Saturday, October 17, 2009

In the Long Wake of Loving vs. Virginia


In 1967, the US Supreme Court voted unanimously in Loving v. Virginia to affirm the right of different races* to marry. (This decision was backed by religious groups, including the Roman Catholic Church.) Hence the astonishment when Justice of the Peace Earl Keith Bardwell of Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, recently refused to sign a couple's marriage license on racial grounds. This will be an interesting case to follow. Bardwell is only in his fifties, though he looks a bit older and from another era.

*Race and ethnicity in the United States have been defined by statute, census enumeration, and self-identification; definitions have changed over time, and will continue to do so, because they are social constructs. One of the best books I've read on the subject is Ivan Hannaford's Race: The History of an Idea in the West (1996).

Today's Rune: Separation (Reversed).

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gotta be a Republican, don't you think?

JC

Erik Donald France said...

He is -- apparently, he switched parties to stay in position in 2008. Sort of like Jesse Helms, who later dropped dead when it became clear Barack Obama would become president of the USA ;->

Luma Rosa said...

Here in Brazil, who demonstrates racism or preconception of any type, goes imprisoned. Laws exist that protect the differentiated ones. Beijus,

the walking man said...

There must be something tainting the Louisiana alligator meat.

Actually though we haven't fought this battle for decades now. I suppose like everything else it must be visited again to attempt to stamp out the racial xenophobia for a new generation.

Anonymous said...

There is (at least one) something tainting the alligator meat: it's called methyl mercury, and it's a very potent neurotoxin.

JC

Johnny Yen said...

I studied the Loving case when in college. I always thought the name was incredibly ironic.

As the parent of a mixed race child (my son's mother, an ex-girlfriend) is Chinese-American, this issue is near and dear to my heart. The judge's rationale, that mixed-race children have a harder time, is not just a parochial, narrow, backward Louisiana issue-- I cannot tell you how many times I have heard it coming from educated Northerners.

My observation, in the process of raising a racially mixed child for the last fifteen years, is that it broadens him, rather than narrows him. Straddling two races-- and cultures-- he chooses what he defines himself by. It has strengthened him, not weakened him.

It's my hope that the judge uses this as a "teachable moment"-- for himself.

Erik Donald France said...

Thank you again for your comments, which are very appreciated.

Great insights and observations!

Lana Gramlich said...

Ah, Louisiana. <:\