Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving
From Anna Quindlen in Newsweek:
Opponents will scream that the issue should be put to the people, as it was in Arizona, Florida and California. (Arkansas had a different sort of measure, forbidding unmarried couples from adopting or serving as foster parents. This will undoubtedly have the effect of leaving more kids without stable homes. For shame.) Of course if the issue in Loving had been put to the people, there is no doubt that many would have been delighted to make racial intermarriage a crime. That's why God invented courts.
....
The last word here goes to an authority on battling connubial bigotry. On the anniversary of the Loving decision last year, the bride wore tolerance. Mildred Loving, mother and grandmother, who once had cops burst into her bedroom because she was sleeping with her own husband, was quoted in a rare public statement saying she believed all Americans, "no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry." She concluded, "That's what 'Loving' and loving are all about."
Yes, Mildred. We hear you. What an appropriate name for such a decision. The opponents of gay marriage use many of the same excuses as the opponents of mixed race marriages, but the excuses won't work forever. The sunny day is coming for gay marriage, "don't know where, don't know when", as the old song goes, but it will come.
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
I loved this when I read it in "Newsweek." Anna Quindlan writes eloquently; I'm glad she reaches such a large audience.
ReplyDeleteJan, thanks. My hope is that the ban on gay marriage will be declared unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment, which provides equal protection under the law to all citizens.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice, and a convenient way to upend all these hateful amendments that have been passed onto the heads of those of us so "fortunate" to live in places where the intolerant are allowed to vote.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
SCG, separate but equal is never equal. Therein lies my hope.
ReplyDeleteAs Anna stated "That's why God invented courts." In order to protect the rights of minorities from the will of the majority.
ReplyDeleteNo, Mimi, it won't---it's only being challenged based on the California Constitution. If they challenge it on Federal grounds, the challenge will go up to SCOTUS, which is a very conservative court, and is not at all likely to find for a bunch of gay folks. THe goal is to keep it out of the Federal system lest they set the clock back 50 years.
ReplyDeleteScalia made it clear in his vote against the majority in Lawrence v. Texas that he expected the gay marriage issue to come up, and made it VERY clear where his opinion lay.
TH conservatives do not consider that gays are equal citizens under the law. And they have the votes to uphold that.
IT
Uber-G, that's right. One day it will happen.
ReplyDeleteIT, I still don't give up hope for justice through the 14th Amendment one day. Keeping the case out of the federal courts for now makes sense, but we have a new president who may get to appoint two, or perhaps three, new justices.
For now, yes, keep it out of the federal courts, but Scalia and his crew of conservatives will not be in the majority forever.
I stand on my hope.
Well, the oldest and sickest justices are all liberal, so any replacements are likely to be status quo. Roberts and Alito are very young.
ReplyDeleteUnless scalia has a heart attack, but i think you have to have a heart for that to happen.
IT
IT
ReplyDeleteI don't think I understand the American system well at all. Whether someone is intrinsically conservative or liberal shouldn't really matter - either a particular case is legally sound or it isn't.
Isn't the law objective?
Erika, that's how it should be, but the justices, too often, vote according to their ideologies. Remember Mr. Bumble's words, "The law is a ass, a idiot...," which proves true at times, much to our distress.
ReplyDeleteIT, remember Earl Warren. He surprised everyone. It could happen again. I don't give up hope.
Mimi
ReplyDeleteIf/when the judges do that and it's clear that they do that, surely that can be challenged?
In our system, the Supreme Court is the final authority for interpreting the constitution. As my old government teacher once said, the constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that, the only recourse is to amend the constitution, which is a long, laborious, and uncertain process.
Erika, as Counterlight says, there is no appeal except a constitutional amendment. Many of us believe that Al Gore won the election in 2000, but the Supremes voted to stop the Florida recount, thus we had 8 years of the worst president ever.
ReplyDeleteIt's not unlike arguments over the Bible, Erika.
ReplyDeleteThere are the STrict Constructionists, who think that if the FOunding Fathers didn't write it explictly in the Constitution 220 years ago, it doesn't exist. THere are the modernists, who see the Constitution as a living document that can expand to accommodate modern understandings.
And just as in religion, they argue a lot and accuse each other of heresy.
IT
IT, that is an excellent analogy.
ReplyDeleteIT is absolutely right (as usual). State constitutions generally afford greater rights than the Federal Constitution. California has always interpreted its Equal Protection clause far more broadly than the federal courts interpret the 5th and 14th Amendments.
ReplyDeleteThe basic holding in the California marriage case was the marriage is a fundamental right, and as such, the government can only infringe on it when there is a compelling state interest. The court held that there was not anything close to such an interest in same sex relationships, and that therefore even the relatively mild discrimination of the Domestic Partnership law was invalid.
Proposition 8 did not alter this. So there is a now basic conflict within the state Constitution which the court has to resolve - somehow. Either Proposition 8 must be set aside, or else marriage is not a fundamental right and equal protection should be narrowly interpreted. That would be a huge change of direction for California law, and as such it is arguably a revision rather than an amendment and therefore invalid.
Then, I hope the California courts do the right thing. Still the only hope for gay marriage in some states will be a federal ruling, which I believe will come one day - perhaps not soon, but it will come.
ReplyDeleteToday, we look at the Lovings and see a beautiful married couple. Forty years ago, most didn't...
ReplyDelete...but they've EITHER changed their minds, or died off.
Please Lord, 40 years from now (if not sooner), may most see the same in a m/m or f/f couple?
[I keep thinking of Pagan Sphinx's daughter and daughter-in-law, as here. Seriously, if these girls don't make a beautiful couple, who does?]
JCF, I don't lose hope for those like Pagan Sphinx's daughter and IT and BP. The results this year were disappointing, but I won't give up hope.
ReplyDelete