Loving vs Virginia – 48th Anniversary

What if you were not able to marry the person you love?

Are you in a mixed race marriage?

Do you know of a mixed race couple?

Prior to June 12th, 1967 it was illegal for a man and a women who were not of the same race to marry in the United States. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) , was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924“, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

Richard and Mildred Loving
Richard and Mildred Loving

Today many gay couples know that pain of not being allowed to marry the one they love because it is illegal in the state where they live. Because of this gay partners are not allowed to have any of the benefits that a married spouse would have in the eyes of the law, employer or even by the medical professionals if only “a spouse or family” are allowed to visit with a patient, or receive death benefits allotted to a spouse.

.Supreme Court decision on gay marriage

Op-Ed Marriage equality cases languish before elected judges

6/1/15 By BILLY CORRIHER, ERIC LESH – latimes

The U.S. Supreme Court will rule this month in Obergefell vs. Hodges, the case that could give same-sex couples across America the freedom to marry. The majority of states already have marriage equality, and the issue has lost salience for some. But the Obergefell decision still matters. In several conservative states, challenges to discriminatory bans have not had as much success.

State high courts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and New Jersey ruled in favor of marriage equality. State judges in Hawaii and California also did so, but ballot measures later overruled the decisions. The judges in these states have something in common: They were all appointed. Like federal judges with life tenure, they felt at liberty to side with equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, even if in so doing they were siding against the majority.

The elected judges in states such as Texas and Arkansas, however, have lagged behind for years, perhaps because they feel pressure to rule based on popular sentiment. Perhaps they remember the 2010 retention election in Iowa, when anti-gay groups ran a successful campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices who had joined a unanimous opinion in favor of the freedom to marry.

Even when a federal court in Alabama ruled this year that same-sex couples had the right to marry, the elected state Supreme Court — led by marriage equality opponent Chief Justice Roy Moore — told judges in the state to defy the federal order.

Instead of outright defiance, justices in Arkansas and Texas seem to be avoiding a political controversy by delaying their rulings.

One case involving a same-sex couple who moved to Texas after getting married in Massachusetts has dragged on for years. The couple, who sued as “J.B.” and “H.B.” because Texas does not prohibit firing someone for being gay, separated in 2009, and J.B. filed an uncontested petition for divorce.

Uncontested, that is, until the state intervened. The state argued that its ban on recognizing their union also meant it could not allow them to divorce. If this stands, they would be forever bound in a legal status they could not escape.

The Texas Supreme Court got the case in 2011, but it did not hear oral arguments until November 2013. There has been only silence from the court since then. In April, nearly six years after the couple filed for divorce, H.B. died, without any resolution. Jason P. Steed, one of their attorneys, said, “It’s unsettling. When the court refuses to decide cases, it’s refusing to do its job.”

While the Texas Supreme Court has been mute, the Arkansas Supreme Court has engaged in a very public debate about delaying its decision in a marriage equality lawsuit. In May 2014, an Arkansas judge ruled that the state’s marriage ban violated the U.S. Constitution, comparing marriage equality to the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving vs. Virginia, which invalidated state bans on interracial marriage.

For more: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-corriher-lesh-gay-marriage-lawsuits-20150601-story.html

 Rainbow spectrum

#lovecantwait

❤️❤️❤️

The Supreme Court should do the correct thing and
let adults marry whom they love.

 ❤️❤️❤️

PBO Strive for Complete Equality for LGBT

.US LGBT Rights Timeline 1903-2016  (ProPresObama.org Civil Rights Timelines ™)

Forward For Equality_sml

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Loving vs Virginia – 48th Anniversary

  1. WH

    Wednesday, June 10, 2015

    All Times Eastern

    President Obama receives the presidential daily briefing

    President Obama attends meetings at the White House

    7:00 AM
    8:00 AM
    9:00 AM
    10:00 AM
    11:00 AM
    12:00 PM
    12:30 PM
    White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest briefs the press

    1:00 PM
    1:15 PM
    Vice President Biden meets with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
    Roosevelt Room

    2:00 PM
    3:00 PM
    4:00 PM
    President Obama meets with Secretary of Defense Carter

    5:00 PM
    6:00 PM
    7:00 PM
    8:00 PM
    9:00 PM
    10:00 PM

  2. Loving vs Virginia – 48th Anniversary

    What if you were not able to marry the person you love?

    Are you in a mixed race marriage? Do you know of a mixed race couple?

    Prior to June 12th, 1967 it was illegal for a man and a women who were not of the same race to marry in the United States. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) , was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924“, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

    Learn more about the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

    • Op-Ed Marriage equality cases languish before elected judges

      6/1/15 By BILLY CORRIHER, ERIC LESH – latimes

      The U.S. Supreme Court will rule this month in Obergefell vs. Hodges, the case that could give same-sex couples across America the freedom to marry. The majority of states already have marriage equality, and the issue has lost salience for some. But the Obergefell decision still matters. In several conservative states, challenges to discriminatory bans have not had as much success.

      State high courts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and New Jersey ruled in favor of marriage equality. State judges in Hawaii and California also did so, but ballot measures later overruled the decisions. The judges in these states have something in common: They were all appointed. Like federal judges with life tenure, they felt at liberty to side with equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, even if in so doing they were siding against the majority.

      The elected judges in states such as Texas and Arkansas, however, have lagged behind for years, perhaps because they feel pressure to rule based on popular sentiment. Perhaps they remember the 2010 retention election in Iowa, when anti-gay groups ran a successful campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices who had joined a unanimous opinion in favor of the freedom to marry.

      Even when a federal court in Alabama ruled this year that same-sex couples had the right to marry, the elected state Supreme Court — led by marriage equality opponent Chief Justice Roy Moore — told judges in the state to defy the federal order.

      Instead of outright defiance, justices in Arkansas and Texas seem to be avoiding a political controversy by delaying their rulings.

      One case involving a same-sex couple who moved to Texas after getting married in Massachusetts has dragged on for years. The couple, who sued as “J.B.” and “H.B.” because Texas does not prohibit firing someone for being gay, separated in 2009, and J.B. filed an uncontested petition for divorce.

      Uncontested, that is, until the state intervened. The state argued that its ban on recognizing their union also meant it could not allow them to divorce. If this stands, they would be forever bound in a legal status they could not escape.

      The Texas Supreme Court got the case in 2011, but it did not hear oral arguments until November 2013. There has been only silence from the court since then. In April, nearly six years after the couple filed for divorce, H.B. died, without any resolution. Jason P. Steed, one of their attorneys, said, “It’s unsettling. When the court refuses to decide cases, it’s refusing to do its job.”

      While the Texas Supreme Court has been mute, the Arkansas Supreme Court has engaged in a very public debate about delaying its decision in a marriage equality lawsuit. In May 2014, an Arkansas judge ruled that the state’s marriage ban violated the U.S. Constitution, comparing marriage equality to the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving vs. Virginia, which invalidated state bans on interracial marriage.

      For more: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-corriher-lesh-gay-marriage-lawsuits-20150601-story.html

    • Release No: NR-272-15

      July 13, 2015 dod.gov

      Statement by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter on DOD Transgender Policy

      Over the last fourteen years of conflict, the Department of Defense has proven itself to be a learning organization. This is true in war, where we have adapted to counterinsurgency, unmanned systems, and new battlefield requirements such as MRAPs. It is also true with respect to institutional activities, where we have learned from how we repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” from our efforts to eliminate sexual assault in the military, and from our work to open up ground combat positions to women. Throughout this time, transgender men and women in uniform have been there with us, even as they often had to serve in silence alongside their fellow comrades in arms.

      The Defense Department’s current regulations regarding transgender service members are outdated and are causing uncertainty that distracts commanders from our core missions. At a time when our troops have learned from experience that the most important qualification for service members should be whether they’re able and willing to do their job, our officers and enlisted personnel are faced with certain rules that tell them the opposite. Moreover, we have transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines – real, patriotic Americans – who I know are being hurt by an outdated, confusing, inconsistent approach that’s contrary to our value of service and individual merit.

      Today, I am issuing two directives to deal with this matter. First, DoD will create a working group to study over the next six months the policy and readiness implications of welcoming transgender persons to serve openly. Led by (Acting) Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Brad Carson, and composed of military and civilian personnel representing all the military services and the Joint Staff, this working group will report to Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work. At my direction, the working group will start with the presumption that transgender persons can serve openly without adverse impact on military effectiveness and readiness, unless and except where objective, practical impediments are identified. Second, I am directing that decision authority in all administrative discharges for those diagnosed with gender dysphoria or who identify themselves as transgender be elevated to Under Secretary Carson, who will make determinations on all potential separations.

      As I’ve said before, we must ensure that everyone who’s able and willing to serve has the full and equal opportunity to do so, and we must treat all our people with the dignity and respect they deserve. Going forward, the Department of Defense must and will continue to improve how we do both. Our military’s future strength depends on it.

  3. The Paycheck Fairness Act

    The Paycheck Fairness Act is legislation twice introduced and twice rejected by the United States Congress to expand the scope of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Fair Labor Standards Act as part of an effort to address male–female income disparity in the United States. A Census Bureau report published in 2008 indicated that women’s median annual earnings were 77.5% of men’s earnings, a disparity attributed to both systematic discrimination against women and women’s lifestyle choices.

    The House of Represen­tatives approved the bill in January 2009. The United States Senate failed to move the bill forward in November 2010. President Barack Obama said in March 2011 that he will continue to fight for the goals in the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill was reintroduced in both houses of Congress in April 2011.

    The 2010 bill had no Republican Party co-sponsors, though a group of four Republican senators had supported an earlier bill to address gender-based wage discrimination, including Susan Collins, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Lisa Murkowski and Olympia Snowe. On June 5th, 2012 the bill fell short of the 60 votes necessary to override a filibuster and did not make it to the Senate floor for debate. The vote went along party lines, excluding a vote against by Democrat Harry Reid. (A vote which left Democrats the option to introduce the bill again at a later time.) On April 9, 2014, in another straight-party-line vote, the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 2199; 113th Congress) was again blocked by a Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Once again, Senator Reid changed his vote from support to oppose, as a tactical maneuver to keep the bill alive.

    The 2010 Senate version of the bill had the support of the Obama administration and that of Democrats in the Senate. The American Civil Liberties Union supported S.182, citing the 2008 data from the United States Census Bureau that women’s median annual earnings were 77.5% of the male median, African-American women’s median annual earnings were 64% of the white male median, and Hispanic women’s median annual earnings were 54% of the white male median. The American Association of University Women also supported the bill, citing the organization’s 2007 research report, Behind the Pay Gap, which showed that women earn less than their male colleagues just one year out of college. The pay gap has widened 10 years after graduation.

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_Fairness_Act

    ——————

    GOP WRONG WAY

    * Nov 17, 2010 Senate GOP blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act from getting a vote.

    * Apr 11, 2013 House GOP blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act from getting a vote.

    * Apr 9, 2014 Senate GOP blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act from getting a vote.

    * Sep 15, 2014 Senate GOP blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act from getting a vote.

  4. US soccer

    June 10, 2015
    TIME 2:45 PM ET
    US MNT vs Germany
    Rhein Energie Stadion; Cologne, Germany
    FOX Sports 1, UniMas, UDN

    • Hi Jan,

      Thank you for getting the message out about how Loving vs Virginia made America a more equal country and how our LGBTQ citizens should also have the right to marry!

      • I’m honored to share it. I own the documentary on DVD. To think that in my lifetime we have gone from mixed race marriages being illegal in some states to marriage equality being legal in many states.

  5. Reblogged this on While you were sleeping and commented:
    At the age of 18, Mildred became pregnant, and in June 1958 the couple traveled to Washington, D.C. to marry, thereby evading Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which made interracial marriage a crime. They returned to the small town of Central Point, Virginia. Based on an anonymous tip,[8] local police raided their home at night, hoping to find them having sex, which was also a crime according to Virginia law. When the officers found the Lovings sleeping in their bed, Mildred pointed out their marriage certificate on the bedroom wall. That certificate became the evidence for the criminal charge of “cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth” that was brought against them.

    The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Lovings’ convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), 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. The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Loving v. Virginia is discussed in the context of the public debate about same-sex marriage in the United States. Since 2014, five U.S. Courts of Appeals have considered the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. In doing so they have interpreted or used the Loving ruling in a few different ways. But the REAL issue here is being able to marry the one you love…no matter who it is.

    In June 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving, Mildred Loving issued a statement that said

    I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry… 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.

    • Hi Dianne,

      Thank you for your sharing history of Mildred Loving; she sounds like a great person.

      I too support the freedom to marry for all.

  6. White House Convening on Trafficking and Child Welfare

    Published on Jun 10, 2015

    The White House hosts the National Convening on Trafficking and Child Welfare, bringing together state leaders from child welfare, courts, and law enforcement to build on the President’s efforts to combat human trafficking through increased, systematic coordination. June 10, 2015.

  7. Meeting of the President’s Export Council – Part I

    Published on Jun 10, 2015

    The President’s Export Council meets to discuss the President’s trade deal, the TPP, and other economic matters. June 10, 2015.

    • A Meeting of the President’s Export Council Part II

      Published on Jun 10, 2015

      The President’s Export Council meets to discuss the President’s trade deal, the TPP, and other economic matters. June 10, 2015.

  8. 1:15 PM ET
    Vice President Biden meets with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
    Roosevelt Room

  9. June 10, 2015

    Statement by the Press Secretary on Additional U.S. Steps in the Counter-ISIL Effort

    In furtherance of his comprehensive strategy to degrade and destroy the ISIL terrorist group, President Obama has approved additional actions to enhance the implementation of the counter-ISIL campaign.

    To improve the capabilities and effectiveness of partners on the ground, the President authorized the deployment of up to 450 additional U.S. military personnel to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces at Taqaddum military base in eastern Anbar province. The President made this decision after a request from Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi and upon the recommendation of Secretary Carter and Chairman Dempsey, and with the unanimous support of his national security team. These new advisors will work to build capacity of Iraqi forces, including local tribal fighters, to improve their ability to plan, lead, and conduct operations against ISIL in eastern Anbar under the command of the Prime Minister. This effort will complement the ‎efforts of U.S. and coalition trainers at the four previously-established training sites in Al-Asad, Besmaya, Erbil, and Taji, where over 9,000 Iraqi troops have already been trained, with an additional 3,000 currently in training. These additional U.S. troops will not serve in a combat role and will augment the 3,100 U.S. troops who have already deployed to Iraq.

    This train, advise, and assist mission builds on lessons learned during the past several months and is just one aspect of our commitment to support the Iraqi Security Forces. Toward this end, the President has also directed the expedited delivery of essential equipment and materiel in coordination with the central government to Iraqi forces, including Peshmerga and tribal fighters, operating under Iraqi command, to ensure that our partners have the equipment needed to effectively fight ISIL.

    For more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/10/statement-press-secretary-additional-us-steps-counter-isil-effort

    • June 12, 2015

      Readout of Vice President Biden’s Meetings with Salim al-Jabouri, Speaker of Iraq’s Council of Representatives

      President Obama dropped by a meeting today at the White House with Vice President Biden and Salim al-Jabouri, Speaker of Iraq’s Council of Representatives. President Obama and Vice President Biden commended Speaker al-Jabouri for his leadership in parliament and his efforts to bolster Iraq’s democracy, federalism, and national unity. They reaffirmed the enduring partnership between both countries and discussed ongoing U.S. and Iraqi efforts to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL, including the importance of mobilizing local tribal fighters in support of the Iraqi government’s Anbar liberation plan. President Obama and Vice President Biden reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to supporting Iraq in its fight against ISIL and the urgency of humanitarian assistance for Iraq’s internally-displaced citizens. Speaker al-Jabouri thanked the United States for its humanitarian contribution in response to the UN appeal for Iraq.

      For more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/12/readout-vice-president-bidens-meetings-salim-al-jabouri-speaker-iraq’s

  10. USDA Invests $6.7 Million in 544 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Projects Nationwide

    Grants for renewable energy and conservation will cut energy costs, create jobs, promote energy independence

    June 10, 2015 usda.gov

    WASHINGTON – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced that USDA is investing more than $6.7 million in 544 renewable energy and energy efficiency projects nationwide.

    Secretary Vilsack made the announcement during a visit to the Snake River Brewing Company, in Jackson, Wyo. The company received a $13,810 USDA Rural Development Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) grant to install a solar panel to generate energy for the business.

    “These grants will help farmers, ranchers and small business owners use more renewable energy, which cuts carbon pollution, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, saves businesses money on their energy bills and creates American jobs,” Vilsack said. “All of these are crucial components to developing healthier, more economically vibrant rural communities.”

    REAP was created by the 2002 Farm Bill and was reauthorized by the 2014 Farm Bill. REAP funding has helped farmers expand renewable energy use in recent years. The new Census of Agriculture shows the number of farms utilizing renewable energy production has doubled in the last five years.

    For more: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2015/06/0166.xml&contentidonly=true

    • June 10, 2015

      FACT SHEET: Administration Announces Actions to Bring Jobs and Clean Energy to Rural America

      Financing Hundreds Of Projects To Reduce Carbon Pollution In Rural Communities

      President Obama is committed to combating climate change to protect future generations while supporting a strong rural economy. Climate change can no longer be seen as a distant threat. It is already affecting rural communities across the country and putting homes, businesses, and vital infrastructure at risk. Farmers and ranchers face devastating impacts – from severe floods to extreme heat and drought to increased challenges due to wildfires, disease and pests. These impacts threaten the lives and livelihoods of Americans in rural communities.

      That is why the President is taking action now. The sooner we act, the more we can do to protect rural America, especially the areas that are the most vulnerable. By investing in renewable energy and supporting climate-smart agricultural practices, rural communities and businesses can help slow the effects of climate change while creating jobs and growing the economy.

      For more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/10/fact-sheet-administration-announces-actions-bring-jobs-and-clean-energy-

  11. *******************
    THIS POST IS NOW CLOSED NBLB

    Come on over to my newest post titled: ”California Cordell Bank, Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries Expanded ″

    ********************

    To get to the newest post click on “HOME” at the top of the thread

Comments are closed.