SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
freedom to marry
The Warren vs Roberts Courts: Separate and Unequal Views on Marriage Equality
Jun 29, 2015
The Supreme Court's ruling Friday to legalize same-sex marriage is a victory for human rights and an occasion to rejoice. The decision follows in the footsteps of the Supreme Court's 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia that outlawed states' bans on interracial marriage, an earlier pathbreaking victory for marriage equality.
But there is a huge difference in the two rulings. The Loving decision on inter-racial marriage was unanimous. Friday's ruling on same-sex marriage was a 5 to 4 decision. We should not forget that four members of the nation's highest court -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas -- opposed marriage equality. Each had his own reasons to justify his vote to himself and to the public, but history will record that all four of them supported state's rights over equal rights, bigotry over tolerance. Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Anthony Kennedy (who was the swing vote and who wrote the majority decision) will be remembered for embracing the notion that marriage is a matter of personal choice.
How do we explain the difference in these two rulings? Friday's decision certainly reflects the increasing partisanship and polarization of American politics. But they also reflect differences in the court's leadership then and now.
The Supreme Court that decided the Loving case was hardly a group of similar thinkers. It included a moderate Republican (Chief Justice Earl Warren), two conservative Republicans (John Harlan and Potter Stewart), a moderate Democrat (Byron White), and two Southern Democrats (former KKK member Hugo Black of Alabama and Tom Clark of Texas), as well as three solid liberal Democrats (William Douglas, William Brennan and Abe Fortas).
The Loving v Virginia ruling was particularly bold because, at the time, public opinion was overwhelmingly against interracial marriage. In the 1950s, half the states still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. According to the Gallup Poll, in 1958, 94 percent of Americans were against marriage between whites and blacks, while only 4 percent said they approved. By 1967, when the Supreme Court knocked down state anti-miscegenation laws everywhere, 16 states still had such laws on the books. Gallup didn't conduct a poll on the issue that year, but the following year, 73 percent of Americans still disapproved of inter-racial marriage, while 20 percent approved. It wasn't until the 1990s that a majority of Americans told pollsters they supported interracial marriage.
One could not have predicted from the make-up of the court that all nine of the justices would embrace equal rights over states rights. What led the Supreme Court in 1967 to be so far ahead of public opinion?
The Warren Court's 1954 Brown v Board of Education ruling, outlawing school segregation, had triggered a white backlash in the South, galvanizing a resistance movement and a revival of the Ku Klux Klan and other hate movements, with the Confederate flag its symbol of defiance, and the use of vigilante tactics -- including bombings, lynchings, and other forms of violence -- to oppose racial integration and equality. Warren became a hated figure among segregationists, who waged a campaign for almost two decades calling for impeachment. At the time, Southern racists used the idea of "states' rights" to defend Jim Crow laws, including school segregation, racial discrimination in restaurants and buses, severe limits on voting by African Americans, and bans on interracial marriage.
But the Brown ruling had also spurred a new wave of courageous civil rights activism, beginning with the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott, the 1957 desegregation of Little Rock, Arkansas' schools by brave black children, the lunch counter sit-ins that began in 1960 in Greensboro, N.C., the Freedom Rights, and the courageous voter registration drives sponsored by the NAACP and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Civil rights activists put their bodies and their lives on the line. Many were injured, and some were killed by racist thugs who were part of, and/or inspired by, the organized hate groups like the KKK and the White Citizens Councils.
In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. The next year, following the civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama, President Lyndon Johnson -- a Texas native who had been, at best, a moderate on racial issues -- addressed Congress and urged it to pass the Voting Rights Act, ending his speech with the phrase "we shall overcome." Later that year, Congress enacted that historic law.
The civil rights movement had stirred the nation's conscience about racial injustice. In deciding the Loving case, the justices no doubt recognized that, despite the fact that most white Americans still opposed interracial marriage, the tide of history was turning, and they wanted to be on the right side.
But do not underestimate the influence of one man, Chief Justice Earl Warren, in forging the unanimous Loving decision. Warren was not a great legal scholar, but he was a brilliant politician whose views on race and civil liberties had evolved over the years. As California's Attorney General, he had played a key role in detaining Japanese Americans during World War Two on the grounds that they posed a security risk as potential spies and saboteurs. Only in retirement did he acknowledge that the relocation was a mistake based on hysteria. When President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Warren -- who had been the Republican governor of California and the GOP's Vice Presidential nominee in 1948 with running mate Thomas Dewey -- he thought he was naming a conservative to the nation's highest court.
Warren joined the court just before it heard new arguments in the Brown case. Knowing that the decision would be politically controversial, Warren sought a unanimous decision. He assigned the job of writing the opinion to himself, and then, like a shrewd politician, he met with each of his eight colleagues separately and listened to their views in order to construct a decision that they could all agree on. After he brought the last holdout, Justice Stanley Reed, on board, Warren drafted the ruling. He wrote:
"We cannot turn the clock back. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws."
The Warren Court subsequently issued liberal rulings in other civil rights cases, but the Loving case promised to be as controversial as the Brown ruling. As with the Brown case, Warren believed that the nation needed to see the Supreme Court united on this potentially explosive issue.
The case was filed by an interracial couple -- Mildred Jeter Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man -- who lived in Central Point in rural Virginia. The Lovings were a humble working-class couple who simply wanted to live as husband and wife and raise their three children in Virginia, where they were born and where they and their extended families lived.
In June 1958, they drove 90 miles and got married in Washington, D.C., to circumvent Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which made interracial marriage a crime. The local police raided their home at night, hoping to find them having sex, which was also a crime in Virginia. The cops found the couple in bed. Mrs. Loving showed them their marriage certificate on the bedroom wall. That was used as evidence that they had violated Virginia's law. The Lovings were charged with "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth."
In his ruling, Leon M. Bazile, the Virginia trial judge wrote:
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.
On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pled guilty and Bazile sentenced them to one year in prison. The judge said he'd suspend their sentence if they agreed to leave the state for 25 years. They agreed and moved to Washington, D.C.
In November 1963, the Lovings filed a motion in the state trial court to reverse the sentence on the grounds that it violated the Constitution's 14th Amendment. It took four years to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
When it did, Warren again used his political skills to push for a unanimous verdict.
It was certainly, in today's parlance, no slam dunk. Five of his Supreme Court colleagues had been appointed by Democratic presidents -- Douglas and Black by Franklin Roosevelt, Clark by Harry Truman, White by John F. Kennedy, and Fortas by Lyndon Johnson -- but they espoused different views on a variety of legal and social issues.
As Southern Democrats, Black and Clark understand how explosive the Loving case would be. Black, who had represented Alabama in the U.S. Senate from 1927 to 1937, no doubt felt guilty for his racist past. In 1926, running for the Senate, Black joined the Ku Klux Klan, thinking that he needed the votes of Klan members. He spoke at Klan meetings, espousing anti-black and anti-Catholic views. Near the end of his life, Black would admit that joining the Klan was a mistake, but he went on to say "I would have joined any group if it helped get me votes." In 1929 Black wrote to a constituent denouncing an inter-racial marriage in New York, observing that "New York State should have a law prohibiting this sort of thing," according to Roger Newman's Hugo Black: A Biography. In the Senate, Black was an ardent New Dealer, but hardly a progressive on racial issues. He consistently opposed the passage of anti-lynching legislation. In 1935, for example, he lead a filibuster of the Wagner-Costigan anti-lynching bill.
Clark, a Texan, was an assistant to U.S. Attorney General Biddle when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. Biddle named Clark to be Civilian Coordinator of the Alien Enemy Control Program. He worked with General John DeWitt and then-California Attorney General Earl Warren to evacuate Japanese Americans from military areas, which eventually (after Clark was reassigned to Washington in May 1942) led to their forcible relocation to prison camps. Like Warren, Clark later acknowledged that the government's relocation program was a mistake. Appointed Attorney General by Truman in 1945, Clark helped formulate and carry out Truman's aggressive Cold War anti-communist policies, including requiring federal employees to sign loyalty oaths and creating a list of so-called "subversive" organizations that were used by witch hunters to blacklist liberals and radicals. But Clark also played a key role in supporting Truman's civil rights efforts. He filed a brief in the landmark (and controversial) Shelley v. Kraemer case which, in 1948, struck down racial covenants in housing contracts restricting the sale of property to blacks. He also helped oversee Truman's civil rights committee that released an important report, "To Secure These Rights," which made 35 recommendations, including ending segregation, elimination of poll taxes, enactment of a law to protect voting rights, and creation of a civil rights division at the Department of Justice.
Three of Warren's Supreme Court colleagues -- Harlan, Brennan, and Stewart -- had, like Warren, been appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. Harlan was generally a conservative jurist but he often voted in favor of civil rights; in this he was similar to his grandfather and namesake, who was the only dissenting justice in the landmark Plessy v. Ferguson case which, in 1896, upheld the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation under the doctrine of "separate but equal." But Harlan was the lone dissenter in the 1964 Reynolds v Sims decision, which established the principle of "one man, one vote" to ensure equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1956, Eisenhower appointed Brennan -- who New Jersey's Republican governor had appointed to that state's court -- for purely political reasons. Brennan was a Democrat and a Catholic and Eisenhower, who was running for re-election, wanted to appeal to both groups. Only one Senator, Republican Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin, voted against Brennan's confirmation. Stewart was from a prominent conservative Republican family in Ohio and was often a dissenter on the Warren court, but in 1965, in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Stewart was in the majority that ruled that police could not use an anti-loitering law to keep civil rights workers from standing or demonstrating on a sidewalk, a clear victory for the civil rights movement.
As he had done in the Brown ruling thirteen years earlier, Warren penned the opinion for the court. Noting that the Virginia law endorsed the doctrine of white supremacy, he 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.
The Supreme Court had spoken, but public opinion, particularly in the South, lagged behind. In 1969, members of Georgia's state legislature and Board of Regents objected to hiring former Secretary of State Dean Rusk to a teaching job at the University of Georgia because he had participated in his daughter's wedding to a black man. Although the Loving ruling invalidated state laws banning inter-racial marriage, many Southern states were slow to erase their own laws. South Carolina didn't repeal its law until 1998; Alabama didn't do so until 2000.
Reread Warren's words. Then substitute same-sex marriage for interracial marriage and see if his views are any less compelling. Most Americans would now agree that to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry is, as Warren put it, "directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Indeed, the Loving case helped lay the foundation for the dismantling of state bans on same-sex marriage.
In June 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the case that bore her name, 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.
Public opinion on gay marriage has shifted much faster than it did on inter-racial marriage, according to surveys by the Pew Research Center and the Gallup Poll. In 1996, only 27 percent of Americans believed it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to marry, Gallup found. Ten years later, it had increased to just 37 percent. Today, however, that number has increased to 60 percent, an all-time peak. Moreover, support for gay marriage is much higher among younger Americans. Pew found that among Millennials (Americans between 18 and 39), 73 percent endorse gay marriage. Support has also been increasing among older Americans. Among baby-boomers (those who are now between 51 and 69), support for same-sex marriage has increased from 32 to 45 percent since 2001.
When children born this year reach voting age 18 years from now, they will surely wonder how it was even possible that America once deprived gays and lesbians the right to marry. They will take same-sex marriage for granted.
Homophobia has not disappeared, but the gay rights movement has clearly won most Americans' hearts and minds. The tide has turned. Opponents can try, but they can't push it back.
But four members of the current Supreme Court are stilling trying to do so. Among the five justices appointed by Republican presidents, only Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who is often the court's swing vote, has evolved with the times.
Unlike their counterparts on the 1967 Warren Court who unanimously ruled for marriage equality in Loving v Virginia, the other four GOP appointees -- Scalia (appointed by Reagan), Thomas (appointed by George H.W. Bush), and Roberts and Alito (both appointed by George W. Bush) -- are locked into their personal and ideological positions. They don't seem to care about being on the wrong side of history.
Keep ReadingShow Less
There's a Reason Gay Marriage Is Winning, While Abortion Rights Are Losing
Are these two “culture wars” issues really that similar?
Apr 26, 2015
Why are reproductive rights losing while gay rights are winning? Indiana's attempt to enshrine opposition to gay marriage under the guise of religious freedom provoked an immediate nationwide backlash. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has allowed religious employers to refuse insurance coverage for birth control--not abortion, birth control--to female employees; new laws are forcing abortion clinics to close; and absurd, even medically dangerous restrictions are heaping up in state after state. Except when the media highlight a particularly crazy claim by a Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock, where's the national outrage? Most Americans are pro-choice, more or less; only a small minority want to see abortion banned. When you consider, moreover, that one in three women will have had at least one abortion by the time she reaches menopause, and most of those women had parents, partners, friends--someone--who helped them obtain it, the sluggish response to the onslaught of restrictive laws must include many people who have themselves benefited from safe and legal abortion.
The media present marriage equality and reproductive rights as "culture war" issues, as if they somehow went together. But perhaps they're not as similar as we think. Some distinctions:
SS Marriage equality is about love, romance, commitment, settling down, starting a family. People love love! But marriage equality is also about tying love to family values, expanding a conservative institution that has already lost most of its coercive social power and become optional for millions. (Marriage equality thus follows Pollitt's law: Outsiders get access when something becomes less valued, which is why women can be art historians and African-Americans win poetry prizes.) Far from posing a threat to marriage, as religious opponents claim, permitting gays to marry gives the institution a much-needed update, even as it presents LGBT people as no threat to the status quo: Instead of promiscuous child molesters and lonely gym teachers, gays and lesbians are your neighbors who buy Pottery Barn furniture and like to barbecue.
Reproductive rights, by contrast, is about sex--sexual freedom, the opposite of marriage--in all its messy, feckless glory. It replaces the image of women as chaste, self-sacrificing mothers dependent on men with that of women as independent, sexual, and maybe not so self-sacrificing. It doesn't matter that contraception is indispensable to modern life, that abortion antedates the sexual revolution by thousands of years, that plenty of women who have abortions are married, or that most (60 percent) who have abortions are already mothers. Birth control and abortion allow women--and, to a lesser extent, men--to have sex without punishment, a.k.a. responsibility. And our puritanical culture replies: You should pay for that pleasure, you slut.
SS Same-sex marriage is something men want. Lesbian couples account for the majority of same-sex marriages, but even the vernacular "gay marriage" types it as a male concern. That makes it of interest to everyone, because everything male is of general interest. Though many of the groundbreaking activists and lawyers who have fought for same-sex marriage are lesbians, gay men have a great deal of social and economic power, and they have used it, brilliantly, to mainstream the cause.
Reproductive rights are inescapably about women. Pervasive misogyny means not only that those rights are stigmatized--along with the women who exercise them--but that men don't see them as all that important, while women have limited social power to promote them. And that power is easily endangered by too close an identification with all but the most anodyne version of feminism. There are no female CEOs pouring millions into reproductive rights or threatening to relocate their businesses when a state guts access to abortion. And with few exceptions, A-list celebs steer clear.
SS Marriage equality has cross-class appeal: Anyone can have an LGBT child, and parents across the political spectrum naturally want their kids to have the same opportunities other children have. Any woman might find herself needing an abortion, too, but she may not realize that. Improvements in birth control mean that prosperous, educated women with private doctors can control their fertility pretty well--certainly better than women who rely on public clinics--and if they need an abortion, they can get one. It's low-income women who suffer the most from abortion restrictions--and since when have their issues been at the top of the middle and upper classes' to-do list?
SS Marriage equality costs society nothing and takes no power away from anyone. No one has been able to argue persuasively that your gay marriage hurts my straight marriage. But reproductive rights come with a price tag: Government funding is inevitably involved. ("If you want to have a party, have a party, but don't ask me to pay for it," said one New Hampshire lawmaker as he tried to cut funding for contraception.) Also, contraception and abortion give power to women and take it from others: parents, employers, clergy, and men.
SSIn marriage equality, there is no loser. But many, including some who call themselves pro-choice, feel that abortion creates a loser: the embryo or fetus. You have to value women a lot to side with the pregnant woman, with all her inevitable complexities and flaws, over the pure potentiality of the future baby.
SS Marriage equality is a wonderful thing, an important civil right that brings dignity to a previously excluded group. Over time, it may subtly affect the gender conventions of straight marriage, but it won't fundamentally alter our social and economic arrangements. Reproductive rights, though, are inescapably connected to the larger project of feminism, which has already destabilized every area of life, from the bedroom to the boardroom. What might women demand, what might they accomplish, how might they choose to live, if every woman had children only when and if she wanted them? "Culture war" doesn't begin to describe it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Flame of Intolerance Still Flickers in Alabama
This week, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore released an order that no same-sex marriage licenses be granted in the state. He was responding to a decision by a federal district court that declared unconstitutional Alabama's ban on gay marriage. When the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the state's appeal of the ruling, the ban was legally overturned, and Alabama became the 37th state to allow marriage equality. That is, until Chief Justice Moore got involved.
Feb 12, 2015
This week, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore released an order that no same-sex marriage licenses be granted in the state. He was responding to a decision by a federal district court that declared unconstitutional Alabama's ban on gay marriage. When the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the state's appeal of the ruling, the ban was legally overturned, and Alabama became the 37th state to allow marriage equality. That is, until Chief Justice Moore got involved. Now, the legality of same-sex marriage is in question, with some counties issuing marriage licenses, and some refusing.
Chief Justice Moore is a radical conservative, a strident evangelical Christian. Back in 2003, he made national headlines when he placed a massive granite block, on which were carved the Ten Commandments, inside the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery. He defied a federal court order to remove the religious monument, and was removed from office. Despite being disgraced, he was re-elected in 2012. He recently suggested at an evangelical Christian event that the First Amendment only protects Christians, as, he claims, that was the religion of the nation's founders. On the TV program "Good Morning America" earlier this month, he speculated what might follow were same-sex marriages allowed:
"Do they stop with one man and one man, or one woman and one woman, or do they go to multiple marriages? Or do they go with marriages between men and their daughters, or women and their sons?"
Defying Moore's monumental intolerance, loving couples still wed in Alabama this week. The first couple to marry in Montgomery were Tori Sisson and Shante Wolfe, both of whom have adopted the surname Wolfe-Sisson. When I asked Tori how it felt to be the first couple married there after the Alabama ban was overturned, she said, "It feels like we need a nap."
Shante explained their insistence on marrying in Alabama: "We said that we wouldn't go anywhere else, because we work here, we pay our taxes here, and we're not going to go to another state just to come back and our union not be recognized. We've had several people tell us, 'Well, just go to New York, or just go somewhere else.' But no, we had faith that Alabama would move in a positive direction. And it has." Tori has been involved with organizing this historic victory, as the Alabama field organizer for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay and lesbian rights organization.
Inequality, racism, segregation. These injustices persist with remarkable tenacity. I asked Montgomery-based attorney Bryan Stevenson about these courageous women. He said: "We have got to learn to respect the rights of people who are minorities. ... There was never a time when you could get the majority of people in the state to vote to end racial segregation." Stevenson is the founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, which has just released a report called, "Lynching in America: Confronting the Legacy of Racial Terror." The report documents close to 4,000 murders by lynching, which is 700 more than the previously accepted best estimates. Stevenson said, "At the beginning of the end of Reconstruction we see violence and threats and intimidation beginning to assert itself to sustain racial hierarchy. White supremacy wouldn't succeed if it wasn't enforced with violence and threat and terror."
The systematic, mass violence, perpetrated with what Stevenson called a "carnival-like" atmosphere, was designed and sustained to terrorize the African-American population in the South. He explained, "The whole North and West is populated with African-Americans who fled to Detroit and Chicago and Cleveland and Los Angeles, not as people looking for opportunities, but as refugees from terror."
Amidst the terror, courageous people rose up, and, during the civil-rights era, shifted the course of history. March 7 will mark the 50th anniversary of "Bloody Sunday," when 600 people, including a young John Lewis, who is now a distinguished member of Congress, began a march from Selma to Montgomery to challenge restrictive Jim Crow voting laws in Alabama. As the marchers approached the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were brutally attacked by the Alabama State Police. This was just two years after the racist governor of Alabama, George Wallace, promised to enforce "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."
Intolerance persists, but people push back with a force more powerful, the force of movements, of grass-roots organizing. Rosa Parks and thousands with her did it in 1955 with the Montgomery bus boycott. As Stevenson told me: "This is a state where you sometimes have to stand when other people are sitting. It's a place where you have to speak when other people are quiet ... this is a state that's going to continually have to confront its resistance to complying with the Constitution and respecting the dignity and aspirations of all people."
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular