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
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