By Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
Somewhere out there Mildred Loving must be smiling and wondering how things could change so much since 1967. You might recall Ms. Loving as the African-American and Virginia resident who had the audacity to marry a white man and then procreate in the Virginia of the 1960s. Charged with violating Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, an anti-miscegenation law which criminalized marriages between members of different races, the case was heard in Hanover Courthouse, where liberty’s most eloquent spokesman, Patrick Henry, once argued the famous Parson’s Case. Circuit Court Judge Leon Bazile, whose portrait still hangs in the hallway of the new courthouse, sentenced the couple to one year in prison suspended upon the condition they would leave their home state. In doing so, he announced to the world that Virginia would not step so quickly away from its historical racism:
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.
The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed in that southern gentlemen way it perfected with soon-to-be Chief Justice Harry Carrico stating deftly that Virginia would not depart from state precedent notwithstanding a U.S. Supreme Court overruling discrimination based on race and that any change in social mores concerning marriage should come from the Virginia legislature. Fat chance of that Justice Carrico knew, given the state’s history of Massive Resistance to any kind of racial desegregation. Carrico passed the proverbial buck and it was up to the Warren Court to right the wrong.
Earl Warren did right the wrong and in so doing insured that love would be colorblind, saying flatly in Loving v. Virginia:
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.
On Valentines Day 2014, word spread that a federal judge in Norfolk had issued an opinion reiterating the words of Chief Justice Warren and that was every bit as controversial to some in the Old Dominion. And the arguments involved were every bit as religious and tradition-based as the ones relied upon by Judge Bazile in denying Mildred and Richard Loving their rights as human beings.
Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, appointed by President Obama, in a 41 page opinion struck down Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban on constitutional grounds despite a plebiscite in 2006 which amended the Commonwealth’s Constitution to read:
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.~Va.Const,art.I,§15-A.
Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships. Such relationships are created through the exercise of sacred, personal choices — choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference.
And what exactly were the justifications proffered by the Commonwealth (before recently elected Attorney General Mark Herring reversed course and joined the plaintiffs in the case) in defense of the indefensible? Why the two most respected of Virginia traditions– the Christian religion and tradition itself. No doubt Virginia’s laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman “were rooted in principles embodied by men of Christian faith,” Wright Allen wrote. “However, although marriage laws in Virginia are endowed with this faith-enriched heritage, the laws have nevertheless evolved into a civil and secular institution sanctioned by the Commonwealth of Virginia, with protections and benefits extended to portions of Virginia’s citizens.”
Vanquishing the argument from religion, Wright Allen took on the most sacred of sacred cows in Virginia. “The legitimate purposes proffered by the proponents for the challenged laws—to promote conformity to the traditions and heritage of a majority of Virginia’s citizens, to perpetuate a generally recognized deference to the state’s will pertaining to domestic relations laws, and, finally, to endorse ‘responsible procreation’—share no rational link with Virginia marriage laws being challenged,” wrote the judge, herself an African-American, who understands a thing or two about Virginia’s traditions in regards to its minority citizens.
And don’t think Judge Wright Allen was fooled for a moment by that old canard about marriage serving the purposes of the state in promoting procreation:
The goal and the result of this legislation is to deprive Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens of the opportunity and right to choose to celebrate, in marriage, a loving, rewarding, monogamous relationship with a partner to whom they are committed for life. These results occur without furthering any legitimate state purpose.
Judge Wright Allen thus joins the unanimous opinion of every other federal judge who has considered and ruled on this issue. That holds no sway for conservatives in the Commonwealth like the sponsor of the same-sex marriage ban, our very own Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William). Marshall, who once said that children born with handicaps after an abortion by their mothers were a “special punishment” from God, quickly called for the judge’ s impeachment. The Family Research Council said the decision “reeks of political show” and demonstrates a “personal political agenda.”
Still most in the Commonwealth were smiling as attitudes about gay marriage have changed considerably since the 2006 ban garnered 57% of the vote of participating Virginians in favor of the amendment. Current polling shows that 50 percent of registered Virginia voters support same-sex marriage, while 43 percent oppose it.
Oh, and the real reason we know that Mildred Loving is smiling down on us: Judge Allen Wright, began her historic opinion with a passage written by Mildred Loving in her essay, Loving for All, that says all that really needs to be said about denying people that which they are due simply for being people:
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? … 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 support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.
Source: Washington Post
~Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
George:
Given your perspective and obvious powers as a soothsayer when might we expect your eminent departure from our shores?
charlton stanley
If we allow a change in marriage to same sex then that opens the door to a person wanting to marry their pet.. You said that is wrong because of consent but you are wrong. Consent has nothing to do with marriage as I stated above about arranged marriages. Laws can change in a Democratic society and that is what will happen down the road. Man did not define marriage and therefore it is not man’s job to redefine it. People can say what they may about the Religious argument but truth is truth. Man and woman were meant for each other as human anatomy shows and that fact cant be disputed. America keeps wanting to do things their way instead of God’s way and this is why we have a 17 trillion dollar debt that will lead to economic catastrophy within two years, abortion on demand that can’t possibly be rewarded through shedding innocent blood, people shacking up and not married, alcoholics, thieves, murderers, liars and cheaters, and the list could go on. Now we have people who are blinded in their own sin wanting to promote their perversion on America. Ask the Roman Empire if they would like to make changes. Oh, there is no more Roman Empire just like soon there will be no more America as we know it.
George wrote: “If we allow a change in marriage to same sex then that opens the door to a person wanting to marry their pet.. You said that is wrong because of consent but you are wrong. Consent has nothing to do with marriage as I stated above about arranged marriages.”
You are absolutely right, George. Don’t let these naysayers bother you too much. California has already started doing what you have warned us about.
San Francisco, CA — On Monday history was made at the Chapel of Our Lady at the Presidio in San Francisco as the first-ever state recognized human-animal marriage took place.
Local resident 35-year-old Paul Horner was the groom during the ceremony. Joining him was his faithful dog Mac who is 36-years-old in dog years. Mac also decided to be the groom but ended up wearing a white veil at the last moment.
Father McHale who officiated the outdoor wedding told reporters he was extremely happy to be a part of this joyous moment of life. “This is the definition of true love my friends. There is nothing more sacred than the bond between a man and his faithful dog,” McHale said. “Now, since it is recognized as a legally binding marriage in the state of California, Mr. Horner and Mac will have all the same tax benefits and everything else coming to them that a regular married couple would receive. It’s a fantastic day to be alive!”
– See more at: http://nationalreport.net/california-allows-first-ever-state-recognized-human-animal-marriage/#sthash.W21OHsHg.dpuf
George,
You say, “what will happen.” What exactly will happen?
Thanks mark….. Progress comes in small spurts……
pete,
exactly, what things are like today doesn’t mean it will stay that way. Thanks for proving my point.
george
just because it was like that yesterday, doesn’t mean it has to be like that tomorrow.
it’s called progress.
Charlton Stanley
Marriage doesn’t have to involve consent. We can always change that through law. Many marriages throughout history involved arrangements where the bride and in some cases the groom didnt give consent. If we allow same sex marriages then we are setting a precedent that will not end there. Proponents of same sex try and disbelieve this idea but that action has no effect on the reality of what will happen.
RandyJ: You don’t address a single point in my responses to you. You can give it another shot or you can go on looking like a total moron spouting gibberish. What ever you decide to do, grab a napkin and wipe the foam off your mouth.
David: The only thing you have plainly proved is that you don’t know what you’re talking about. The issue squarely before the court was “Should persons of difference races be allowed to marry”. By citing Skinner, the was merely acknowledging the importance that the Court had placed on marriage in the past. You are clearly wrong.
————————————————–
“(N)ewer modern judges…are just pushing their own political agendas rather than working hard at understanding the issues involved.”
You mean like the new modern scientists aren’t working hard enough to understand your concept of an empirical clock that will prove the earth is only 6000 years?
You’ve wasted enough of my time and I can see better convolutions in the Olympics, but I tell you what. Get in touch with the Attorney’s General of some of these states that are fighting against same-sex marriages and run down all your “proof” for them. They’re hardworking public employees and they could probably use a good laugh.
Elaine,
That is an amazing story. A cow orgy!
Charlton,
Regarding humans marrying dogs, donkeys, or other non-humans: Sometimes a fella gets a hankering for a heifer, doncha know?
In Defense of Man-Cow Relations: New Jersey Judge Drops Charges Against Police Officer for Having Sex with Cows On the Grounds That They May Have Enjoyed It
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/24/new-jersey-judge-drops-charges-against-police-officer-for-having-sex-with-cows-on-the-grounds-that-they-may-have-enjoyed-it/
Excerpt:
New Jersey police officer Robert Melia Jr. will not face criminal charges for allegedly having sex with five calves under a perfectly bizarre ruling by Judge James J. Morley…Morley dismissed animal cruelty charges on the grounds that the cows may have enjoyed having sex with Melia.
Ross,
I truly hope you are not a lawyer since I would have to wonder how you passed the bar.
In other words unless a new amendment violates the 9th Amendment (restricting rights), an amendment to the U.S. Constitution can’t violate previous amendments
Not only did the 21st Amendment violate previous amendments, it repealed the 18th amendment. Then since you like to cite others, why was the 19th amendment needed since according to your view it violated the 14th amendment? All that was needed then was for a judge or the SCOTUS to rule that women had the right to vote, and to hell with the legislature and precedents and law! Please explain how all those lawyers, jurists, and SCOTUS were so woefully deficient in their legal training and careers. They were all FOOLS, and you are the only one who has the light! I have heard of conceit, but I think yours is beyond any I have run into.
Bad phrasing in the above. Meant “straight couple” not “normal couple.” Tired sleep-deprived brain.
Pete, Annie, et al:
We have all heard the same tired arguments over and over. It’s about reproduction, but when it is pointed out that if that were the case, infertile people would not be allowed to marry. Then it’s about “natural law” but no one seems to be able to define natural law, so that fizzles. Then it’s about g-d inventing marriage, but no one can produce the actual document handed down by Himself, or the date on it. Then it’s about reproduction again. Then we hear about people marrying dogs and who knows what else, but they can’t explain how that would happen legally, since the marriage contract requires informed consent. One thing does puzzle me. How would any normal couple’s marriage be affected one way or the other? No one has explained exactly how that would work in reality. Ipse dixit is not a convincing argument.
The one thing bigots never address is the fact that marriage is a legal contract, with rights and privileges appended thereto. It is not about who has a boy part or girl parts, and in fact, I don’t know of any marriage law or vow that says the couple MUST have sex. Or not.
How many thousands of years since the inception of marriage did it take to even bring up the notion that same sex people should be allowed to marry? How many more years will it take before I can marry my parakeet? Who knows? I hope not too many, as he is such a handsome little fella.
@Davidm2575
Thank you for your response.
Perhaps I do not understand your position. I realize my summary, here, do not capture the rich detail of your argument. But in a very, very schematic form you seem to be arguing:
1) The right to marriage is based on reproduction
2) Same sex couples do not reproduce
3) Therefore same sex couples are not entitled to marriage.
My personal view, regardless of judicial decisions , is that the right to marriage is supported by more than just reproduction. In particular, I believe that everyone has a natural right to make their own choices regarding what is, perhaps, the most deeply personal relation possible.
However, my remarks to you were that even if the right to marriage is based solely on reproduction, that fact still does not reasonably or logically provide a basis to exclude same sex couples.
“You do not see anything about reproduction in this logic?”
I never claimed that there is no relation between reproduction and marriage.
On the contrary I pointed out that same sex couples reproduce to assure their genetic endowment is carried on in future generations. I pointed out that same sex couples carry out the true human and legal meaning of reproduction by forming families, having children and nurturing their children.
If you insist on viewing marriage though the prism of reproduction, my argument was that same sex couples are deeply involved in reproduction and child rearing just as are other couples.
The process of reproduction is not sufficient to distinguish same sex couples from heterosexual couples. In part, that fact is due to the reality that humans, in reproduction, do more than just gestate a biologically unique creature. To be meaningful, the legal concept of human reproduction must also include nurturing , parenting, and the associated process involved with family formation. In that broader legal and human sense there is, essentially, no difference between same sex and heterosexual couples.
“The refusal to recognize the right of automobiles to be called airplanes cannot be supported by rational argument.”
I don’t think this analogy helps your argument very much. I did not argue there is no difference between cars and airplanes.
I argued that if what you call a car zips around at the same altitude and at the same speed as airplanes then we ought to let the so called cars land at the same air ports because it is the right thing to do and we all benefit.
To put a finer point on your analogy, those who refuse to allow the so called cars to land at airports risk disaster for all of us. If the cars fly through the air we ought to let them land at airports just like airplanes. As a matter of fact, if the cars fly though the air like air planes why would we bother to distinguish them from air planes at all?
As I pointed out in several different ways, same sex couples and the families they form are, in the most important ways, indistinguishable from their heterosexual counterparts. They reproduce. They form families. They love and nurture their children.
There is no rational basis to deny them the benefits and protection of marriage. David, same sex couples are very much like the cars that fly though the air and need, sometimes, to land at airports. Same sex couples need and deserve the same legal protection and the same respect as other couples. There is no rational basis to discriminate against them.
“It seems like you are arguing that scientific technology can modify same sex couples to function just like opposite couples so that they are the same, and therefore all same sex unions ought to be treated identical to opposite sex unions. ”
I did not argue that they are indistinguishable. My point was that when it comes to the important legal, political, and social aspects, same sex couples are much like their heterosexual counterparts. In particular they want to form loving relationships, have children, nurture their children and assure their children have the opportunity to realize all their natural gifts – just as do other parents.
The fact that they have many of the same goals and make the same sacrifices to achieve the same objectives – sound families and healthy children – implies that as a society we should give them the same legal opportunities. How could any reasonable persona argue they have a lessor claim to the benefits we grant to other couples?
“What did you think about her [Gessen’s] opinion, that gay marriage fundamentally changes the institution of marriage and ultimately destroys it, and that gays are lying when they claim it doesn’t? ”
I do not believe that Gessen speaks for many. She does not speak for me. I do not feel that I have to answer for her remarks. Nevertheless, as I mentioned in a previous reply, if you listen carefully to Gessen, she wants greater freedom to include other loving adults in her family to provide support for her children.
What ever her words, the details she describes are more inclusive and more supportive of children. Gessen wants the institution of marriage to be more flexible to meet the needs of more families. The details that Gessen mentioned are good things that would make families and the institution of marriage stronger.
But her rhetoric is inflamatory – needlessly so in my opinion.
“Do you think it is right for gays to destroy the institution of marriage for everyone?”
David, trust me on this, Gays are not going to destroy the institution of marriage.
Even if a few of them make crazy talk, heteros have already done enough that the poor institution is fighting for its life.
The world does not, reasonably, divide between gays and straights on the question of marriage. The real division is between the gays and straights who cherish marriage and others, either straight or gay, who undermine marriage.
David, you need to open your eyes and see who your real allies are in supporting the institution of marriage.
Once again DavidM, thank you for you response. I hope that at some point you can see the benefit to us all of accepting all who want to embrace the institution of marriage. I am confident that inclusion will benefit us all, especially children, and enhance the institution of marriage.
Pete, annieofwi
Believe me all will care one day. However, can you site the time in history when marriage began? I can assure you it didn’t involve the same sex. That means that when we change it legally as you say, then it can be changed again to fit any Americans definition. All you need is a few people to come up with their own definition and pretty soon it will be a movement that will change society. Btw Pete who came up with that LEGAL definition and why did they have to?
the biblical definition of marriage is moot. what is at issue is the legal definition of marriage.
no one cares what the biblical definition is. that is between you and whatever you call god.
and if you can get an informed consent from you f*ckin pet than more power to ya.
George.
One would have to believe in your premise that marriage is defined by God, to accept that the definition is in danger of being changed. As civilized people, most accept that marriage is the joining of humans. If I’ve still misunderstood your argument then so be it. What you’ve written doesn’t really make an sense to me.
Raffle
It wouldn’t matter because you would have the right to pursue her if we change the biblical definition of marriage.
Annieofwi
I said since Adam and Eve from a religious point of view. All of your comments do not address my point. Fifty years ago there was no push for gay marriage
but now there is. If we change it then that opens the door for marriage with pets. No comment has stated anything to the contrary other than to dodge it with humor. The merits of my point are valid and would in fact be constitutional if we use the fourteenth amendment as a basis for marriage rights.