Married 19 years this August. Activist judges are to blame.

In georgia10's post, And Now, For Some Saturday Morning Pandering, she excerpts Bush's radio address from this morning. In it, he emphasizes several times that a "Marriage Protection Amendment" is necessary because democracy, not "activist judges" should decide the future of marriage in America. georgia10 wisely adds...

The President couldn't have made his position any clearer. Courts should not be overturning the will of the people when it comes who should and should not be allowed to marry. Now, which enterprising White House reporter will ask whether the President thinks that Loving v. Virginia should be overturned?

Yeah--what about that, George? My husband and I would like to know.



I am *very* glad that "activist judges" have stepped in in cases like Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education. Who knows how long it would have taken for a majority of the people in all 50 states to agree that integrated schools and interracial marriage should be legal. Or, going further back, should we have waited to give African Americans the full legal rights of citizenship until the majority agreed to it?

Really. And yours is the perfect argument against the RW propaganda. If I recall, they were making the same argument back then.

Especially with photo of the happy couple!

Question: Were interfaith marriages illegal, or merely frowned upon back in the day? I remember as a child when people were up in arms about the prospect of interfaith marriage as well....

a Very Happy Anniversary! 19 years in quite an accomplishment. Definitely, send your photo in with your letter.

From what I remember of Catholic School, mixed marriages were allowed, with a lot of counseling, if the non-Catholic spouse agreed to raise the children as Catholics. The overly religious family members of these marriages (knew many) were not very happy about it.

We lived across the street from a Catholic and Jewish couple. They were married in the Catholic Church and the husband made the promise to raise their kids as Catholics. How did they raise their kids? They had Christmas trees and Menorahs, Seders and Easter dinners. Their kids had Bar Mitzvahs and First Communions, etc, etc, etc.

Their parents in this case said wanted them to learn about both religions and let them choose which they wanted to follow when they became adults.

As one of their now adult children said, "We were doubly blessed."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/alabama.interracial/

on edit: Worth noting that the vote wasn't even as overwhelming as it deserved. Got to include the "29%ers" in there.

definitely grounds for huge hissyfits on the part of the in-laws. I've done some of our family genealogy and I can tell you when there was a Catholic/Protestant wedding the fur flew. Also with Irish/German marriages, or new immigrant/established "American" weddings.

Especially among Catholics. It used to be that Catholics could not marry a non-Catholic, period. But the Catholic Church relaxed its interfaith marriage rules to allow for permission when a Catholic marries a non-Catholic Christian, and a dispensaton when a Catholic marries a non-Christian. The catholic spouse agrees to raise the kids Catholic.

I know this because my brother married a Jew, and my younger sister married a Protestant.

Liberal women are hot!

For the sake of balance, your husband is a nice-looking guy too.

Back on-topic: This is a great post. K&R.

:patriot:

I love that! :7

concession speech in 2000 and said it was time for him to go..but these Heinous Hyenas who are stinking up the World and need Fumigation Immediately will be kicking & screaming for more chances to Screw you!

Thanks for your post and congrats on your years together. May you have many more! :headbang:

Me too! Seven years this August!

And I am wondering how long it will be before these idiots try to turn back the clock pre-Loving vs VA.

Those white women need to be having more white babies with white men! Or, something like that. How much longer till he starts chastising white people for marrying & procreating outside the white "master" race?

My wife - a non-white woman born outside the US - couldn't believe it when I told her that back in the 1960s, our marriage would have been illegal in some states.

Sadly, it seems that the bigots of our time are unable to recognize that this whole debate is playing out just like the debate over interracial marriage. Eventually we'll get judges who are impartial enough to recognize that.

Nineteen years is awesome. Congratulations and thanks for all the **** you've had to put up with during that time. Your courage is inspiring.

...at least we've had to put up with very little **** on account of the interracial nature of our marriage. But living in the Bush economy is rough for a lot of people. Happily, our kids haven't really had any issues so far that stem from being mixed, but we recently lost funding/services for our older one, who has Asperger's Syndrome. We spend so much time dealing with that issue that on any given day I probably forget that we have something more visually identifiable that makes our family different. If all we had to deal with was the interracial thing, we'd be sitting pretty.

Just one example of the way Bush's "let's cut services so that we can give my rich buddies tax breaks" approach is bad for real people. Many people are facing worse, I'm sure. But I wish more people would "get" that they are being duped and distracted by trivial **** while Bush is doing some seriously bad stuff that really matters.

in your life and not be distracted by petty prejudices of others. Healthcare is a far more important problem that needs strong, well thought out solutions. I worked at a performing arts school with a child with Asperger's Syndrome. He worked very hard and I was truly touched by not only his effort, but also by his parent's dedication. Yes, he needed a little more than the others, but he was definitely worth it! I've been without health insurance for the better part of 30 years. While this situation inspires one to take really good care of oneself, I have learned that getting (or not getting) the health care you need makes a big difference in your quality of life. Also in the length of it...but I digress...he is doing seriously bad stuff that really matters.

an Excellent example to repudiate "bush the Lesser"s" disengenous whining about Activist Judges.

bush conveniently Forgets that without Activist Judges he wouldn't be the resident squatter in the white house.

* is opposing gay marriage because that is an ultra-right position AND because it strokes the racists in the GOP base. Raygun began his 1980 campaign for Presidency in Philadelphia, Mississippi (the location in which civil rights activists were murdered in cold blood).

Many of *'s messages about gay marriage (and other topics) are really messages to the ultra-right who want a return of segregated schools and other racist policies - including in the extremes of Christian Dominionism -> slavery.



If an enterprising White House reporter asks whether the President thinks that Loving v. Virginia should be overturned the President will say of course not (if he knows what the hell it is -> :eyes:).

Nonetheless when the ultra-right wants an end to "activist judges" what they really want is activist right-wing judges who will help them overturn ALL of the decisions that have been made in the name of progress and decency in the US in the past 100 years.

Don't underestimate them! They *want* Loving v Virginia overturned.

For sticking up for those activist judges.
My daughter will be marrying a beautiful black man who has been her support half way around the world. (They met in Afghanistan when she was stationed there in the army--He (cough) was sub-contracting for Halliburton, but I forgave him) He extended his contract in that hell hole in Afghanistan during her year deployment to be by her side and support her. (It was a heartbreaking year without her son, who had his first year of kindergarten when she was gone. We cared for our grandson during that time.)
He arranged his vacation so it coincided with her leave to come and meet us. When she went back to Hawaii, he commuted from Southern California as often as possible, while running his business. I could go on, but I'll just say He's a damn near perfect potential son-in-law.

My tough little girl, my warrior daughter, fell in love with this wonderful man. And I know the first thing people see when they're together is color. They know nothing of their history together or what they've been through.

Congratulations on 19 years!

Both of them were very lucky to find and keep each other! Congrats on gettng such a wonderful future son-in-law and for having raised a wonderful daughter! :hi:

Thanks

And it couldn't be truer in this case!

There needs to be a 527 organization for a independent judges to make some commercials or run a campaign. You can make a real case with real people about all the precedents that these brave judges have made including:
- Marbury vs Madison
- Loving vs Virginia
- Spousal Rape (yes it was allowed until a case in New York.)

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure one can come up with a decent list of 4-5 examples and how it affects and benefits society.

http://www.lovingday.org/index.html

Loving Day is coming up!!!

:wtf:

Man, this country is screwed up.

that he wouldn't be pResident if it weren't for activist judges!

they've been packing the federal courts with the most reactionary activist judges they can find. When someone is having trouble getting confirmed in the Senate, they play the race card every time, even if the guy is white like Alito. It's astonishing to see the party of racism play the race card.

Clinton's administration really did look like America. The party of the people doesn't have to play games because we already include everybody.

}(
Happiness is color/gender/age blind, on DU...

...perhaps the Little Emperor and his Minions have something against those of Irish and German ancestory marrying each other as well...something about that Catholic/Protestant thing? (never mind we are both Buddhist)

You make an excellent point. It's shocking to see how many voters were (and still are) against basic civil rights. However, I think the real "activist" judges are the hardcore right wing judges that Bush has been appointing! Any clear-thinking non-partisan judge would rule in favor of marriage rights for all people.

I believe he said something to the effect of he might not agree with Texas' law, but it wasn't the place of the Supreme Court to make that decision, it was for the people of Texas.

If the conservative responding to this question had any brains, they would say they agreed with the result of the Loving decision, but not the path we took getting there.

I've seen this line of thinking employed when talking about Brown as well.

I always find it so interesting that Republicans say that the left has "activist judges," but the right-wing court march toward ending women's reproductive freedom is somehow exempt from activism. :eyes:

God bless Loring v. Virginia! God bless your union!

It takes courage, IMHO, to put your self out there for a cause. Especially one that's not influencing you directly. My partner and I will be celebrating 9 years together next week. All five of my siblings have been married and divorced. None of their marriages lasted longer than 7 years. Two of them have remarried. I appreciate your being so brave as to put your face out there. Here is my partner and I:



See how threatening we are? :-)

(that's me on the left)

"In it, he emphasizes several times that a "Marriage Protection Amendment" is necessary because democracy, not "activist judges" should decide the future of marriage in America."

Democracy, as I recall, is a vote of the people... a mandate from the masses, not a vote by a congress controlled by the party of the one that wants it passed...

I say put the fuckin' thing on the ballot if he wants it that bad... if the people want it, so be it... if the people decide that it is to find its home in "File 13", then so be it as well... Then maybe * will shut the fuck up about it.

and when will * ban divorce? That'll get people to think before marrying, which seems more important because we've got harlots like Britney Spears marrying and divorcing every time she wants to sneeze. (and in one case that was a mere 55 hours after marrying!)

This isn't jealousy. This is common sense. The biggest problems with marriage aren't that two men can't enjoy the same tax benefits. The biggest problems are with heterosexuals' own inability to stay hitched. That's not my problem and I need to look after myself.

When someone points out that ruling, and pushes for its repeal in the context of the nitwit's radio address, he'll realize that his dream of dumping Pickles and marrying Condi will have to be put aside, at least in Virginia! Of course, he could, in his role as "decider," decide that she should become an honorary caucasian to get around that little impediment to his finding true love!

Congratulations on your upcoming anniversary. Many more!

we celebrated their 50th anniversary in 1987.....my dad died June 1995, so they missed a 60th anniversary by 2+ years ....

my inlaws were also married more than 50 years .....

Not one reporter has every asked him this. It's incredible.

Congratulations! Many more happy years!

excellent point. :)

Bless those activist judges. Thanks for putting a face(s) on your perfect argument. And such beautiful faces, too.

Seriously, when are the right wingers going to figure out that you can't go around telling people who they should love. They wouldn't like others telling them the same thing.

It almost makes me wonder what happened to the whole "compassionate" thing.

Anyway, here's :toast: to a lifetime of happiness for you both.

Maybe someday me and mine will join ya.

:applause:

The stupid Americans and the Dem's included fell for it two years ago.

After the 2004 election, how did BushCo & the republicans with their trusty faithful media lapdogs explain the incredible swings in votes for Bush, in more than a dozen states, -AFTER- midnight(Ohio, Florida & Alaska being the most obvious states) And all the states with the suspect returns had DieBold and/or ES&S electronic voting machines along with republican Secretary of States counting the votes).

The ridiculous reasons they gave us for these mathematically near impossible turnarounds over night was because people were against Gay Marriage.

And we mostly just all accepted it, the media immediately pontificated it as truth, the talking heads all nodding their old bald heads in agreement... without ANY proof or research what-so-ever... Just the official White House/Rove spin the day after the elections, even democrats were agreeing with the Rove/Gay Marriage spin, on this same DU forum as being truth...

BushCo & the republicans are planning another steal of the elections in November, Bush & the republicans are less popular now than perhaps any time in history...Bush faces a real possibility of impeachment and jail terms for others, if the democrats were to win back the majority in the House...

That will never happen, it can't, and the republicans with their proven, easily hack-able DieBold & ES&S electronic voting machines in place in all 50 states won't let it happen(thanks to the republican written 2002 HAVA) The republicans desperately have to steal it again, they’ll do it in a well thought out(planning of this has been far in advance & they are ready to go, they just need to keep the planned hacked congressional races close, the machines will do the rest). In precincts where it’s necessary and not too noticeable (mostly republican) precincts around the county they’ll be better at it this time, they’ll get better and smoother with each election.

And they have to have a reason why all the polls and exit polling was wrong...Gay Marriage!!

That's why the republicans like Frist and now Bush are bringing it back as one of republicans infamous non issues...And watch the press jump all over it and make it as the number one issue...There is no doubt the republicans have NOTHING to show for re-election to the public...So why not get the Gay Marriage Ban started now and use it again to explain away the theft.

The Supreme Courts wants nothing to do with making an absolute decision on gay marriage, they prefer(which they always do when the heat gets too hot)to let the states decide...but BushCo will really push hard this time and he'll really sell it(until the election is over)because even republicans are laughing about his commitment to the Ban...they point out he's had years to do it and nothing was even spoken after the 2004 election...now Gay marriage like abortion(always a good standby for republican to raise money and get the masses of Christian out to vote… you think the republican politicians want abortion illegal…not a chance) Gay Marriage again will be used to explain away all the lies fraud, manipulations along with the absolute electronic voting machine thefts.

They keep stealing elections nothing happens to them so why not keep doing it? That’s what the 2002 Help America Vote Act (cute name, huh) written by the republicans is all about…The republicans have to count on low turnouts, tearing up Dem’s vote registrations, electronic voting machines and lying. The republican ideology is against unions, against minoritie, women’s rights, gay rights, workers, the middle class so they must cheat…Even though Bush stole two elections look at the millions who still voted for him, mostly white frighten homophobic minority, macho mentality uninformed people.

They keep stealing elections with these stupid lame excuses why the republicans shockingly won again... and the amazingly stunningly dumb Dem's keep saying, well we did this wrong or pointing the finger here or there and say maybe we should be for killing more people too…maybe the Dems should be for putting everyone with brown eyes in jail too...

And they are doing it again...right in your face...with the same bait, "activist judges" code words, another clever, catchy quick republican slogan, designed to DIVIDE the masses. Shit, we all know the liberals will be for "activist judges" and moderates and republicans will be against them...It's slogan used to manipulate and Dem's just won't cop to the fact they keep falling for it...They want to explain it away well Bush said it and...and...

Who's foolin who? "Fool me once, uh, fool me... You won't get fooled again"...And we have the nerve to laugh at him...who laughing harder?

BTW Cheers & Congrads on your marriage...I will celebrate my one and only marriage 22 years this August 8th.