

for those of you who are conservatives, and wonder why there are liberals; why the ACLU exists, just read Loving (and throw in Brown v Board of education and a few others will graldly send along if you are interested).

You'll understand why liberals exists.

Brain would have to be used... hannity wouldn't have sound bites to mimic... Con heads "blowed the f up" all over the land...

But, "getting our rocks off killing babies" and "taxing the free market into oblivion" is the only appropriate response to "why there are liberals" apparently...

[Saint Joey]

Originally Posted by The Great Danton

So you're calling Republicans racist...

No, they're saying that since we now view our former perception of "what a proper marriage is" to be incorrect, then any current perception we may have of "what a proper marriage is" must also be incorrect.

[The Great Danton]

Originally Posted by Saint Joey

No, they're saying that since we now view our former perception of "what a proper marriage is" to be incorrect, then any current perception we may have of "what a proper marriage is" must also be incorrect.

It's both. And an attack on religion.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Who was running Virginia back then? Oh yeah, The Democrats.

Next.

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by The Great Danton

So you're calling Republicans racist...

Originally Posted by Saint Joey

No, they're saying that since we now view our former perception of "what a proper marriage is" to be incorrect, then any current perception we may have of "what a proper marriage is" must also be incorrect.

ZOOM!

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by go_disc_golf

This subject will be widely ignored by the tuffbob's, bullwrinkel's and bee's out there.

or go_disc_golfs or fletches

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

or go_disc_golfs or fletches

Why would I ignore it? Great move.

[Enrico Palazzo]

Originally Posted by The Great Danton

So you're calling Republicans racist...

no, conservatives, and when the left found a home in the Democratic party during the Civil Rights movement the GOP was waiting with open arms to welcome them to the ranks. Conservatives, by definition, want to keep, or "conserve" the status quo and at the time that was segregation and bans on interracial marriages. They think things should stay the way they are because of tradition, or "that's the way it's always been." Meanwhile it was liberals who advocated then and now change from the status quo when it resulted in injustice and inequality, who supported integration and who supported the right for individuals to marry outside of their race, despite 70% of the population being against such marriages (and using the Bible as their rationale for doing so).

[Enrico Palazzo]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

Who was running Virginia back then? Oh yeah, The Democrats.

Next.

so? That's a game that simply doesn't work. The Democratic party realized what they were doing was wrong and a realignment occured, with liberals and civil rights activists joining the Democrats while the conservatives and old school racists feeling alienated by the Democratic Party and thus being welcomed to the GOP with open arms (see: Nixon's "southern strategy").

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by go_disc_golf

Why would I ignore it?

Do you believe any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry and have it recognized by the state?

[bukdow]

Originally Posted by Hecklers

No, what I am saying is that the very fact that Loving was a case left an impression on people who have studied it or lived through it - and it serves - to anyone who cares to try and understand people - as a touchstone for understanding why some people are liberal. These cases that were fundmentally wrong and had to be argued out through the courts, and gave rise to the kinds of dicta that is present in Loving's lower level cases, represent why we have liberals. Despite what you may think, my post is not a gay marriage post, it's a "let's try and understand the other side of the political spectrum" post.

I think your post, and Stranglove's, are highly illustrative of the exact thing I was trying to demonstrate to young Skywalker (Great Danton). I hope GD does read some of the Loving stuff.

Hecklers, I applaud your persistent patience. I must admit, lately the "conservatives" have been getting on my nerves and I have been taking more of an "over my knee" approach with them rather than trying to explain things to them.

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

Do you believe any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry and have it recognized by the state?

Relatives shouldn't, but other than that, yep.

tuff bob: so you are in favor of discriminating against kissing cousins?

me: here we go again.

tuffbob: DOGS AND MEN DOING IT IN THE STREET. WOMAN MARRYING THEIR OWN BABIES!!!!

me:

[The Great Danton]

Originally Posted by go_disc_golf

Relatives shouldn't, but other than that, yep.

tuff bob: so you are in favor of discriminating against kissing cousins?

me: here we go again.

tuffbob: DOGS AND MEN DOING IT IN THE STREET. WOMAN MARRYING THEIR OWN BABIES!!!!

me:

NAMBLA is next.

[Enrico Palazzo]

Originally Posted by The Great Danton

NAMBLA is next.

why would NAMBLA be next? Since the key word in this argument is "consenting" that eliminates NAMBLA from the conversation as children under 18 (or 16, depending on the state) cannot legally consent.

By interjecting NAMBLA into the conversation are you comparing 2 consenting adults of different races who want to marry eachother out of love and devotion to one another to a pedophile and a young boy, or 2 consenting adults of the same sex who wish to do the same to a pedophile and a young boy?

[The Great Danton]

Originally Posted by Enrico Palazzo

why would NAMBLA be next? Since the key word in this argument is "consenting" that eliminates NAMBLA from the conversation as children under 18 (or 16, depending on the state) cannot legally consent.

By interjecting NAMBLA into the conversation are you comparing 2 consenting adults of different races who want to marry eachother out of love and devotion to one another to a pedophile and a young boy, or 2 consenting adults of the same sex who wish to do the same to a pedophile and a young boy?

Prejudice.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by go_disc_golf

Relatives shouldn't, but other than that, yep. tuff bob: so you are in favor of discriminating against kissing cousins?

Hey since you have prejudices, I'm comfortable with mine.

[Enrico Palazzo]

Originally Posted by The Great Danton

Prejudice.

prejudice? I guess that's Dumbton for "as usual I've got nothing but will just post for the hell of it."

Or, are you a supporter of NAMBLA and thus defending them because of your own desire to marry an underage boy?

BTW, if you are going to use a word use it correctly. Prejudice is Interpersonal hostility that is directed against individuals based on their membership in a minority group. Stating what the law is does not make one prejudice. Another Dumbton classic....

[Ric80]

Originally Posted by Enrico Palazzo

no, conservatives, and when the left found a home in the Democratic party during the Civil Rights movement the GOP was waiting with open arms to welcome them to the ranks. Conservatives, by definition, want to keep, or "conserve" the status quo and at the time that was segregation and bans on interracial marriages. They think things should stay the way they are because of tradition, or "that's the way it's always been." Meanwhile it was liberals who advocated then and now change from the status quo when it resulted in injustice and inequality, who supported integration and who supported the right for individuals to marry outside of their race, despite 70% of the population being against such marriages (and using the Bible as their rationale for doing so).

First of all the left was already in the Dem party. Secondly take a look at US history and things aren't as neatly packaged as you would like to make them. Hell you might as well reduce this thread to liberals good, conservatives bad, which then tends to imply Dems good Repubs bad. ( For those who like simplicity)
Let's try this
Brown vs Board of Education -- Chief Justice Earl Warren, former Gov of Calif (R) appointed by President Eisenhower (R) who also had the 1957 Civil Rights Act
1964 Civil Rights Act had more Repub votes % wise than Dem votes. I'll stop here and just note the above as a counterweight to the simple dichotomy that was emerging in this thread. Racism is limited to one region or one party/ideology.