At the New Year I spoke here about eleven excellent accomplishments of my state's ACLU chapter. Maryland is a better place for that hard work. The nation, too, benefits from the determination of the American Civil Liberties Union to defend our Constitution. Our Constitution and its Bill of Rights embody American Exceptionalism. I want to highlight, now, a number of 2011 successes from around the country.
I also want to alert you to a new film about the Lovings, the Virginia couple who, with the ACLU's help, took their case to to the Supreme Court which then struck down Virginia's and other states' vile anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 which forbade white and black people from marrying one another. (see below)
And yes...I am compelled to ask again: if people you know find even the memory of those laws abhorrent but are willing to bar gays from marriage, ask them to spell out precisely why, under law, same-sex marriage ought to be illegal when they support interracial marriage without even thinking about it. Reject slogans as non-responsive. Demand thoughtful, reasoned answers.
The American Civil Liberties Union was a prime mover in each of the following excellent, winning causes.
. January
Illinois repeals its death penalty after months of study, including exhaustive interviews with families of murder victims who overwhelmingly told the governor that the death penalty brings them neither relief nor 'closure'.
. February
The Justice Department ditches its defense in the courts of the indefensible so-called 'Defense of Marriage Act'.
. March
A federal court accepts our challenge to President Bush's FISA Amendment Act which gave the executive branch unchecked power to collect your emails and listen to your phone calls.
. April
Worst provisions of Arizona's anti-immigrant bill are blocked in federal court. Copy-cat provisions are stymied in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, and Utah. Fourteen other states that had similar legislation pending drop those bills.
Florida's secretive, sped-up foreclosure procedures are exposed as denials of constitutional due-process. Most of those whose homes were scheduled for sped-up forclosures were members of minority groups.
. May
The organization helps expose a pattern of denial of civil rights to ordinary citizens in Puerto Rico, leading to the resignation of the Chief of Police of the country's second largest police force.
. June
ACLU lobbies successfully for marriage equality in New York.
. July
We lend support to the president's Supportive School Initiative to try to break the school-to-prison patterns in many minority communities.
. August
35 ACLU affiliates send 381 Freedom of Information Act requests to uncover when/why/how law enforcement uses cell phone location data to track ordinary citizens.
. September
ACLU succeeds at stopping the city of South Bend, Indiana from (unconstitutionally) giving taxpayer-purchased land to a private religious school.
. October
ACLU helps get a federal judge to force Kansas to reinstate federal family-planning funding to the state's sole provider of these services in an impoverished county. The clinic's doors remain open.
. November
The ACLU is in the forefront of the move to defeat Mississippi's so-called Personhood Amendment that not only threatened to outlaw abortion but also some forms of fertility treatments and contraceptives.
. And Now, in 2012:
A school district in Chesterfield County, South Carolina, has agreed, after the ACLU sued, to halt prayer rallies at (public) middle school assemblies. As part of the agreement, the school district admitted to violating first amendment protections against taxpayer-funded state entities promoting one religion over others. Prior to our involvement in the case (requested by parents of children in the Chesterfield Schools), at least one middle school had held numerous evangelical rallies and assemblies.
Needless to say, these are just some of the most well-known actions ACLU has taken this past year to protect the Constitution.
This is the ACLU's ninety-first year.
May it thrive.
-----
"The Lovings: A Couple That Changed History

Mildred and Richard Loving never set out to have their marriage become the subject of one of the most famous civil rights cases of the last century. But it was their deep affection for one another and sheer determination that the heart won out over hate that led them to the Supreme Court, where the ACLU represented them in a landmark case that struck down state bans on interracial marriage.
Now, this saga of a 17-year-old Black woman who wanted nothing else than to marry her white 23-year-old childhood sweetheart will be recounted in The Loving Story, a documentary that will be shown, appropriately, on Valentine’s Day, at 9 p.m. ET.
“This is a love story,” said director Nancy Buirski. “And it’s a story about people who were told they couldn’t love who they wanted to love.”
After the Lovings married in Washington, D.C. in 1958, they returned to their home state of Virginia, where soon after they were rousted out of bed and arrested for violating the state’s anti-miscegenation law. A state judge sentenced them to a year in jail, but suspended the sentence if they would leave the state for 25 years.
The Lovings left to live in Washington, but were arrested again five years later for traveling together, when they returned to Virginia to visit relatives. After the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the couple wrote to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy for help. They asked if the landmark law would allow them to be in the same car together. Kennedy referred them to the National Capitol Area office of the ACLU, which took on their case.
Volunteer attorneys Philip Hirschkop and Bernard Cohen represented the couple in losing appeals on the newest charges in district and appellate courts. "It was a terrible time in America," Cohen told The Washington Post in 2008. "Racism was ripe and this was the last de jure vestige of racism — there was a lot of de facto racism, but this law was...the last on-the-books manifestation of slavery in America."
Loving v. Virginia, went to the Supreme Court, where in 1967 the justices struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.
Richard Loving died in a car crash in 1975. Mildred Loving died of pneumonia in 2008.
The documentary features rare home movies of the Lovings and their three children as well as never-before-seen outtakes from a photo shoot given to the couple by a Life magazine photographer. Also heard are excerpts from the oral arguments at the Supreme Court.
“Anybody can change history,” Buirski said. “These were humble people, modest in every respect, who wanted to come home to live with their family in Virginia.”
...from the ACLU Blog of Rights




Salon.com
Comments
HUGGGGGGGGGGG
Thanks, Jonathan. ~r
Lezlie
Following your advice (quoted above) may be one of the most easily over-looked ways a single person can be a positive influence. Those who debate using slogans, demeaning labels and personal attack are counting on us to back off, rather than challenge them to come up with anything like a valid reason for their position.
I've been too time pressed to comment much recently, but your thoughtful, informed posts are always a highlight in my day!
I am sure your father must be saying: "chip of the ol' block".....that Jon!
I have always tht the predecessor to 'Roe' was Griswold v. Connecticut in which the Court, in the mid-'60s, ruled that no state may bar a woman from using birth control.
I have always believed that the true import of Griswold was that it was the first time a "penumbra" effect of the constitution was invoked to create the overall "right to privacy". That was absolutely groundbreaking within Constitutional law.
That said, we all know how much money has corrupted our legislative system.
Money also pervades the legal system. Many just cases cannot be heard, and not in the way they should, because litigants dont have the money to pursue/protect their rights.
I applaud your sentiment above, but I also think readers should realize that there are many serious impediments to Atticus Fynch style representation in the American legal system, as it is currently constructed.
I'd say that for every 100 civil rights violations, only 1 will probably be addressed by the courts, and that is probably, overwhelmingly due to economic factors.
The kid had to plea guilty to a DUI, even though he had insufficient alcohol in his system at the time of arrest, due to the fact that he couldn't afford an expert medical witness, which would have been $1,000 on top of a $1,000 attorney fee.
Justice is blind, but money often tips the scales.
1. Raise the income threshold for PD qualification.
2. Lobby state legislatures to ensure that PDs get more money and funding that they are now
3. Ensure that Title 1983 Violations departments of State Agencies get more funding
4. Contribute more money to the ACLU
I would love to take on Civil Rights cases for a living. And I think I would be excellent at it. But none of these organizations are hiring and none of the firms I've ever worked for will ever touch them. It makes me very sad
In 1999 they were sexually assaulted... they were in kindergarten. The man who assaulted them got 5 to 15 years for assaulting him and 15 to 30 years for assaulting her. He was originally looking at "Life plus 50 years" as a sentence but he plead guilty so he was sentenced to what he was. The twins were KNOWN victims numbered 7 and 8.
THEY decided a slap on the wrist for people like him wasn't good enough... And so my pair of "rabble-rousers" spent the next 7 years contacting legislators and telling "their story" while advocating for stiffer sentences.
On January 1, 2008 a law took effect in Michigan... the LEAST sentence someone who sexually assaults children can be given is 25 years. The law says the minimum is 25 years PER OFFENSE... NO concurrent sentencing.
THEY fought for it ... because THEY KNOW that NO CHILD should have to LIVE with the FEAR the person who sexually assaulted will come back to hurt them again.
What did I do? I helped them compose letters, I drove them to Lansing to testify in front of the legislature, I cheered with them every time THEY brought another legislator over to "their side"... and I cried every time someone told them they wouldn't succeed.
My kids were present (and we were ALL in tears) when it was signed into law... and their words were "Now we can annoy the feds into protecting kids like us from sexual assault." It will take them longer on a federal level but I have NO doubt they will "win" there as well... because they are RIGHT... NO CHILD should have to live with the FEAR they and millions of other children "like them" know only too well.
I hope eventually it will be more than legal -- it will be "right" -- to love someone else regardless of race, gender or religion. The idea that love between two consenting adults can ever be "wrong" is...just...strange and awful.
Most large firms have large pro bono sections. However, these are mostly for PR. They do basic criminal work and environmental work, but they have to make sure that none of the work they do in any way upsets or conflicts with the interests of their large corporate clients, which can run into the thousands.
As such, you will never, ever, ever see a large law firm ever take a workers' rights issue, pro bono. They tend to, as a rule, support employers.
Regarding anti-gay-marriage laws: I have asked, over and over, including in letters to the editor in places I have lived (and live now), how exactly gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage, which is the point behind the "Defense" of Marriage Act. After all, "defense" implies that there is a threat to be defended against. I'm a pretty bright guy but I can't figure out what the argument might even look like. The closest I've ever gotten to an answer was religious in nature and this shouldn't by rights be a religious issue because it's in the civic sphere.
People on that side of the issue talk about defense of marriage like what they're defending against is obvious. It isn't. It's a simple question and, in this case, the most valid of questions:
Defense against exactly what?
I will have been married thirty years in three months and I can't for the life of me figure out how on Earth allowing gays to marry is going to hurt my marriage, devalue my marriage, affect my marriage at all.
Have you ever heard even an attempt at an answer?
There's a poster in my wife's office which comes from our alma mater, Oberlin (whose name is at the bottom). It's a photo of Planet Earth from space, so the poster has a black background. It says:
Do you believe one person can change the world?
So do we.
-Rated-