Daily Kos

Open Thread for Night Owls & Early Birds

Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:54:53 PM PDT

Thanks to Rick Perlstein for pointing out that Mildred Loving has died at age 68.

Mildred Loving, a black woman whose challenge to Virginia's ban on interracial marriage led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws nationwide, has died, her daughter said Monday.

Peggy Fortune said Loving, 68, died Friday at her home in rural Milford. She did not disclose the cause of death.

I want (people) to remember her as being strong and brave yet humble -- and believed in love," Fortune told The Associated Press.

Loving and her white husband, Richard, changed history in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their right to marry. The ruling struck down laws banning racially mixed marriages in at least 17 states.

Last June, on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, Mildred wrote the following:

Loving for All

By Mildred Loving

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.

Condolences to her kin and friends.

The Overnight News Digest is posted.

  • ::
Poll

Have you ever been in interracial relationship lasting one year or more?

55%6525 votes
7%886 votes
15%1836 votes
3%361 votes
3%444 votes
1%158 votes
9%1134 votes
1%134 votes
1%221 votes

| 11699 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Open Thread for Night Owls & Early Birds (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 278 comments

  •  need another category for me (22+ / 0-)

    I've never been in a relationship with a woman of my own race :)

    We drew our heavy revolvers (suddenly in the dream there were revolvers) and exultantly killed the gods. -- Jorge Luis Borges, Ragnarok

    by Hobbitfoot on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:00:12 PM PDT

    •  Left the Shire? n/t (16+ / 0-)

      Deranged neoconservative militarism isn't the solution to nuclear proliferation; it's a cause. -- Glenn Greenwald

      by factbased on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:01:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  um, how about marriage for folks of the SAME (10+ / 0-)

      fucking sex?! No candidate will come out for it! SHAME. SHAME. SHAME. Is it 1958 or 2008?!

      "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

      by bebacker on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:30:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You did read Loving's statement ... (13+ / 0-)

        ...above, right?

        Like a cyclone, imperialism spins across the globe; militarism crushes peoples and sucks their blood like a vampire. K. Liebknecht

        by Meteor Blades on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:42:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And the statement has made laws how? (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          fritzrth, Bule Betawi

          This country is sick. 1958-2008 whatever. When will we learn that being right about basic human rights should not allow us to throw our convictions away to get the "white soccer mom or nascar dad or white male vote"!

          I think marriage is silly but If a jackass such as myself is allowed to do it, Everyone should be! Oh, and the whole equal pay thing as well. blah blah I should look at a statement.......

          "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

          by bebacker on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:56:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Have a little perspective (4+ / 0-)

            Most of us never expected to see any possibility for marriage equality in our lifetimes.  Now it is within reach in the forseeable future, the case in many western countries, and even those candidates who fall short still support CUs with federal recognition and almost marriage equality.  We can mourn how we fall short, and still recognize how surprisingly far we are going, and much more quickly than anyone could have guessed.

            Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

            by bythesea on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:06:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  or we could understand that um (0+ / 0-)

              maybe, "leaders" have no fucking clue about what the people want. Maybe?

              "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

              by bebacker on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:17:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The "people" aren't ready (4+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                CParis, koNko, justiceputnam, goshzilla

                generally, but still think they can be fair with CUs.  If you add together those who support marriage equality and those who support CUs with legal equality, we have the majority.  We just have to make those who support CUs but not "marriage" understand why that is insufficient and we will win, even soon.  The "leaders" will quickly follow.

                Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

                by bythesea on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:26:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ugh n/t (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  decafdyke, koNko

                  "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

                  by bebacker on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:37:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "ugh" all you want (4+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    CParis, koNko, justiceputnam, goshzilla

                    It's the political reality at the moment, and will change to our favor quickly as people become acclimated to gay marriage.

                    Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

                    by bythesea on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:39:35 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Gay Rights... (6+ / 0-)

                      ... are Civil Rights.

                      A Poet is at the same time a force for Solidarity and for Solitude --Pablo Neruda

                      by justiceputnam on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:03:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  As a married gay man (4+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        sarahnity, sap, koNko, justiceputnam

                        I completely agree, but recognize it will take a few years to "actualize" this, unless the courts intervene, and without some appointments by a Dem POTUS, I fear that ultimate outcome, but am "hopeful".

                        Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

                        by bythesea on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:06:25 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  SCOTUS... (5+ / 0-)

                          ... as it is seated now is not the same type of court as during Brown v. Board of Educ; it is not the modifying voice and cannot be counted on for redress.

                          Civil Rights will have to be addressed legislatively. I'm not gay, but the denial of rights to any group or individual will soon be a denial of my rights if a stand is not made. Equal Protection and Due Process means for all, not a select few. The current court believes that the Constitution is not "living"; it is enshrined in stone from its inception.

                          A "living" Constitution is one in which the term "People" includes blacks, asians, gays, etc.

                          If we go by this Federalist Society hokum "Scalito", Roberts et, al. have foisted on us, "People" are only white male landowners of a certain station of class.

                          That's why it's important to have Dems in office.

                          The courts are lost to us for a generation or more; not just SCOTUS, but the Federal and District benches as well.

                          We need to elect more Dems.

                          A Poet is at the same time a force for Solidarity and for Solitude --Pablo Neruda

                          by justiceputnam on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:20:02 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Indeed (2+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            koNko, justiceputnam

                            let us do so.

                            Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

                            by bythesea on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:26:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  love the expression living constitution..ty! (1+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            justiceputnam
                          •  SCOTUS isn't the only court. (5+ / 0-)

                            The CA Supreme Court, which is the second-most influential court in the country, is currently deliberating the gay marriage issue. Based on the oral arguments, I give about a 70% chance that they will hold that marriage is an absolute right, that cannot be denied to homosexual couples. Probably a 5-2 or 6-1 split if gay rights wins, 3-4 if they lose (there is a Justice who I think will just go with whatever the majority thinks in this case).

                            •  Of course the Ca court decided... (1+ / 0-)

                              Recommended by:
                              bebacker

                              ... about CA EPA emission controls that the SCOTUS overturned.

                              So much for State's rights and State Court decisions.

                              All during the Civil Rights movement, SCOTUS was the refuge for redress; no longer is that the case.

                              These current Civil Rights issues will need to be legislated rather than decided in Court.

                              This Court has proven itself to have its own agenda; and it ain't precedent that has been on the books since the New Deal.

                              This Court is determined to overturn every liberal decision since the New Deal.

                              A Poet is at the same time a force for Solidarity and for Solitude --Pablo Neruda

                              by justiceputnam on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:51:37 AM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                    •  How much "acclimat[ion]" is necessary? (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      bebacker

                      More people approve of same sex marriage now than approved of interracial marriage in the 70's and 80's. And that's with same sex marriage being illegal in 49 states and interracial marriage legal in all 50 states. By gallup polling, it wasn't until 1991 that approval of interracial marriage outpaced disapproval and even then it was only a plurality of 48% to 42%. That is 24 years, a full generation, after Mildred Loving and her husband's case made interracial marriage legal in all 50 states. If Mildred Loving had to wait that long to marry her husband, it wouldn't have happened as Richard Loving died in 1975. And today thousands of same sex couples feel that pain, having partners die without having their love for each other affirmed in marriage. The notion that same sex couples should have to "wait" for people to become "acclimated to gay marriage" is morally reprehensible and indefensible.  In the words of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

                      Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

                      We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
                      ...
                      I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

                      As with King's struggle, the stumbling block is not the homophobic fanatical right-wing fundamentalist KKKhristian zealot, but heterosexual moderates, who likewise feel they can paternalistically determine the timetable for GLBT equality.

                      There are 10 kind of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.

                      by craigkg on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:53:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  sometimes (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                koNko, bythesea

                the "people" have to be told what they want.  Sometimes an activist judge is needed to remind "people" that what the "people" want is not always what is right.  

                •  True (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  koNko

                  but I lack confidence that our current SCOTUS would do any such thing.  There is the possibility of it occurring on a state level now (like the possibility in CA where I live, but most commentators seem to feel they won't), but on the federal level it's hopeless unless we put real justices on the SCOTUS.

                  Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

                  by bythesea on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:14:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Laws don't make the world fair. (5+ / 0-)

            They are only a tool to facillitate change.

            The rest is up to us.

            Despite the current situation, I think the US and the world has actuially come a long way in just my lifetime.

            In my parents generation, my own life path would have been almost impossible in many ways instead of just difficult in my way.

            When harmonious relationships dissolve, respect and devotion arise; when a nation falls to chaos, loyalty and patriotism are born - Daodejing (paraphrased)

            by koNko on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:00:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              koNko

              but changing the law is up to us too.  And without changing the law, attitudes can't change.

              Gay couples can never be accepted when they have to hide from the law.  Even in MA, binational same-sex couples live in fear that the federal government will deport one of them if they are discovered to be in a serious relationship.

              •  Agree Too. (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Jonathanonymous

                Obviously the law is importiant to break open doors as this diary explains and I don't mean to suggest otherwise.

                I only want to say that society is making procgress and we need to recognize that too because it's a long road and you don't get far if you dispair.

                When harmonious relationships dissolve, respect and devotion arise; when a nation falls to chaos, loyalty and patriotism are born - Daodejing (paraphrased)

                by koNko on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:02:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Apparently 1958. Except here in MA n/t (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        koNko, Uncle Moji
        •  WHat?! Does MA have equal pay laws? (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          fritzrth, Bule Betawi

          In PA, not only can you not get married(as if the fucking government recognizing such things means anything except for the VERY important tax breaks) you can be fired for "BEING" GAAAAAAYY! Nice!

          Thank GOD that women are not FIGHTING for equal pay in MA....oh wait...

          "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

          by bebacker on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:59:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  uh, Mrs. Loving sure did (14+ / 0-)

        come out for it.

        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.

        (-8.00,-7.85) "Jesus Christ was the first nonviolent revolutionary." --S. Stills

        by bubbanomics on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:59:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  again, what does this have to do with (0+ / 0-)

          the fact that folks TODAY are not allowed to marry?! Hurray! A statement! OK then, we are just fine.

          "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

          by bebacker on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:01:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sorry. (6+ / 0-)

            I don't think we're saying "we are just fine."  In fact, we seem to be pretty fucked up.  We're a little less fucked up than we were 40 years ago.  Not enough progress, certainly not fast enough, but even a small victory can be relished some, before we saddle up for the next hard ride, can't it?

            (-8.00,-7.85) "Jesus Christ was the first nonviolent revolutionary." --S. Stills

            by bubbanomics on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:04:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure, we can relish the fact that folks were (0+ / 0-)

              wrong back then! Thank god that the supreme court "saw" it that way. I don't think this one would have though. Basic sense is all I'm asking. The hatred in this country has been wrong forever. Laws that are against basic nature are NOT laws that any of of should abide by. I don't care what is said. The fact that women could not vote. The fact that "negroes" could not vote. The fact that Whites and Blacks could not marry. The fact that drugs are illegal. The fact that folks of the same sex can't marry. Sad. FUCKING SAD! But, I guess we should all just celebrate that old men decided it was "ok" for folks of different races to marry some years ago. Did we as a people not already decide that?!

              "How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -9.62, -9.23

              by bebacker on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:15:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  It seems like a battle of semantics to me. (0+ / 0-)

        A civil union is a marriage without the church part, right?  I got 'married' to my third husband by just going to the judge and having him sign the license.  So I guess it was more of a civil union.

        My thinking is that legal 'marriage' is a special form of contract that gives the participants certain rights and responsibilities.  As long as whatever is proposed includes the same rights and responsibilities, then the battle is won IMO.

        The rest is the religious part.  I would think the Unitarians for sure would agree to same sex marriage, if they haven't already.

        Am I way off base here?  I've been known to completely miss the point of a discussion before.

        -7.50, -7.74 Republicans = Borrow and Squander

        by GMFORD on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:45:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have to disagree (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          fritzrth, GMFORD, ThompsonLazyBoy

          No, a civil union is in no way a marriage without the church part.  It is completely different. It is usually a legal partnership with some, or many, or allegedly all of the rights of marriage.  But it is patently unfair to allow some to marry and others not to.

          For me this is an issue of seperate and unequal.  Marriage is in no way the province of religion.  A marriage carried out in civil procedure only is still recognized as being a marriage in every way.

          The problem with settling for a solution for one group of people that is anything but the exact same solution all people enjoy, is that there will always be some differences remaining.  For example, there are thousands of rights and responsibilities that are explicitly given to anyone who is "married".  It would be all but impossible to ensure all of these same rights and responsibilities are extended under a different system.

          Additionally, people intrinsically know what is meant by the terms "married" and "spouse" and "wife" and "husband".  We are clearly defining people as different if we force certain people to use entirely different labels.  Words and names and labels do matter.

          I am all for people that only want a civil union being allowed to have them.  But I will never be satisfied with a system that explicitly labels me as different from anyone who can marry.  You have to remember, there are millions of people who will do whatever they can to disallow some folks, particularly LGBT, interracial, etc, from marrying.  As long as they can maintain some semblance of differance, they will be able to continue to find ways to prevent others from enjoying full rights and responsibilities under the law.

          And BTW, you wouldn't happen to be the mystery/thriller novelist G.M. Ford from Seattle WA, would you? That would be very cool...I am a big fan.

          Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~Thomas A. Edison

          by matthew fogarty on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:57:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, not me. (0+ / 0-)

            I wish but just someone with same last name and initials.

            If any group's civil rights are being denied then all groups need to back them up.  Gays and women marched for blacks, blacks and gays marched for women.  (I realize it's very possible to be in multiple groups)

            So what can we do?  I think the best movement would be if like-minded (solid progressives) people started applying for civil union instead of marriage licenses.  Send a message that what is good enough for gays must be good enough for everyone.

            If I ever get married again that's what I will do...a protest of one (two?).

            -7.50, -7.74 Republicans = Borrow and Squander

            by GMFORD on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:55:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's a great sentiment, thanks. (0+ / 0-)

              I really appreciate hearing stuff like that from fair minded people.  Gives me hope there might be progress still.  And I agree, all like-minded progressives need to stick together and help lift each other up, (it killed me seeing the equal pay bill die the other day.)

              It's funny too, because civil unions actually do have a place...as long as marriages and civil unions are both options available to everybody.

              The key to fairness in my mind is that everyone have equal access to every agreement available...

              I think the most important thing is to just be vocal in your support for fairness whenever it comes up.  I am still surprised by how many otherwise progressive folks I know still express discomfort at the idea of gay marriage rights.  Just confidently saying, "of course they should have the same rights I do" I think goes a long way, along with all the things you mentioned.

              As for the other G.M. Ford, if you have not already, you should read a some of his books.  His first series, based around a character named Leo Waterman is  area really good reads. The first book is called "Who the Hell is Wanda Fuca". which is pretty damn funny to those of us who live near the Straights of Juan de Fuca here in Seattle. (Sorry, can you tell I work in a bookstore.)

              Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~Thomas A. Edison

              by matthew fogarty on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:25:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think you're off base GMFORD. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          GMFORD

          It really is big fooferah over just a word.  I think once the civil union part gets passed, it will then only be a matter of time before 'marriage' becomes how it is commonly referred to.  As you say, there are plenty of churches that would be prepared to perform the civil union ceremony.

          In Canada, even though it has been a number of years since gay marriage was legalized (and it's always been called marriage), there are still some churches who wouldn't dream of allowing the ceremony to occur in their church.  Fortunately, there are plenty of others who will.  It's going to take a while for the 'greatest country in the world' (hah!) to catch up to many of the other greatest countries in the world.

          "He's not an African American candidate, he's an American candidate." - 82 yr old Jean Weiss on CNN

          by vernonbc on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:02:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm from Canada originally. (0+ / 0-)

            Lived in Ottawa until 4th grade.  I haven't been back in years but would love to see my grandparent's old house...Cobalt Avenue right by the canal.  We used to walk down and go skating and sledding there.

            -7.50, -7.74 Republicans = Borrow and Squander

            by GMFORD on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:57:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It's not the same (4+ / 0-)

          Here's one example: the tax stimulus check. Like many couples, gay couples have one partner above the $75k threshold and one below (in my case, way, way below). Like many couples, our finances are co-mingled. When you add up our income, we are significantly below the $150k couple threshold. If a civil union was equal to a marriage, we'd both be getting the max return. But they're not equal and we're not.

          •  That's not right. (0+ / 0-)

            If they want to call it 'civil unions' that doesn't bother me too much but the rights need to be equal in every way.  Insurance companies must be required to include domestic partners as dependents.  Inheritance/estate laws must be the same.  

            -7.50, -7.74 Republicans = Borrow and Squander

            by GMFORD on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:00:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  MA shows that the word doesn't matter (0+ / 0-)

            In Massachusetts, I could be married to my partner--and the federal government wouldn't recognize it any more than they do our domestic partnership in CA. The problem is not the word used. The problem is DOMA. Honestly, I don't care what you call it as long as I have the same legal rights as my het co-workers.

    •  Are you male or female? (0+ / 0-)

      Just curious!

      When harmonious relationships dissolve, respect and devotion arise; when a nation falls to chaos, loyalty and patriotism are born - Daodejing (paraphrased)

      by koNko on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:56:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  In 1957, my mother and stepfather ... (61+ / 0-)

    ...had to marry in Nebraska because on the books in Colorado was a law prohibiting marriage between Indians and white people (although black people and whites were not so prohibited). Although my Seminole mother could pass white in a pinch, she needed a birth certificate to get a marriage license, and that document noted her heritage.

    Like a cyclone, imperialism spins across the globe; militarism crushes peoples and sucks their blood like a vampire. K. Liebknecht

    by Meteor Blades on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:00:41 PM PDT

  •  RIP (31+ / 0-)

    to miss Loving and her husband. This was a joyful case to read in law school.

    Now if the Court could wake the hell up and extend it to all those couples who have made a life commitment to each other.

    "People hate Bush and hate this war. It's that simple, and it's been true for quite some time" - Atrios

    by atrexler on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:02:52 PM PDT

    •  A good point. But by the time I thought of it ... (15+ / 0-)

      ...the poll was already up, and it's not fair to edit once it's underway. You'll have to be satisfied with "Other," I'm sorry to say.

      Like a cyclone, imperialism spins across the globe; militarism crushes peoples and sucks their blood like a vampire. K. Liebknecht

      by Meteor Blades on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:07:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  MB, sorry to post my pic first (8+ / 0-)

        it usually takes several minutes to post a pic from here and I normally end up comment #101.

        I have had very few problems here being married to a nice Chinese lady, usually from taxi drivers or vendors that try to rip us off because they think all white people are rich.

        Tellin' you all the Zomby troof Here I'm is...

        by Zwoof on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:25:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Pat Buchanan/Chris Matthews Race Primer (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        theran

        If you would check these things out, Meteor Blades, you wouldn't get into such trouble.

        Sign me,

        Other

      •  My 2 wives ... (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        sap, TomFromNJ

        Years ago I lived in the USA (NYC) and married an Irish-American woman. We often faced 2 kinds of prejudice, the "negative" and the "positive" (sometimes another kind of negative).

        When we married, our friends were very supportive but faced a mixed reaction from her familly and silence from her father. Eventually he was won over because I wasn't going away and passed the son-in-law test. Love can be stronger than hate.

        However, circumstances changed and we returned to China. At first, my wife was excited to live in a new culture but after about 2 years, failing to addapt and becoming isolated, she became very unhappy and problems started.

        One day I overheard my wife was chatting with a friend. She said "Last year I woke up and found a Chinese man in my bed. The problem is we're married." I was heartboken and angry but said nothing, some things you don't hear. This was the begining of the end because suddenly the well was poisoned by rejection and my heart really changed. Several months later I came home to a letter that simply said "We live separate lives and this is not what I want. I'm afraid I must leave so please forget about us. Take care and be happy." We have never met since then.

        It made me very bitter. It was a personal failure I was difficult to accept it because I understood nothing.

        So life goes on and as the song says "Just when you least expect it, just what you least expect" I met my present wife and it was love at first sight for me - the more practical of the two, she needed more convincing. So did her father (I seem to have a problem with that). But he had his reasons - you see, he's Han Chinese and his wife is (ethnic) Vietnamese, so having crossed that line himself, and being 20 years older than his wife just as I am, maybe he had his doubts about us.

        I love my wife's high spirit - a bit hot tempered but so charming it never matters. She once scolded me "Don't say you love me! It's true or not! If it's true I will know." That works fine.

        For our wedding party we choose this song 我願意 (I'm willing).

        Mrs Loving is correct, what you need is love.

        I saw the great Spike Lee Film "Jungle Fever". It's says a lot about the difficulties of crossing lines and the importance of love. It made me realize my first wife was by far the stronger of us two. I came to realize the meaning of the words she spoke and wrote.

        People should be free to choose and others should accept it. I'm all for that.

        When harmonious relationships dissolve, respect and devotion arise; when a nation falls to chaos, loyalty and patriotism are born - Daodejing (paraphrased)

        by koNko on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:06:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Being, Latino, I guess that makes me (9+ / 0-)

      a white person as well according the hospital form that one fills out.
      On the other hand, I don't want to let go of the African and the Indian in me as well.

      •  Latinos aren't particularly white. (5+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        fritzrth, Blissing, elliott, koNko, goshzilla

        Many Latinos are of predominantly native ancestry. Nor has there been any effort by those to whom "white" refers in America to include Latinos among themselves (and that has been true, as far as I'm aware, for every wave of Spanish speaking immigrants in American history). The trouble with those survey questions is that race is kind of a bunkum category, as everybody learns when they start poking at it.

        •  Race Is Not Bunkum (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          koNko, pileta

          Ignorance and superstition make black and white races, yellow and rad.

          No such races exist except in the eyes of the bigot.

          Race is in your genes and cannot be rewritten but journalists and sociologists and politicians and judges can twist it into something it is not.

          Hispanic is an interesting "race."  

          Dr. Tony Frudakis is a geneticist who founded a company that estimates eye color and "continental ancestry" from DNA.  The biotech defines Hispanic as an admixture of European and Native American.

          Funny thing about that.  Tony's wife, a Mexican, was found not to be Hispanic because of some rare alleles.  

          As you might imagine, there were some rapid updates to the old database.

          Pat Buchanan and Chris Matthews, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos don't have that sort of problem.  They just know by looking.

          The rest of us are in a bind without that sort of innate knowledge.

          Best,  Terry

          •  Race is arbitrary (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            elliott, koNko

            it is not always racist or bigoted.  It is simply man's attempt to quantify and qualify, something man does with all living things.

            I read a scientific report that said there is more variance within races than between races.  People of hispanic origen (misnomer) vary from blond haired/blue eyed, to sub-Saharan African origin.  Certainly Hispanic is not a race.  La Raza may not like that, but anyone can see it.

            •  Your DNA is not arbitrary. It is a Fact. (0+ / 0-)

              I was first drawn to the candidacy for president of the Irishman, Barack O'bama, when I found he sponsored a bill to direct the FDA towards personalized medicine.  The FDA currently uses the David Duke manual for racial distinction.

              I read a scientific report that said there is more variance within races than between races.  People of hispanic origen (misnomer) vary from blond haired/blue eyed, to sub-Saharan African origin. Certainly Hispanic is not a race.

              Lots of people believe in intelligent design too.  Claim it is science.

              If you will define race for us, then we can determine why you think admixtures of continental ancestry are not racial.

              The point is that racial admixture (we are all mixed up, friend) determines very important things about you besides whether you have blue eyes or are qualified to be president.  

              consider that you are a drug developer and you have designed a scan of the genome to identify genes underlying human pigmentation as possible drug targets. You would not want to simply compare African Americans (who tend to have darker pigmentation status of skin, hair and eyes) with Europeans (who tend to have lighter pigmentation status) because doing so would result in the identification of many hundreds of thousands of ancestry rather than pigmentation markers. In other words, we would find the regions of the DNA that explain the differences between the groups in terms of their genetic histories rather than the differences in terms of their pigmentation status, which is a very different thing.

              http://www.dnaprint.com/...

              You might want to be more selective in your reading of what passes for science.

              Best,  Terry

              •  what in the hell are you talking about?!!!!! (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                decafdyke, koNko

                I am talking about the man made categories of race.  Check a census form, they mention about 5 races.  They have black, white (sometimes including hispanic), asian, pacific islander and some other thing.  I said we draw up races with an abitrary pen.  Race means different things to different cultures.  Not even 40 years ago, it was common to mention the "British Race".  Read anything by Churchill Beakman.

                You are criticizing a post from ten hours ago! (hat tip to Rain Man)  I think you need to go back to your lab and study English, I said nothing of DNA.

                •  Manmade Categories of Race? (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  koNko, pileta

                  I am talking about the man made categories of race.  Check a census form

                  I am not overly interested in mythology though it can be lots of fun.

                  I said nothing of DNA.

                  But that is what determines race rather than what David Duke, Chris Matthews and the Census Bureau say it is.

                  Indeed many wish to have their own fuzzy definition but can never explain what it might be.

                  "Do you think you might have convicted OJ because he was a black man?" a juror in the civil trial was asked by a reporter.

                  "My skin is darker than his," answered the Greek juror.  As near as I could tell on our TV, she told the exact truth.

                  If a black passes for white, is he now white or black?

                  If a black man and white woman have a child, why is that child always black?  

                  Maybe the census form is a crock, a holdover from the days when slaves were 3/5ths of a real person.  You think?

                  Best,  Terry

                  •  dude, seriously, sleep it off. anyway, end of (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    fritzrth

                    discussion.

                  •  Question (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    TurkeyCreek

                    Who decides what DNA belongs to what race?

                    At the base is an arbitrary decision Type X is defined by characteristics someting, something and something. The material is a natural creation, but the categories are artificial.

                    Your own arguement about the mix proves that.

                    The liniage of certian gentic traits and the outcome of mixing them can be predicted to some degree, particularly eye color, but which race has blue or brown eyes?

                    I think both of you are right.

                    When harmonious relationships dissolve, respect and devotion arise; when a nation falls to chaos, loyalty and patriotism are born - Daodejing (paraphrased)

                    by koNko on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:20:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Deciphering Race (0+ / 0-)

                      Who decides what DNA belongs to what race?

                      But you see the DNA decides the race.

                      Think of two groups that are distinctly different in some way.  Then differences in DNA tell the story.

                      Of course that is vastly simplified.

                      Your mention of eye color is interesting because the textbooks talk only of brown and blue eyes and a dominasnt/recessive gene. In fact, at last count there were at least 9 genes involved in determining 5 eye colors.  And blue-eyed parents can have brown-eyed offspring.

                      To my way of thinking, a disposition towards genetic disease is the best and most useful way of determining race.  

                      You take the Celtic Curse, to which the Irish are peculiarly susceptible would militate against that race drinking Guinness.  Ummm, maybe it would be best not to bring that up. :-)

                      Best,  Terry

                      •  I think we were just talking past each other (0+ / 0-)

                        and don't disagree as much as it seemed last night.  I really just did not get at the time what you were saying.

                      •  We're not far apart. (0+ / 0-)

                        Áctually, I chose eye color for a reason. The combinations to produce blue or brown (both of which inlude variants of other colors) are known and quite varried, to the point we can say we can't use the apperance of either alone to determine race.

                        Likewise, genetic predisposition to disease or body chemistry may be exclusive to certian genetic pools, for example, the lack of the enzime to metabolize alcohol is unique to certian Asiatic tribes (inluding some of their Native American decendants), but does the presence of this define the race of a person with such traits?

                        I think you made the arguement yourself - why is the offspring of a Black and a White always a Black when the offspring of an Asian and a European (two vaguely defined mult-ethnic categories) is often catagorized "Eurasian" or that failing, Asian (hardly a genetically defined ethnic group).

                        We can trace genteic traits to certian groups, but when these groups are mixed and the genetic traits are carried forward, what "race"have we got.

                        My point is that the genetic material is a natural product of mutation that becomes a dominant trait in some groups, but our definition of race is pretty arbitrary and subjective.

                        Your thoughts?

                        When harmonious relationships dissolve, respect and devotion arise; when a nation falls to chaos, loyalty and patriotism are born - Daodejing (paraphrased)

                        by koNko on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:50:15 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  some latinos are more European in heritage (5+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Meteor Blades, SarahLee, sap, goshzilla, pileta

          other latinos are more native American in heritage.  Most whites are not as pure as they might think, if you go back even four or five generations, you are talking hundred of people influencing your heritage.

          I am always ammused when people, not from Spain, are referred to as Spanish.  Sorry folks, that is a language, not a race or ethnicity, unless you are from Spain.

          •  That's sorta the idea. (4+ / 0-)

            Race is a social category and as such it is arbitrary.

            Culture is a finer tool for discussing the relationship between behavior and geography. As for genetic profiles, it's still easier to think in terms of phenotypes than races.

            Race is unuseful data; someone's answer to that question on a survey tells you very little about them.

          •  Modesty Is Not A Highly Regarded Virtue Today (0+ / 0-)

            Most whites are not as pure as they might think

            The Shakers have died out.  They were very pure.  Do you think it had something to do with their skin pigmentation rather than a ban on sex?

            Skin pigmentation is a biomarker for susceptibility to skin cancer and not a whole lot more unless you are into dividing people by confused racial concepts.

            I am always ammused when people, not from Spain, are referred to as Spanish.

            Are you similarly amused when people not from Africa are called African-Americans unlike, oh say, Teresa Heinz Kerry, who is from Africa?

            "I can see by the color of your skin you are a racist," the man in Chicago told my son.

            "Is my Nigerian wife also a racist?" my son asked the man in Chicago.

            "The worst kind," said the man in Chicago.  "She is an African and not like us African-Americans."

            Best,  Terry

          •  hence my objection to be called (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            TurkeyCreek

            hispanic. It does not take into account my African and Indian heritage.

    •  your very existence is interracial (9+ / 0-)

      just like Obama

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
      Give to Populista's Obamathon 2.0!

      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:32:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No place in poll either (0+ / 0-)

      for guys who had multiple crushes on other races but was too much of a dork in High School to date any girl of any race.

  •  Why did you separate LGBT from the rest of us? (6+ / 0-)

    I can understand the "would" marry choice, but why the others?

    In 2000, a criminal became President. In 2004, we failed to remove him.
    American Democracy, 1787-2004, RIP

    by davewill on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:03:29 PM PDT