Repost: Black History Month: Mildred and Richard Loving

Nearly sixty years ago it wasn't same-sex marriage, it was interracial marriage.

Mildred Jeter Loving and Richard Perry Loving were married in June of 1958 in the District of Columbia; they'd gotten married in DC because they couldn't get married in Virginia due to that state's Racial Integrity Act—a law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person.

Oh yeah, Mildred was a Black woman; Richard was a white man.

After marrying, they returned to Carolina County, Virginia and were charged with violating the ban. Mildred and Richard Loving were asleep in their own bed in their own house when it was invaded by police officers who hoped to find them having sex—an altogether different crime.

Mildred Loving pointed to the marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom. The police, rather than seeing they weren't committing some kind of interracial sex crime, used the certificate as evidence for a criminal charge since it showed they had been married in another state.

The Lovings 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"—a mixture of the races especially through marriage, cohabitation, or sexual intercourse between a white person and a member of another race –as a felony punishable by a prison sentence of up to 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 Lovings were being run out of town because of who they loved. Sound familiar? The trial judge in the case, Leon Bazile, said:

“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.”

Using God as a way to keep people from marrying? Sound familiar now? Mildred and Richard Loving moved to the District of Columbia, and in November of 1963 the ACLU filed a motion to vacate the judgement and set aside the sentence because it ran counter to the 14th Amendment—equal protection under the law.

The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court and, in October of 1964, after their motion was still undecided, the Lovings began a class action suit in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

In early 1965, the three-judge district court decided to allow the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Virginia Supreme Court Justice Harry Carrico wrote an opinion for the court upholding the constitutionality of the anti-miscegenation statutes and, after modifying the sentence, affirmed the criminal convictions. Carrico said the 14th Amendment didn't apply to the Lovings case because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for the "crime" of "miscegenation."

But then the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and Black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. In its decision, the court wrote: 

“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 June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the Lovings. 

Richard Loving died in a car accident eight years later.

On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement, which commented on same-sex marriage, prepared for delivery on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court., saying in part:

“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.”

Mildred Loving died of pneumonia on May 2, 2008. Her daughter, Peggy Fortune, told the AP:

"I want (people) to remember her as being strong and brave yet humble—and believed in love."

Part of the Washington Post’s obituary read:

“A modest homemaker, Loving never thought she had done anything extraordinary. ‘It wasn't my doing,’ Loving told the AP in a rare interview a year ago. ‘It was God's work.’"

It was just loving.

Repost: Black History Month: Shirley Chisholm

In 1972, thirty-seven years before Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, there was Shirley Chisholm. Black, Female. Running for president.

Shirley Chisholm was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1924, but was just three, when she was sent to live with her grandmother on a farm in Barbados. It was there that she received much of her primary education; the Barbadian school system stressed the traditional British teachings of reading, writing, and history. Chisholm credits much of her educational successes to this well-rounded early education.

Chisholm returned to New York when she was ten, during the height of the Great Depression. Life was not easy for the Chisholm’s in New York, and Shirley's parents sacrificed greatly for their eight children. Chisholm attended New York public schools and was able to compete well in the mainly white classrooms. She attended Girls' High School in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn and won tuition scholarships to several distinguished colleges. However, unable to afford the room and board, and at the urging of her parents ,she decided to live at home and attend Brooklyn College.

While studying to be a teacher, Chisholm became active in several campus and community groups, developed an interest in politics and learned the arts of organizing and fund-raising. She developed a deep resentment toward the role of women in local politics, which, at the time, consisted mostly of staying in the background and playing a secondary role to their male equals. Women were secretaries, and got the coffee, for men who ran for office. Chisholm, through campus politics and her work with the NAACP, found a way for her voice, her opinions, to be heard.

Graduating with honors from Brooklyn College in 1946, Chisholm began work as a nursery school teacher and later as a director of schools for early childhood education. She became politically, and vocally, active with the Democratic Party, earning a reputation as one who challenged the traditional roles of women, African Americans, and the poor. In 1949, she married Conrad Chisholm, and the couple settled in Brooklyn.

After a successful career as a teacher, Chisholm decided to run for the New York State Assembly. Her ideals were perfect for the times; it was the mid-60s, the civil rights movement in full swing, and all across America activists were working for equal civil rights for everyone, regardless of race. In 1964 Chisholm was elected to the assembly.

During her service in the assembly Chisholm sponsored fifty bills, but only eight passed. One of the successful bills she supported provided assistance for poor students to go on to higher education, while another provided employment insurance coverage for personal and domestic employees. Still another bill reversed a law that caused female teachers in New York to lose their tenure if they took maternity leave.

In 1968, Chisholm decided to run for the U.S. Congress. Although her opponent was the well-known civil rights leader James Farmer, Shirley Chisholm won the election and began a lengthy career in the U.S. House of Representatives.

As a Congresswoman, Chisholm focused her attention on the needs of her constituents, while serving on several House committees: Agriculture, Veterans' Affairs, Rules and Education, and Labor. When she was assigned to the Forestry Committee, Chisholm protested her appointment and said that she wanted to work on committees that dealt with issues that affected her district. Forestry issues had little or no importance to the people she represented in Bedford-Stuyvesant. During the Vietnam War, Chisholm was one of the first, and the most outspoken, to protest the amount of money being spent on defense, while social programs suffered. Chisholm argued that money should not be spent for war while many Americans were hungry, poorly educated, and without adequate housing.

Chisholm was also a staunch supporter of women's rights. Early in her career as a congresswoman, she took a stand on abortion and supported a woman's right to choose. She also spoke against traditional roles for women professionals, arguing that women were capable of entering many other professions. Black women especially, she felt, had been pushed into stereotypical roles, or conventional professions, such as maids and nannies; roles white women no longer wanted. Chisholm supported the idea that Black women needed to escape, not just by governmental aid, but also by self-effort. Her antiwar and women's liberation views made Chisholm a popular speaker on college campuses in the late 60s and early 70s.

In 1972 Chisholm decided to run for President. In addition to her interest in civil rights, she spoke out about the judicial system in the United States, police brutality, prison reform, gun control, drug abuse, among other topics. While Shirley Chisholm did not win the Democratic nomination, she did win an impressive 10 percent of the votes within the party. As a result of her candidacy, Chisholm was voted one of the ten most admired women in the world.

After her unsuccessful presidential campaign, Chisholm continued to serve in the House of Representatives until 1982. As a member of the Black Caucus, she was able to see the growth of black representation in the Congress grow.

In 1982, Shirley Chisholm announced her retirement from Congress.

While continuing her teaching after retiring from public life, Chisholm taught politics and women's studies at Mt. Holyoke College in Massachusetts; she was also the visiting scholar at Spelman College.

In 1987 she retired from teaching altogether.

Chisholm continued to be involved in politics by cofounding the National Political Congress of Black Women in 1984, working on Jesse Jackson's presidential campaigns in 1984 and 1988.

In 1993, President Clinton nominated Chisholm for the position of Ambassador to Jamaica, but Chisholm, because of declining health, turned down the nomination.

She was the nation's first Black congresswoman.

She was the nation's first Black presidential candidate.

She stood up for African Americans.

She stood up for the poor.

She stood up for women.

She fought against war.

She was a teacher.

She was a remarkable woman.

Meme Dump

The Bad and The Good ... Monday May, 2, 2022

These really are the easiest posts to compile because there are dumb people everywhere ... but that’s what makes it so frightening. So this week, I decided to include some Good News as sort of a palette cleanser for the crazies …

BAD

TENNESSEE

GOP Governor Bill Lee has signed a new bill to allow Ivermectin, AKA horse paste, to be available for the treatment of COVID-19 without a prescription in Tennessee. Horse.Paste.

Of note is that in 2019 Governor Lee declared that God would stop school shootings and opioid overdoses if enough people would just pray for it to happen. In 2020 he asked people to pray away the COVID.

How’s that workin’ for you, Governor? Looks like your god doesn’t care about school shootings, opioid deaths, or COVID.

OKLAHOMA

The state Senate approved a GOP bill to outlaw abortion, putting the state on track to be the first in the nation to enact a total abortion ban once the GOP governor signs the measure into law.

Raped and pregnant? Too bad. Victim of incest? Too bad. Not viable for mother or child to survive a pregnancy? Too fucking bad.

GEORGIA

GOP Governor Brian Kemp signed several education bills into law last week: one empowers the state school athletic association to exclude transgender athletes, one allows for the banning books, and one makes it wrong to teach history, well, real, true, history.

The world is going to hell in a  handbasket and Kemp is worried about books and history and transgender athletes.

OKLAHOMA

GOP Governor Kevin Stitt has signed a bill prohibiting the use of nonbinary gender markers on state birth certificates.

The bill followed a flap last year over the Department of Health’s agreement in a civil case allowing a nonbinary option. The birth certificate in that case was issued to an Oklahoma-born Oregon resident who sued after the agency initially refused the request. The GOP and Stitt were incensed and Stitt issued an executive order prohibiting any changes to a person’s gender on birth certificates.

FLORIDA

Jeremy Baldwin teaches social studies at Booker High School in Florida and has flown a rainbow colored Coexist flag in his classroom for four years without any problem, but shortly after the Don’t Say Gay law was signed he was forced to take it down because it’s “political” in nature.

Now, I get the rainbow part cuz, you know, gay is illegal and all, but the idea of asking people to coexist, regardless of their religious beliefs, is too hot a topic?

Oh Flori-duh.

GOOD

GEORGIA

About 200 members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans gathered at Stone Mountain over the weekend for an observation of Confederate Memorial Day, but they were met with roughly 100 counter protesters shouting and jeering, forcing the SCV speakers to struggle to be heard over the din. SCV member Kenneth Buggay said:

“These protesters are against our Christian faith. They are anti-Christ. We have been fighting this war since 1861. We will be victorious.”

You’ve been fighting for 161 years and you are nowhere near victorious, asshat.

KANSAS

The GOP-controlled House failed to override Democrat Governor Laura Kelly’s veto of a transgender sports ban, blocking the measure from becoming a law.

Kelly is the fourth governor this year to veto a transgender sports ban, though two of the others—Utah GOP Governor Spencer Cox and Kentucky Democrat Governor Andy Beshear—had their vetoes overridden by their state’s legislatures; the Indiana legislature has not yet tried to override GOP Governor Eric Holcomb’s veto.

FLORIDA

The Human Rights Campaign is welcoming people to Florida with new billboards:

“Governor Ron DeSantis welcomes you to Florida, the ‘Don’t say gay or trans’ State.”

The “Don’t say gay or trans” part is written over “Sunshine”—Florida’s official nickname.

UTAH

Jillian Orr recently graduated from Brigham Young University— a private university in Utah sponsored by the Mormon Church—but she may be in trouble with the university for her graduation stunt.

Orr, who is bisexual, sewed a rainbow flag into her graduation gown and showed it off at the ceremony, and then shared it to social media where it went viral.

Stand out. Speak out. Live out.

And CAST A GODDAMNED VOTE.

God Hates Fags, BLOTUS Says So

That picture is of the old White House, the one that tried for inclusivity; the one that allowed for religious freedom as long at it wasn't used as a weapon.

I miss that White House.

This new, hate-filled, traitorous White House and  it's Department of Health and Human Services have announced a rule that would allow healthcare workers—doctors, nurses, emergency personnel, and hospice workers—to refuse service to LGBTQ Americans by citing their religion as justification.

Cuz God Hates Fags, y’all.

In addition to being anti-LGBTQ, the rule would allow healthcare workers the right to refuse to provide birth control, refuse to treat women who have had abortions.

Cuz God Hates Women Who Want The Rights of Choice.

And so, let’s be clear, about the right to refuse service to LGBTQ Americans. This doesn’t simply apply to those with HIV or AIDS, though that is vile enough, but it means a healthcare worker can refuse to treat LGBTQ citizens for any ailment, or condition, simply by invoking the name of God.

Oh, you have a cold? God says too bad.

You’ve been hit by a car? Sorry, God told me No.

You’re  gay? Not helping. Bisexual? Keep it moving. Transgender? Please leave.

All because _____ wants to appeal his base of hypocritical, faux religious evangelicals, who are really just bigots and homophobes.

And anti-women.

Good News Friday: Leeds Builds Bridge To Equality

Sometimes all it takes is some paint, a paintbrush, and a little bit of love and acceptance and understanding.

Over there to England, in the town of Leeds, they have painted a railway bridge in the colors of the rainbow for its LGBTQ citizens and all because Leeds local, Thomas Wales, wanted to highlight the changing, progressive landscape of his town:

“For me, it is a shining beacon that brightly highlights the fact that the LGBT community don’t have to hide away. We’re part of the fabric of the city. I hope that anyone struggling to come to terms with their sexuality or gender identity will see the rainbow bridge and realize they’re not alone."

The planning for the bridge started last Fall and was finished in time for Valentine’s Day. Official planning for the bridge started in September last year and was completed just before Valentine’s Day. The repaint was funded by money from cash donated by people from city’s LGBTQ community and Leeds City Council.

Sure, it’s a little bit of paint, but it says quite a lot about the world today, doesn’t it?

Gay Star News

In the Age of _____, Stand Strong and Tall and Firm For Equality

Everyone makes jokes about Thanksgiving dinner and the family feuds that erupt over a meal meant to be thankful and grateful I once read openly gay comedian Bob Smith’s book, Openly Bob, and loved how he said he’d come out to his family, over Thanksgiving dinner by quietly asking if, “Someone would please pass the mash potatoes to the homosexual.”

My family never had those uncomfortable holiday dinners; I don’t think we ever fought once, or argued, or disagreed, we were just happy to be together sharing a meal. But this isn’t about me or my family on Thanksgiving; it’s about a woman, a straight woman who is an LGBT ally and the request she received before ever leaving home to travel to her parent’s house for Thanksgiving.

See, her father texted her and asked, well, he actually kind of demanded, that she could either remove the bumpersticker from her car before arriving at their house, or maybe she could find some alternative transportation so the offending sticker wouldn’t be on view.

The sticker? The Human Rights Campaign [HRC] equality sticker.

But before making any decision, the woman, identified only as “Rachel” decided to share her story on the pro-Clinton Facebook group Pantsuit Nation, where it went viral and finally reached the HRC blog where they reported that Rachel had thought about covering the equal sign with an index card to avoid a confrontation:

“Ultimately, Rachel realized that removing the sticker was allowing discrimination to win, and she refused to back down from something she so strongly believed in. Unwilling to compromise her convictions, Rachel decided to leave the sticker on her car.”

Rachel saw her story on HRC and replied:

“Thank you for the outpouring of support and suggestions through comments and private messages. I truly did not anticipate this response. It’s comforting to know I’m not alone in this battle. Many of your comments have brought me to the realization that covering the sticker would be equivalent to removing it.

 I am an ally at all times, not just when it is convenient or easy. My father would win by forcing me to back down from something that I believe in, and it would validate his belief that he still has control over me and can bully me into submission. So there will be no compromise, as I am not willing to compromise my convictions anymore than he is willing to compromise his.

I have decided that I will be parking elsewhere and walking to their house, even though that will be a good little hike since they live down a country road in the middle of nowhere. I feel that this will send a far stronger message than if I were to refuse to remove the sticker and just cover it instead.”

Equality. Her father was offended by equality, but, in the Age of _____, such liberal ideals will face scrutiny; people will still stand up for those who can’t stand for themselves but it might get harder. That’s why we have to stand, strong and steadfast, to let those who would seek to deny equality ... equality for god's sake ... to anyone will not win.

For me, I would have parked the car in Dad’s driveway, with the bumpersticker facing the street; hell, I might have painted the car to look like the HRC emblem.

Whatever we do, we keep doing it.

LGBTQ Nation

Wedding Week Repost: Equal Rights Aren't Special Rights

This first appeared on ISBL back in December 2008, and it reinfoirced the belief I had then, and the belief I have now, especially given that I am getting married this week, that, while some folks were all gung ho for Civil Unions, they were "less than."

Equal Rights Aren't Special Rights

This is a good day for gay marriage. Another step in the right direction, toward equality. 

After allowing civil unions, the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission has come out with a report that says Civil Unions don't work, that the only fair, equitable solution, is for New Jersey to join Massachusetts and Connecticut, in allowing gay men and women the right to marry. 

Marry. Say it with me. Marry! 

Because, as they say, it is still 'separate but equal,' this civil union business. It creates problems for gay couples, and gay couples with children regarding medical care and so on. 

A few years back, when we were still living in Miami, Carlos had appendicitis, and we had to rush him to the Mount Sinai on Miami Beach for surgery. Of course, he's in absolute pain and we have to admit him and fill out paper work and all that rot, but I found something interesting. 

They were asking him who to notify, in case of emergency. He pointed to me; the nurse asked if I was his brother, or another family member. I thought I knew where this was going and I tried to jump in before Carlos answered, but I was too late. 

He's my significant other, Carlos said. 

The nurse gave us a look, stared at the computer screen for a moment, and then smiled. I get to use the new form, she said. We have a category now for same-sex couples, to put down the contact person as a significant other, or spouse or partner. She told us they hadn't been able to do so in years past and it created difficulty for gay couples. 

Now, I could make decisions for Carlos if necessary. I could stay in the room with Carlos while he was hospitalized. i was allowed to wait in the Family Waiting Room when he had surgery and the doctor came out after the procedure to tell me Carlos was fine. 

I would have hated to be at Mount Sinai in 'years past' and been denied visitation because I wasn't family, been denied information because I wasn't family, denied being treated equally because I wasn't family. 

Of course, now we're in South Carolina and I don't know if that same generosity of spirit, that understanding of what makes a family, what makes a couple, exists here. But New Jersey is showing us that it can, and it should. 

I don't want to be treated differently than anyone else, I want to be treated the same. 

If Christians Can Pass Out Bibles, Satanists Can Pass Out Coloring Books

Okay, so … religion. It’s fine for those that want it, and it’s fine for those that don’t. But the problem lies within certain religious groups because some folks believe their faith is the only faith and all others are meaningless. But, sometimes, well, a lot of times, they’re proven wrong and then a little kerfuffle ensues.

Case in point:

Down in Florida, or as I have often called it, having lived there, Flori-duh, the Orange County Schools have allowed a group called World Changers of Florida to distribute Bibles in public schools.

Twice!

Naturally, this does not sit well with those of us who believe in a Separation of Church and State, but it also doesn’t sit well with The Freedom From Religion Foundation — an atheist group — who wanted equal time in the schools and threatened a lawsuit.

So, to settle that suit, and because they know they’re wrong wrong wrong, Orange County Schools agreed to allow The Freedom From Religion Foundation to pass out their atheist materials in school as well.

And that’s where the Satanists come in.

The Satanic Temple wants equal access to the schools as well, to distribute its Satanic Children's Big Book of Activities, a coloring book. Lucien Greaves, spokesman for The Satanic Temple explained the group's motive, saying the Satanic Temple:

“would never seek to establish a precedent of disseminating our religious materials in public schools because we believe our constitutional values are better served by respecting a strong separation of Church and State, but if a public school board is going to allow religious pamphlets and full Bibles to be distributed to students—as is the case in Orange County, Florida—we think the responsible thing to do is to ensure that these students are given access to a variety of differing religious opinions, as opposed to standing idly by while one religious voice dominates the discourse and delivers propaganda to youth.”

And while I am not now, nor have I ever been a Satanist, I say, Go for it. If a public school system in this country is going to allow one religious group to come into a public school and pass out their literature, then they must allow each and every other religious group to do the same.

Failing that, maybe those parents who want their kids to have Bible passed out at school should send their children to a church-affiliated school and leave the public schools alone. Not everyone worships Satan, not everyone worships God, hell, oops, not everyone worships at all, so let's keep all of these faiths, these belief systems out of public schools and stick to reading, writing and arithmetic.

Otherwise your children will spend all their time collecting literature from Christians and Catholics and Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Satanists and Pagans and Wiccans and Atheists and Agnostics and never really get any education at all.

via NCRM

The Funny Papers

Beautiful

This week Full Frontal Freedom released a video in collaboration with Dream It Productions and Ryan Hanson productions in honor of marriage equality, to remind folks that we're still seeking it in many places. The clip is set to Macklemore's "Same Love" and features dancers Nick and James Aragon, Nicole Bondzie, Filippo Calvagno, Ryan Hanson, Emrhys Cooper, Charlotte Price, Hannah May Evans. 

It's choreographed by Emrhys Cooper and Ryan Hanson.

And it's beautiful.

Vacation Repost: More Discrimination Of Gay America By The US Government

originally posted Wednesday, April 29, 2009

The Social Security Administration has reversed a decision to deny benefits to the children of a disabled gay father following a three year battle waged on behalf of the family by Lambda Legal.

“This is long awaited relief for Gary Day and his children, who just want to be respected as the family that they are,” said Lambda attorney Beth Littrell in a statement. “The Social Security Administration is supposed to provide families with help in a time of need regardless of a parent’s sexual orientation. After three long years and a federal lawsuit, the SSA has finally come through for these children.”

In February 2006, Day completed the applications for Child Insurance Benefits for his children. He provided birth certificates and court documents that acknowledge him as a legal parent of the children. The SSA acknowledged that they received the application and promised to provide a response in 45 days and yet more than a year passed and he received no response whatsoever.

Then Lambda Legal sent a letter on Day’s behalf and still the SSA still did not provide an initial determination of eligibility citing unspecified “legal questions and policy issues” involved with the application.

Gary Day did all the right things, all that he was asked. He provided the necessary documentation to establish a legitimate parent-child relationship and fulfilled all of the SSA’s prerequisites, yet his family was left without the social safety net that Day had paid into for decades and that all other families are provided on a regular basis.

In May 2008, over two years after his initial request, Lamda Legal and Gary Day had had enough. They filed suit against the SSA forcing the agency to act on Day’s application, urging them to recognize Day as a legal parent of the children. Finally, just last Friday, almost a year later, the SSA recognized the legal relationship between Day and his children without discrimination based on his sexual orientation or family status.

“As a parent, it is my job to provide for my children,” said Day. ” I am relieved to be able to fulfill my promise and also relieved that the SSA will provide the benefits my family needs, just as they do for other families.”

This was man who simply wanted to provide for his children, and was denied, at the most, or ignored, at the least, in trying to do so. It's another form of discrimination that gay Americans face every day, that straight Americans take for granted.

It was a good day, then, for Gary Day, and gay America.