Sad. And what a beautiful name for the case that paved the way for marriage equality among and between the races.
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....
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.
"There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the equal protection clause," the court ruled in a unanimous decision.
Her husband died in 1975. Shy and soft-spoken, Loving shunned publicity and in a rare interview with The Associated Press last June, insisted she never wanted to be a hero — just a bride.
"It wasn't my doing," Loving said. "It was God's work."
One can imagine the level of education provided with this kind of attitude towards women. Hats off to the other refs who refused to go along with the demands of the school to only allow male referees. Knuckle-draggers of the world, unite.
The Kansas State High School Activities Association said referees reported that Michelle Campbell was preparing to officiate at St. Mary's Academy near Topeka on Feb. 2 when a school official insisted that Campbell could not call the game.
The reason given, according to the referees: Campbell, as a woman, could not be put in a position of authority over boys because of the academy's beliefs.
NOTE FROM JOHN: Chris posted this in the wee hours of the morning (God bless his Parisian soul), but this story is far too important to let slip away unread. Folks, this is post-Taliban Afghanistan. This is the war that we supposedly won - you remember, the one that we pretty much quit in order to invade Iraq. This story is horrifying. This is not a democracy, and people like this are not going to be our friends. ___________
Afghanistan is sentencing a journalist to death because he downloaded and distributed a report on women's rights. Is this the government that we're propping up with our soldiers and tax dollars? I understand that different cultures have different views but this is so incredibly against everything we stand for as a country. Is this really the kind of government we want to support?
A young man, a student of journalism, is sentenced to death by an Islamic court for downloading a report from the internet. The sentence is then upheld by the country's rulers. This is Afghanistan – not in Taliban times but six years after "liberation" and under the democratic rule of the West's ally Hamid Karzai.
The fate of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh has led to domestic and international protests, and deepening concern about erosion of civil liberties in Afghanistan. He was accused of blasphemy after he downloaded a report from a Farsi website which stated that Muslim fundamentalists who claimed the Koran justified the oppression of women had misrepresented the views of the prophet Mohamed.
Thirty-five years ago today, the Supreme Court declared that most laws against abortion were unconstitutional. Roe v Wade obviously had profound effects on politics at a variety of levels, but more importantly, it had an effect on people -- millions of people who, before their rights were recognized, could or would have been forced by the government to give up control over a choice that is among the most important, personal, and private in all of life. It is one of the most important rights a person has (and should have) in this country, and it is in constant danger of being abrogated.
I'd say more, but this is one topic that has certainly been covered by individuals far more insightful and eloquent than I. The best explanation of pro-choice perspective I've ever read is here, so take a moment away from the primaries, the stock market, and the daily grind to remind yourself why today -- why every day of this fight -- matters. For real people. Every day.
For some additional excellent pieces, check out AlterNet's excellent Reproductive Justice and Gender section, which is especially good -- and, again, important -- today.
*Second half of the title is a joke, but I realize it's a little random, so see here, e.g.
This comes as no surprise. After the 2005 riots there was the usual talk though nothing really changed. On the left, there has been a stubbornness to take any useful action because in the eyes of many (especially the traditional, white elite men who never share power) the French constitution provides equality so to even suggest otherwise or treat any disadvantaged group differently, would go against the constitution. On the right there have been numerous inflammatory public comments that have offered nothing to help bridge the gap.
With such positions it's hard to make any progress on this ongoing problem. Sarkozy used to talk about affirmative action plans and perhaps that will receive renewed interest. In France, affirmative action is considered to be an idea of the right, not the left. It's interesting to see how there is such a different interpretation on this issue. Somehow I doubt the pro-Sarko crowd in America would be in agreement with him. Regardless, something needs to change if France is ever going to start moving on with this problem. It's not going to disappear by throwing police at the problem.
During the HRC/LOGO Democratic presidential forum last Thursday, Illinois Senator Barack Obama was asked about homophobia in the religious black community, and how he would handle the intolerance coming out of some pulpits in this community, which has been a bonding point with the professional anti-gay white evangelical movement.
Part of his response, which includes what he said to a group of black ministers at a forum in Tennessee:
I specifically talked about the degree to which the notion of gay marriage in black churches has been used to divide, has been used to distract. I specifically pointed out that if there's any pastor here who can point out a marriage that has been broken up as a consequence of seeing two men or two women holding hands, then we --you should tell me, because I haven't seen any evidence of it. .
And what I've also said -- and what I've also said is, if you think that issue is more important to the black family, which is under siege -- if you think that's more important than the fact that black men don't have any jobs and are struggling in the inner cities, then I profoundly disagree with you.
...And the black community, I think, has a diversity of opinion, as you and I both know. There are people who recognize that if we're going to talk about justice and civil rights and fairness, that should apply to all people, not just some. And there are some folks who, coming out of the church, have, you know, elevated one line in Romans above the Sermon in the Mount.
And so my job as a leader, not just of African-Americans but hopefully as a leader of Americans, is to tell the truth, which is this has been a political football that's been used. It is unfortunate. It's got to stop. And when it stops, we will then be able to address the legitimate and serious concerns that face the black family.
It set off this response from the infamously anti-gay tool that trots out to defend religion-based bigotry, Bishop Harry Jackson Jr., of the High Impact Leadership Coalition (which paid for this outlandish ad in Roll Call and USA Today against hate crimes legislation). From OneNewsNow, the "news" organ of the American Family Association:
"He's dead wrong concerning what the Scriptures say, and more importantly, he's dead wrong in terms of the Scriptures and in terms of reading the culture.The culture has gone in a different direction, and the devaluation of marriage is a major problem, and I believe that he's a very dangerous man because he sounds reasonable, he sounds engaging, but he's misinformed"
Bishop Jackson calls Obama a "junior or infant Christian speaking out as though he were an ambassador of the faith." Jackson says he does not buy the notion that the homosexual rights movement is similar to the black civil rights movement either.
"I think what most African-Americans buy is that there should be justice for all, in terms of the outworking of civil law. What they do not buy is that we should rename sin as something righteous and holy," explains Jackson.
Jackson says the average person in a black community says, "wrong is wrong, and right is right, and even if I'm not living right myself, I refuse to call that which is morally wrong right."
Yes, and some in the evangelical movement that you are in bed with now, Bishop Jackson, thought segregation was biblically justified, and that it was "morally wrong" for people of different races to marry, based on scripture. Slavery is endorsed in the bible, as well as stoning adulterers. Cherry picking on the issue of gay rights -- and we're talking about civil, not religious rights -- doesn't fly, particularly with the tragic levels of HIV/AIDS in the black community. This sort of holier-than-thou ignorance and hypocrisy is inexcusable, because it shuts down rational dialogue, silencing and intimidating black LGBTs and potential allies. That's the whole point of the professional anti-gay religion-based bigotry machine.
Related: * High Impact, Low Maintenance: The GOP is counting on Bishop Harry Jackson and his High Impact Leadership Coalition to bring African Americans to the Party. [You must click over to see the photo of Jackson as the spot of color in a stage full of right-wing luminaries back in 2005 -- Schafly, Perkins, Ted Haggard (!), Zell Miller, Daddy Dobson, Bill Donahue, and more.] * Reporting from the NBJC Second Annual Black Church Summit * Clergy Against Hate web site * Faith in America (an organization that challenges individuals and institutions that use religion to justify discrimination and persecution of LGBT citizens).
With many LGBTQ voters of African descent experiencing the downside of diversity by not being fully included in the both African American and gay communities the HRC-Logo debate is viewed as a white queer public soliloquy giving the illusion of inclusion. -- Rev. Irene Monroe, ordained minister, religion columnist, feminist theologian, questioning whether the HRC/Logo presidential forum will ignore critical issues of concern to the black LGBTQ community
I was just thinking about this issue when I received an email in my inbox from Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project, about an essay there by Reverend Monroe on a population largely unrepresented in either the coverage of or involvement in the forum -- communities of color. Many, Monroe says, aren't even aware of the forum.
"Why would I know about this debate?," LaShaun Williams of New Orleans told me. "Before Katrina the black and white gay communities was separated. Now after Katrina even moreso because only those who have money either stayed during the city's renovation or had money to return back. Our community is smaller and more invisible than ever and the gay paper down here doesn't now and never have circulated where black folks live."
It's quite obvious to queer folks of color that "the movement" is overwhemingly white, well-to-do, urban-dwelling, internet-connected -- and that means a different worldview (given human nature) about what issues are critical than what may be true in minority queer communities.
The queer community is a decisive electoral force that politicians have learned over the years, for their own campaign survival, that they must at least wink at.
But their winks have never cast eyes on this nation's black same gender loving communities. And the issues concerning white queer communities are indeed vastly different from the black community.
"We got an entire community dying of AIDS and I know the first question that's going to come out of somebody's mouth will be that of gay marriage," Rita Johnson of Detroit told me.
Social research shows that African-American same-gender households have everything to gain in the struggle for marriage equality and more to lose when states pass amendments banning marriage equality and other forms of partner recognition. For example, in November 2005, Equality Maryland and the National Black Justice Coalition published "Jumping the Broom: a Black Perspective on Same-Gender Marriage." And the statistics revealed the following: Forty-five percent of black same-sex couples reported stable relationships of five years or longer. And 20 percent of black men and 24 percent of black women in same-sex households are denied health care benefits for their partners by the government.
Marriage is important, but so is tackling the religious homophobia in the black community that drives discussion of sexuality, safer sex, monogomy and honesty deep into the closet.
More than one person of color frustrated by the lack of the gay white establishment's involvement in these issues has told me that it's always couched as a third rail issue -- that they don't want to address black homophobia, for instance, because it's something that needs to be "dealt with internally," meaning it's up to LGBTQ blacks to handle it because the white establishment doesn't want to be perceived as "meddling" in a minority community's "issue."
Of course this is bunk. Homophobia is homophobia, and begging off any struggle simply because it's difficult to negotiate or makes one uncomfortable is a pitiful position to hold, given it's the very same message we've heard in the past from our alleged Democratic allies. How many times were we told back in prior election cycles that we (the gay community as a whole) are responsible for "winning over" the American public to convince them that our civil rights are important. We were told we were on our own because the political risk was too great for them at the time.
What, pray tell, is the difference?
It was enlightening to attend the much-ignored-by-the-MSM National Black Justice Coalition's Second Annual Black Church Summit held in Philly last March. It was a gathering of LGBT and gay-affirming religious leaders, the people at the front lines facing extreme disapproval from many in the socially conservative religious black community. There was a debate between black LGBT allies and leaders, including Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson and Bush-supportingBishop Harry Jackson, Chairman of the High-Impact Leadership Coalition. Jackson is strident in his opposition to LGBT rights.
[G]ay activists around the country are getting nervous that they are about to experience an embarrassing political setback. Instead of amending the hate crimes legislation that protects churches in a substantive way, they are simply crying out in a louder, more threatening manner. Gay advocates are not looking for fairness; they are looking for an upper hand.
The establishment LGBT rights movement has not, until recently, even addressed the success of the white evangelical movement in capitalizing on institutionalized homophobia in the black church, even though these churches should be wary of bedding down with a movement that otherwise wants nothing to do with black issues on any other occasion.
That's how deep the homophobia goes, and that's where support is needed, and why diverse voices need to be present at forums like the HRC/Logo program. The questions raised should be able to be seen and heard by all. Low-wealth LGBT citizens may not have cable or broadband. They are just as affected by the issues that will be discussed as the larger LGBT community of influence, yet many are left with the feeling, rightly or wrongly, intentionally or not, this is a "white-only" affair. There's a lot of work to do if people on both sides of the color line are willing to roll their sleeves up and deal with feeling uncomfortable and move forward.
A federal appeals court in the 4th circuit ruled yesterday that George Bush can't simply declare a US resident an "enemy combatant" and then lock him up for life without a trial. The first surprise from this case is that Bush lost. This is the widely considered to be the most conservative appellate court in the country. Having said that, the administraiton will appeal to the full court - so that all the judges have to hear the case (only 3 of them ruled on the case decided yesterday) - so that may change the odds to Bush's favor. And in fact, the Post notes that:
The 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, is considered one of the most conservative in the country, but the three-judge panel that heard the case was not. Two judges known as moderates, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, made up the majority in the decision.
Still, what the court ruled, and wrote, was so basic, and so obvious, a description of our democracy that it is troubling that it need be explained at all:
"The President cannot eliminate constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen by proclaiming a civilian, even a criminal civilian, an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention," the panel found.
George Bush, and those Americans who support him and his policies, need to explain why the American justice system isn't capable of handling a few bad terrorists? I mean, we give a lawyer and a jury trial and appeals to mass-murderers of children like John Wayne Gacy, to traitors who spied on our country for the Soviets, to men who would kill the president, but when it comes to terrorists, suddenly American democracy isn't up to the task. Because the threat is greater than ever before? Tell that to the parents of the children murdered by Gacy. Because our very democracy is at stake? Tell that to the Senators and House members who almost got blown up by Puerto Rican separatists.
As an aside, I have to laugh when people argue that terrorism poses a new and uniquely dangerous threat to our democracy. Really? A bigger threat than the British in the late 1700s when were struggling to defend our newborn democracy? A bigger threat than the civil war, that almost ripped our country in two? A bigger threat than World War I and World War II? A bigger threat than the Soviets? Oh yeah, big bad Osama is much worse than thousands of Soviet warheads. Other than the fact that their names are awfully hard to spell, the new crop of bad guys are no worse than the old crop. Yet now suddenly we're to believe that America's justice system and America's freedoms just aren't up to the task.
As Colin Powell noted this weekend on the Sunday shows, no one has given a very good explanation for why our tried and true, time-honored, system of justice supposedly falls short when the bad guy is named Osama or Ahmed?
I would close Guantanamo — not tomorrow, this afternoon. I’d close it. And I’d not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system. The concern was, well, then they’ll have access to lawyers, then they’ll have access to writs of habeas corpus. So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about? And by the way, America, unfortunately, has too many people in jail, all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus. And so we can handle bad people in our system. And so I would get rid of Guantanamo and I’d get rid of the military commissions system, and use established procedures in federal law or in the manual for courts martial. I would do that because it’s more equatable and it’s more understandable in constitutional terms. But I’d also do it because every morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds. So essentially we have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission.
Worse, we've shaken our belief in America's justice system - we've told our own citizens that American justice isn't up to the task of dealing with the big bad terrorists. And we give Osama a mighty pat on the back by declaring publicly that he's such a super-villain, that he poses such a danger to our democracy, that we have to bend the rules in order to deal with him. I can't think of a greater compliment anyone could give a criminal. Osama and the rest of them should be treated like the street thugs they are.
Civil liberties groups are warning that the details of every Briton could soon be on the national DNA database, raising fresh concerns of a 'surveillance society'. Controversial plans being studied by the government would see the DNA of people convicted of even the most minor, non-imprisonable offences, such as dropping litter, entered on the national database.
The proposals are part of a wide-ranging government review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Pace), which campaign groups warn may have profound ramifications for society. 'The danger is that if we start adding the details of people convicted of these sort of minor offences to the database we'll come to a tipping point,' said Gareth Crossman, director of Liberty. 'The government will say: "Actually it's a bit unfair some people aren't on the database; maybe everyone should be on it."'
The DNA database is already proving controversial with some politicians and police officers raising concerns about its use. Liberty claims that, per head of population, the UK has five times as many people on the DNA database as any other country. The government estimates that even if the database is not expanded to include the details of minor offenders, some 4.5 million people will still be on it by 2010.
I'd posted last night, asking if anyone had any information about a controversy on Facebook regarding the banning of gay user-groups. Fortunately, one of you found an update that the controversy was a hoax. Glad to hear it, thanks for helping to get to the bottom of it, and now we can share the news with others in case they hear about this in the future. It's not real.
Clearly terrorism has had an impact on resources and focus, but 60%+ declines? It is time to get back to safe guarding American values. Just because Bush and Gonzales are not interested in civil rights doesn't mean Congress has to accept it.
The P-I analysis found a major drop in police-abuse cases handled by the FBI -- down 66 percent from 2000 to 2005 nationwide, although figures for 2006 indicate a rebound in such investigations.
Federal authorities are investigating increasingly fewer hate crimes each year, with cases handled by the FBI plunging by 60 percent, records show.
As the article notes, there is no federal law prohibiting discrimination against gay people in public accommodations, employment, or anything else. Discrimination against gay Americans is 100% legal under federal law, and in most states. It's a fact. More from the Kansas City Star.
From amending the current federal Hate Crimes law to make sure it includes everyone, and not just the religious right (which it already covers), to banning job discrimination based on sexual orientation (it's legal to fire someone for being gay in the majority of states), it's turning into a banner year for civil rights, let alone the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans. Congressional Quarterly looks at the details, via Bloggernista.
After 14 years, the anti-gay Republican congress is history. And even though the anti-gay Republican president is still with us - let's hope Mary Cheney finally weighs in with Bush and does her spouse and her child-to-be some good - we have a real chance to finally make some incredible gains at the federal level this year.
One of my passions is travel and I have had the good fortune to spend a lot of time seeing the world and meeting with all kinds of people. What has always stood out in my travel has been the delta between men and women in terms of social, political and economic status. In many agricultural societies women are often working the fields and feeding the families though when you look at positions of power in business or government, they are seriously underrepresented. Of course, I can also look in my own backyard here in France and see a problems with women being properly represented in business and government, even though France does have a woman as one of the leading candidates for president though I would consider Segolene Royal as the exception that proves the rule. Back in the US, while the situation is improving, representation in government still lacks what one finds in Scandinavia who are about 50/50 men and women.
The Independent lists a few things to consider on this day, reminding us of how far we have to go.
Figures compiled by the British government, development agencies and human rights groups resemble a roll call of shame:
* Two-thirds of the world's 800 million illiterate adults are women as girls are not seen as worth the investment, or are busy collecting water or firewood or doing other domestic chores.
* Two million girls aged from five to 15 join the commercial sex market every year.
* Domestic violence kills and injures more people in the developing world than war, cancer or traffic accidents.
* Seventy per cent of the world's poorest people are women.
* Violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities among women aged 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents or war.
* Women produce half the world's food, but own less than two per cent of the land.
* Of the more than one billion people living in extreme poverty, 70 per cent are women.
UPDATE: It seems some of our readers disagree with me. Feel free to join the heated discussion in our comments section here.
I'm sorry, I never saw the problem. Illinois, which I attended, didn't have an indian mascot the way you might think. There was no goofball running around with a tomahawk pretending to scalp people. The mascot was an honorable position, it was a big deal to get the job, and he only appeared in a half-time show that involved an incredibly exhausting dance that paid homage to our state's native American heritage - it doesn't poke fun, mock, anything. And yeah, I get that some native Americans didn't like it. But that doesn't mean they're right. First step, you have the right to complain. Second step, you need to prove your point. I'm not convinced they have. The NCAA, and others, just killed a perfectly respectful tradition that actually reminded Illinoisans of their heritage and made us proud in our school and our state (and frankly, reminded us of our state's native American past, something that is going to be remembered less now as a result of this action). Our mascot was killed because of the caricature that others ascribed to it, not because of the caricature it was - which it was not.
I'll also add that the explanation as to why my school gets to keep its name, the fighting Illini, is a joke:
Illinois still will be able to use the name the Illini because it's short for Illinois and the school can use the term Fighting Illini, because it's considered a reference to the team's competitive spirit, school officials said.
I'm from Illinois. Illini isn't short for Illinois. How many people do you know who hail from Chicago, Illini? That's absurd. The name comes from the Illini indians, as frankly does the name of the school and the name of the state. Unless the NCAA plans to ban the entire state of Illinois from participating in any post-season events, I'd like to hear an explanation as to why they're now simply playing games with all of this. Or is a respectful use of my state's Indian heritage acceptable, and if so, then why was Chief Illiniwek killed?
One more thing. I'm Greek. My junior high school mascot was a Spartan. Our mascot was about me and nobody else. I thought it was cool. I still do.
PS And they want us to return the outfit the mascot wore, an outfit that the chief of a tribe sold to the university, and not for a necklace of beads 300 years ago - it was a fair deal for $3500 in 1982, and the outfit wasn't historic, it was made by the chief's wife (there's some dispute about the feathers in the headress being special, fine, return the feathers if they can find them). Enough is enough, they got their piece of flesh - at least keep the outfit in a museum. Their chief knew what he was doing, he even came to the university to celebrate the sale.
"He's dead wrong concerning what the Scriptures say, and more importantly, he's dead wrong in terms of the Scriptures and in terms of reading the culture.The culture has gone in a different direction, and the devaluation of marriage is a major problem, and I believe that he's a very dangerous man because he sounds reasonable, he sounds engaging, but he's misinformed"
