We have no Saints to honor this Monday, but today is Loving Day, celebrating the date in 1967 when the Supreme Court ruling in the Case of Loving v. Virginia ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
The plaintiffs, Mildred Jeter Loving (1939 – 2008), a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent, and Richard Perry Loving (1933 – 1975), a white man, were residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia after she became pregnant, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were found sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who, acting on an anonymous tip, had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). The pair was charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years; part of the evidence brought into court was their marriage license. The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach’s 18th-century interpretation of race, wrote “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.” On January 6th, 1959, the Lovings pled guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for twenty-five years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. The Lovings moved to the District of Columbia, and on November 6th, 1963, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion on their behalf in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the grounds that the violated statutes ran counter to the Fourteenth Amendment. This set in motion a series of lawsuits which ultimately reached the Supreme Court. The Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12th, 1967) dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia’s argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court 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. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. 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.” Despite this Supreme Court ruling, such laws remained on the books, although unenforceable, in several states until 2000, when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law against mixed-race marriage. Loving Day (proposed by Ken Tanabe in 2004 for his senior thesis at Parsons the New School of Design) is not yet an official recognized holiday by the U.S. government, but there is a movement to persuade U.S. President Donald J. Trump to make it a recognized holiday. Several cities and municipalities have issued proclamations officially recognizing Loving Day as a holiday, including Washington DC and Caroline County, Virginia.
Very early this morning at the NCAA College Baseball Tournament Super Regional in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (the game started at 8:00 pm, and there were three rain delays), our #3 LSU Tigers beat the #18 Mississippi State Bulldogs by the score of 14 to 4; this being the second game that LSU won in a best-of-three format, that means that our #3 LSU Tigers will now go to the College World Series in Omaha, Nebraska, to face the #17 Florida State Seminoles in a game on Friday or Saturday.
On waking up to get ready for work I posted that today was Loving Day. I did my Book Devotional Reading, and on our way to work I did my Internet Devotional Reading and said the Fourth Day of my Corpus Christi Novena. When we clocked in at 3:00 am, Richard was on Mississippi Stud for about two hours, then was moved to Mini Baccarat, where he had no guests all day. I was on Let It Ride, closed the table after an hour, changed Blackjack cards, then was on Three Card Poker for the rest of the day, with the usual crowd coming in between 8:00 am and 9:00 am. On one of my breaks I texted Callie to see if she wanted us to come to Lisa’s, or if she and our granddaughter were coming over to visit; she said they would come over to visit, and that she is staying in Louisiana through Saturday. (I texted her that that was bad news for Matthew, who misses his girls, and good news for us.) I also traded Emails with Liz Ellen; I need to bring a dress & accessories for Mass while I am up there, and I need to bring her about 2.5 pounds of fresh boudin.
After work Richard stopped at the hardware store for a cap for the pipe that we had put in some years ago so that sewer work can be done through the pipe (when Richard mowed the grass, he sheared the top off of the cap). They did not have caps, so he went to our local plumbing supply place, where they gave him a cap for free (they also told him to screw it in upside down, so that it sits flush with the yard). Once home from work I read the morning paper; I then came to the computer, finished doing Advance Daily Update Drafts, and started working on my August photos (meanwhile, Richard has been catching up on the new season of Orange is the New Black on Netflix). Callie texted me that she had a headache, and that they would come over to visit tomorrow, and I got my package of two Gadget Guard Screen Protectors for my phone in the mail. We watched Jeopardy!, and then I came to the computer to do today’s Daily Update; when I finish I will get ready to go to bed.
Tomorrow is the Saint Anthony of Padua, Priest and Doctor (died 1231). I will be setting the alarms half an hour early, and Richard and I will be going in to work early and signing the Early Out list. At some point tomorrow I will do my laundry and iron my casino pants, apron, and shirts, and Callie will come by with our granddaughter. I will also take my car to our auto garage to have them give it a once-over and to rotate the tires.
Our Parting Quote this Monday afternoon comes to us from Elinor Ostrom, American political economist. Born as Elinor Awan in 1933 in Los Angeles, California, her father was Jewish while her mother was Protestant. She attended a Protestant church and often spent weekends staying with her aunt, who kept a kosher home. She graduated from high school in 1951 and then received a B.A. (with honors) in political science at UCLA in 1954. She was awarded an M.A. in 1962 and a Ph.D. in 1965, both from UCLA Department of Political Science. Ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968 had written of the “tragedy of the commons”, in which individuals sharing a common resource will ultimately deplete the resource by following individual self-interest, Hardin recommended that the tragedy of the commons could be prevented by either more government regulation or privatizing the commons property. In 1973 Ostrom co-founded A Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University with her husband, Vincent Ostrom. Examining the use of collective action, trust, and cooperation in the management of common pool resources, her institutional approach to public policy, known as the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework, was considered sufficiently distinct to be thought of as a separate school of public choice theory. She authored many books in the fields of organizational theory, political science, and public administration. Ostrom’s work emphasized how humans interact with ecosystems to maintain long-term sustainable resource yields and considered how societies have developed diverse institutional arrangements for managing natural resources and avoiding ecosystem collapse in many cases, even though some arrangements have failed to prevent resource exhaustion. Her work emphasized the multifaceted nature of human–ecosystem interaction and argued against any singular “panacea” for individual social-ecological system problems. Ostrom identified eight “design principles” of stable local common pool resource management:
- Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties);
- Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions;
- Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;
- Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;
- A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;
- Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access;
- Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities;
- In the case of larger common-pool resources, organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level.
The above principles have since been slightly modified and expanded to include a number of additional variables believed to affect the success of self-organized governance systems, including effective communication, internal trust and reciprocity, and the nature of the resource system as a whole. Ostrom was awarded the 2009 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, which she shared with Oliver E. Williamson, for “her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons”. She was the first, and to date, the only woman to win the prize in this category. Her work was associated with the new institutional economics and the resurgence of political economy. Ostrom lived in Bloomington, Indiana and served on the faculty of both Indiana University and Arizona State University. She held a Distinguished Professor at Indiana University and was the Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University in Bloomington, as well as Research Professor and the Founding Director of the Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity at Arizona State University in Tempe. She was a lead researcher for the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Collaborative Research Support Program (SANREM CRSP), managed by Virginia Tech and funded by USAID, and was named one of Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World” in 2012 (died 2012): “What we have ignored is what citizens can do and the importance of real involvement of the people involved — versus just having somebody in Washington … make a rule.”