If you have any sense of irony whatsoever, here’s something
to try to get your head around. In the
recent gloriously correct USSC decision regarding the unconstitutionality of
several provisions of the defense of marriage Act (DOMA), the decision was
surprisingly narrow. I was shocked by the 5/4 split considering that there is
really no shocking legal point here, other than that of fairness for all Americans.
A “no brainer”, right?
You might think so, but there are even more mysterious factors
at work here. Consider the case of Virginia
(the state, not the little girl who wrote Santa) in 1924. The conservative
Christian backlash against “Reds” , eastern and central Europeans in general, teaching evolution in schools, non-Christians and non-Whites was in full swing. Manifestations
of this include the Sacco-Vanzetti case, “Red scares” ( 249 Russian immigrants deported without
cause, 5000 citizens detained without cause), Socialist
elected officials unseated, the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan, and ultimately the
Scopes trial.
Virginia’s reaction to all this was to pass The Racial
Integrity Act of 1924. This act banned marriages between persons described as “White”
and those described as “Colored”, referring to such unions as “miscegenation “.
Two such persons, whose crime apparently was
loving each other, married in spite of
the law and were promptly charged,
tried, convicted and sentenced to be
incarcerated for a year. The USSC got the case as Loving v. Virginia. The couple was
Mildred and Richard Loving. The decision in their case, when ruled upon, was
that the Virginia Act and, in fact any act preventing marriage between persons
of color violated their constitutional right to equal status before the law. The decision in Loving v Virginia was a
unanimous 9/0 decision.
Fast forward to 2013, The DOMA decision regarding essentially
the same issue – equal treatment before the law for all Americans is a 5/4
decision. Voting against the decision
was Antonin Scalia, with no surprise, since he is homophobic and Catholic. The
greater surprise to me and a vote that should outrage all of us is the one cast
by Justice Clarence (“pubic hair on the
Coke can”) Thomas. If the former
reference escapes you, look at the transcript of the Anita Hill testimony of
his confirmation hearings. OK, OK so he’s
a sexist pig, get to the part about the vote on DOMA. Well, Clarence Thomas, a Black man, married
to a White woman and living in the state of Virginia, has clearly shown his
moral bankruptcy and crushing mediocrity by voting as he did in a case which,
but for Loving V. Virginia he’d never have heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment