50 years of Loving


The Loving v. Virginia decision was handed down on 12 June 1967, to the chagrin of racists everywhere. Remind a Nazi today!

It’s always two steps forward, then one back. Except sometimes you’re living in a time when we take three steps back…so keep pushing forward.

Comments

  1. says

    Some people worry entirely too much about who other people love (and have sex with) It’s really one of those “mind your own business” things.

  2. elvenpiratefish says

    This song was good. It reminds me of one you linked to several years ago that I think was constitution. I remember the part where they talk about Loving V Virginia because they have someone sing part of the original ruling against them “God out seperate races in separate places” or possibly different in place of separate. It’s driving me crazy trying to find that video ><

  3. says

    This is one of those things that you think is ancient history, then Cheerios releases a commercial with a mixed-race family and the racists lose their shit.

    Then a couple of years after that, in 2017, it’s still freakin’ weird to see people use “miscegenation” without irony or in a history lesson.

  4. blf says

    Didn’t Old Navy have an ad with an interracial family last year? I seem to recall teh usual eejits bellowing about that.

    (Is there a better term than “interracial” or “mixed-race”? I’m unkeen on “race”-based terminology, as it (to me) implies acceptance, or at least tolerance, for the concept of “race”.)

  5. says

    blf – I wish there was a better term. The best I can come up with is replacing “race” with “culture”, but then that would also include a Mormon marrying a Catholic and while there are some circles that would freak out about that, it’s not quite the same.

    Sadly unless we ever become a post-racial world where the terms won’t make sense, I don’t know if there are better terms (though I do like “interracial” much better than “mixed-race” as the latter brings up the very racist “race mixing”, but unfortunately it didn’t pop into mind when I wrote my original comment).

  6. says

    @blf — as far as I’m aware, “interracial” is an okay term. Sure, it kinda props up the idea of “races”, but it’s also an indicator that society has moved forward, as we now needed a term to describe these relationships and these families. I suppose, much like other terminology, “interracial” and “multiracial” will fall by the wayside as society progresses further.

    I describe my family as multiracial because we’re a bit a lot like a tin of mixed nuts. White folks adopting kids and not discriminating about their colour or disabilities, and just dealing with things as they come with love and support. We’re weird, and we’re proud of it.

  7. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    My recall of the time, that this was one of the first times SCOTUS seemed to recognize the Fourteen Amendment as it applied to marriage, a subject which had been considered a state responsibility. Ultimately the reasoning lead to the reasoning in Oberfell V. Hodges, that the State cannot discriminate based on who loves who. And in MH, that is meant by the fourteenth, which is solidly at odds with the theocrats and their fictional/mythical babble….

  8. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    My recall of the time, that this was one of the first times SCOTUS seemed to recognize the Fourteen Amendment as it applied to marriage, a subject which had been considered a state responsibility. Ultimately the reasoning lead to the reasoning in Oberfell V. Hodges, that the State cannot discriminate based on who loves who. And in MHO, that is meant by the fourteenth, which is solidly at odds with the theocrats and their fictional/mythical babble….

  9. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    My recall of the time, that this was one of the first times SCOTUS seemed to recognize the Fourteen Amendment as it applied to marriage, a subject which had previously been considered a state responsibility. Ultimately the reasoning in this case lead to the reasoning in Oberfell v. Hodges, that the State cannot discriminate based on who loves who. And in MHO, that is meant by the fourteenth, which is solidly at odds with the theocrats and their fictional/mythical babble….

  10. Nomad says

    Something’s always stuck in my craw about this song. I don’t know when it was written, but I can find it showing up online as early as 2009, six years before Obergefell.

    The line “we can love who we love” kind of rings hollow knowing how old it is. I find myself adding in “as long as you’re straight” every time the song triumphantly announces that love wins.

  11. Johnny Vector says

    Nomad @12: I think your satire detector needs adjusting. Or you need to listen a bit more closely to the spoken parts between the verses. Or: “He didn’t mean green.” “Yes I did.” Marriage rights are for everyone, even groups that don’t exist! (He has to skip that bit when doing the song solo; when he comes to our house I’m gonna offer to sing the “He didn’t mean green” part because I think it’s important to the message.)

    We all thought he could retire the song after the Obergefell decision. But nope, still relevant.

    Also, is that song great genre or what? About as The Mamas & The Papas as you can get.

  12. cherbear says

    We’ve had interracial commercials on Canadian television for years. YEARS! I don’t recall hearing about anyone losing their shit. Maybe its because no one watches it. But. It always seemed perfectly normal to me.

  13. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Sorry about the triple posts. The first got caught in the spam filter for some reason, and I tried to get a good post. PZ rescued them all.

Leave a Reply