Clinton, Kerry threw us under the train in 2004

From this morning's Washington Post:

In 2004, aides to Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic presidential nominee, were so worried about black voters' feelings about same-sex marriage that they put Bill Clinton on a conference call with 3,000 black pastors so the former president could reassure the pastors that Kerry truly did oppose same-sex marriage.

Elderly aunt disses Mitt Romney over gay marriage

House unanimously agrees that marriage is "basic civil right"

U.S. House Resolution 431, introduced by Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02), commemorates the 1967 Loving v. Virginia U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned state laws against interracial marriage. The resolution states that "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man' at the heart of the 14th Amendment protections". The House unanimously passed H. Res. 431 on Monday.

Rep. Baldwin presented a learned exposition of the history that led to the Court's decision, and an eloquent argument against bigotry and injustice.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA-05) gave the Republican response, repeatedly referring to marriage as being between "one man and one woman".

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=H6187&position=all"

RECOGNIZING 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF LOVING V. VIRGINIA LEGALIZING INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE -- (House of Representatives - June 11, 2007)

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 431) recognizing the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia legalizing interracial marriage within the United States.

The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 431

Whereas the first anti-miscegenation law in the United States was enacted in Maryland in 1661;

Whereas miscegenation was typically a felony under State laws prohibiting interracial marriage punishable by imprisonment or hard labor;

Whereas in 1883, the Supreme Court held in Pace v. Alabama that anti-miscegenation laws were consistent with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as long as the punishments given to both white and black violators are the same;

Whereas in 1912, a constitutional amendment was proposed in the House of Representatives prohibiting interracial marriage "between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians";

Whereas in 1923, the Supreme Court held in Meyer v. Nebraska that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees the right of an individual "to marry, establish a home and bring up children";

Whereas in 1924, Virginia enacted the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth and prevented marriage between "white persons" and non-white persons;

Whereas in 1948, the California Supreme Court overturned the State's anti-miscegenation statutes, thereby becoming the first State high court to declare a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional and making California the first State to do so in the 20th century;

Whereas the California Supreme Court stated in Perez v. Sharp that "a member of any of these races may find himself barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains";

Whereas by 1948, 38 States still forbade interracial marriage, and 6 did so by State constitutional provision;

Whereas in June of 1958, 2 residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia--Mildred Jeter, a black/Native American woman, and Richard Perry Loving, a Caucasian man--were married in Washington, DC;

Whereas upon their return to Virginia, Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving were charged with violating Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes, a felonious crime;

Whereas the Lovings subsequently pleaded guilty and were sentenced to 1 year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the State of Virginia;

Whereas Leon Bazile, the trial judge of the case, proclaimed that "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.";

Whereas the Lovings moved to the District of Columbia, and in 1963 they began a series of lawsuits challenging their convictions;

Whereas the convictions were upheld by the State courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia;

Whereas the Lovings appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground that the Virginia anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment and were therefore unconstitutional;

Whereas in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Loving v. Virginia and readily overturned the Lovings' convictions;

Whereas in the unanimous opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival....... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.";

Whereas the opinion also stated that "the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.";

Whereas in 1967, 16 States still had law prohibiting interracial marriage, including Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia;

Whereas Loving v. Virginia struck down the remaining anti-miscegenation laws nationwide;

Whereas in 2000, Alabama became the last State to remove its anti-miscegenation laws from its statutes;

Whereas according to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1970 to 2000 the percentage of interracial marriages has increased from 1 percent of all marriages to more than 5 percent;

Whereas the number of children living in interracial families has quadrupled between 1970 to 2000, going from 900,000 to more than 3 million; and

Whereas June 12th has been proclaimed "Loving Day" by cities and towns across the country in commemoration of Loving v. Virginia: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) observes the 40th Anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia; and

(2) commemorates the legacy of Loving v. Virginia in ending the ban on interracial marriage in the United States and in recognizing that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"at the heart of the 14th Amendment protections.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) each will control 20 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

GENERAL LEAVE

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 431, a resolution I introduced along with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), commemorating the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing interracial marriages within the United States.

I thank Chairman Conyers for expedition consideration of this resolution so it could be brought to the floor before the actual date of the anniversary which is tomorrow, June 12.

In June of 1958, two residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black Native American woman, and Richard Perry Loving, a Caucasian man, were married in Washington, D.C. Upon their return to Virginia, Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving were charged with violating Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes, which made their marriage a felony.

They challenged their convictions, culminating in the June 12, 1967, U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Loving v. Virginia, striking down the remaining anti-miscegenation laws that were still in effect in 16 States.

In the unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court rejected bigotry against interracial relations, recognizing an individual's right to marry under the 14th amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival ..... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the 14th amendment, is surely to deprive all the States' citizens of liberty without due process of law."

The opinion also stated that "the 14th amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The Loving decision marked a critical step forward in our Nation's struggle toward equal rights for all, particularly full marriage equality. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1970 to the year 2000 the percentage of interracial marriages has increased from 1 percent of all marriages to more than 5 percent. The number of children living in interracial families has quadrupled between 1970 and 2000, going from 900,000 to more than 3 million. Because of the decision's profound impact in our society, numerous cities and towns across this country have already proclaimed June 12 Loving Day in commemoration of this decision.

Indeed, the Supreme Court's opinion forcefully rejected the argument employed by Leon Bazile, the trial judge of the case, who defended his decision convicting the Lovings as part of God's plan. Unfortunately, after 40 years, similar types of arguments are still being employed by a few to deny full marriage equality to everyone.

In commemorating the legacy of Loving v. Virginia in ending the ban on interracial marriage in the United States, H. Res. 431 reaffirms the Loving court's recognition that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man" at the heart of the 14th amendment protections.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this timely resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for presenting this resolution to this Congress, and I notice that many of the statements that she has made have laid out I think the history of this Loving case very well to the Congress, and so what I will seek to do is perhaps just add and fill in perhaps some of the blanks that may have been left, although I'm not convinced that there are many.

And that is the emphasis on equal protection and due process clause of the 14th amendment. I think it was clear when a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court in the Loving case, and it isn't often that you see an issue that has been traditionally rooted from the time of our Founders up until 1967, have a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, even though it met that resistance at every step of the way throughout the entire appeals process until it got to the Supreme Court.

Today, it looks like a clear decision. It looks easy; it's simple. None of us would have any trouble with this Loving decision; but, in fact, then it was a matter of an idea whose time had finally come.

But the Supreme Court laid out very clear language in their decision that legislative classifications based on race were "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality," and further condemned Virginia's interracial marriage statute. And then the Court concluded: "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."

I just appreciate the privilege to emphasize those things, and then I'd like to add then some other thoughts to this record, Mr. Speaker, and that is that we rightfully celebrate the anniversary of the landmark decision here today. The institution of marriage between one man and one woman is older than the Nation itself. It predates government itself, and it also limits the power of government because traditional families are the fundamental units of our society.

Through them, we pour through that crucible our values from a father and a mother into the children and the values of our patriotism, our faith, our work ethic, our culture. The things we eat and the things we do, every component of our culture and civilization is concentrated through those values of those children that we have and that we're so well-blessed with; and without marriage, government would be bound to expand to take its place and would try lamely to do so.

But marriage embraces only one principle, and that is the marriage of a union between a man and a woman, and the further distinction of that and to have government draw a distinction between people based upon their ethnicity should be abhorrent to a free people.

And I stand here, Mr. Speaker, before you this afternoon, and I take this position that I believe we are all created in God's image, and what He has created, I believe it's an insult to Him if we draw distinctions between His creation. He has also seen to bless us with some specific characteristics that help us identify one another. And because He has seen to bless us with those characteristics, and in this case it was skin color, it doesn't mean it still isn't a reflection of God's image.

And I recall stepping into a church in Port Gibson, Mississippi, the Catholic church there that was built in 1848 by the hands of some of the family of Jim Bowie, and the priest in that church was Father Tony Pudenz, and he showed me in the church that this church that was built in 1848, the floor of the church was built for whites, the balcony was built for blacks. And just a week before that, they had buried the editor of the newspaper who had in 1967 taken his white family from the floor of the church and walked his five children and his wife up there where they sat in the balcony with the African Americans, thereby sending a statement where half of the congregation walked across the street to the Episcopal church where they go to church to this very day. But the balance of that congregation is an integrated congregation.

And so I would say we can't be for equality if we're not in support of intermarriage. God has created us all equally, and based upon that, I support this resolution. I think it's appropriate that we bring it today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, the Loving v. Virginia decision was a milestone in our continuing efforts to fulfill the original promises of our Constitution, fulfilling the blessings of liberty for all Americans. It is highly fitting that we remember and honor the decision on its 40th anniversary. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 431.

The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) dead

Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) has died. He had the following HRC scores, with a career average of 12:

2006 (109th Congress) 0
2004 (108th Congress) 0
2002 (107th Congress) 14
2000 (106th Congress) 14
1998 (105th Congress) 33
1996 (104th Congress) 22
1994 (103rd Congress) 0 (House)

Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA-02) indicted

Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA-02) has been indicted on multiple bribery and conspiracy charges. He has the following HRC scores, with a career average of 85. Oddly, his scores started on a precipitous decline shortly after the indictment says that the alleged bribery conspiracy began.

2006 (109th Congress) 38
2004 (108th Congress) 77
2002 (107th Congress) 100
2000 (106th Congress) 100
1998 (105th Congress) 100
1996 (104th Congress) 78
1994 (103rd Congress) 100

Biden statement on New Hampshire civil unions

BIDEN ISSUES STATEMENT ON GOVERNOR LYNCH'S SIGNING OF THE CIVIL UNIONS BILL
Published: 05/31/2007

Wilmington, DE – Sen. Joe Biden issued the following statement today on Governor John Lynch’s signing of H.B. 437, the Civil Unions bill.

"I applaud Governor Lynch and the leaders in the State House for fighting to protect individual rights – which today has resulted in the establishment of civil unions in New Hampshire. Government has an obligation to ensure that freedom and justice are equally applied to each American - that no individual is discriminated against because of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. As a nation, we are making progress recognizing civil unions as an issue of individual liberty. The state of New Hampshire has once again proven to be one of the nation's leaders on this front."

Obama statement on Pride month

Obama Statement on Pride Month
June 01, 2007
CHICAGO , IL-- U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement to commemorate Pride Month.

"Pride Month is a reminder that while we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do."

"Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

"It's time to turn the page on the bitterness and bigotry that fill so much of today's LGBT rights debate. The rights of all Americans should be protected -- whether it's at work or anyplace else. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needs to be repealed because patriotism and a sense of duty should be the key tests for military service, not sexual orientation. Civil unions should give gay couples full rights. And those who commit hate crimes should be punished no matter whether those crimes are committed on account of race, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation."

"This Pride Month, let's make our founding promise of equality a reality for every American."

Clinton statement on Pride month

Senator Clinton not only sent out a press release with the words "gay" and "lesbian", but one with "bisexual" and "transgender" this time:

Statement from Hillary Clinton On Gay & Lesbian Pride Month

"As we celebrate Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, I want to commend the LGBT community on a historic year that brought our country closer to equality and closer to ending discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. Just a year ago, I worked with my Democratic colleagues in the Senate as well as with LGBT leaders to defeat the divisive and discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). Since then, we not only defeated FMA, but we have been able to make real progress in achieving fairness for all Americans. In fact, since June 2006, New Jersey and New Hampshire became the third and fourth states to adopt civil unions and Washington and Iowa were added to the list of states that outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. A similar bill in Colorado is expected to be signed into law soon. And in Congress, we are finally on the verge of passing the Matthew Shepherd Act, which would expand hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity. What a difference a year makes.

"The start of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month is a great time to celebrate these recent victories but also to reflect on all the work that still needs to be done. Unfortunately, while this is the first time in years that hate crimes legislation has a strong chance of passing both houses of Congress, President Bush has already signaled that he would veto this landmark bill. The truth is we will see little progress for the LGBT community at the national level until we have a new Democratic president. For six long years, the Bush Administration has only seen the families that matter to them. It's been a government of the few, by the few, and for the few. And no community has been more invisible to this administration than the LGBT community.

"I'm running for president to replace the divisive leadership of the past six years -- leadership that views no issue and no family above the reach of politics. America deserves a president who appeals to the best in each of us, not the worst; a president who values and respects all Americans, gay and straight; a president who treats all Americans equally no matter who they are or who they love.

"I'm proud of my record standing up for the LGBT community during my years as First Lady and as a U.S. Senator. But when I take office in January 2009, we'll finally be able to define success by more than the bigotry we stopped and the bad decisions we prevented. America will finally have a president who moves this country forward. When I am president, we will work together to make sure that all Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits and that nothing stands in the way of loving couples who want to adopt children in need. We're going to finally expand our federal hate crimes legislation and pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It is just plain wrong that in the year 2007, people who work hard and do a good job every day can still be fired because of who they love. And finally, we will put an end to the failed policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Courage, honor, patriotism and sacrifice -- the traits that define our men and women in uniform -- have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

"I am honored to have the support of so many people in the LGBT community and look forward to working with the community closely throughout the campaign. Together, we can continue the journey America has been on from the very beginning -- to form a more perfect union and realize the goals and values we believe in. That's the promise of America -- and that's why I'm running for president."

Hometown newspaper calls on Baldwin to join impeachment movement

The Capital Times, one of out Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin's hometown newspapers in Madison, Wisconsin, is calling on her to join the burgeoning impeachment movement against Bush and Cheney. Excerpts from the editorial:

Baldwin and impeachment

When U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin held a listening session in Fitchburg this week, the Madison Democrat got an earful from constituents asking her to sign on to various efforts to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney, particularly a proposal by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich that targets Cheney and that has attracted a number of co-sponsors....

...Baldwin should sign on with Kucinich and others who are backing Cheney's impeachment.

Dodd addresses Connecticut and New Hampshire civil unions