Justice in Black and White

The facts of what happened in Florida the night a pistol-packing wannabe-cop named George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager with no criminal record walking back to his Dad’s home after purchasing a candy bar, will never be known.  Trayvon is dead, and his version of events is lost forever.  But the jury’s decision to acquit Zimmerman of all criminal charges almost certainly reflects the fact that none of the jurors were black, and raises the question of whether an African American male can receive justice in a U.S. courtroom.

Trial by a jury of one’s peers is a deeply ingrained value in our country. But blacks and whites have such different experiences regarding the law, the police, the veracity of sworn testimony and the reliability of the criminal justice system that “peerage” (or an equivalence of attitude) is almost impossible between them.  The five white women and one Latina female who sat in judgment on George Zimmerman were probably not consciously biased.  But few non-blacks can fully understand the anger and dismay their verdict must arouse, recalling an era when the official legal doctrine (enunciated in the infamous Dred Scott decision) was that “no black man has any legal rights that a white man must respect,” and a centuries long southern tradition of all white juries acquitting lynch mobs.

Racism remains a virulent reality in our legal system, reflected at every level, from the profiling that occurs in routine traffic stops to differential rates in application of the death penalty.  Young African American men like Trayvon are particularly prone to these disparities, more likely as an age group to be incarcerated than to go to college, more likely to perish (like Trayvon) from a gunshot wound than from any other cause of death.

The majority of white folks in this country will be inclined to accept the outcome of the Zimmerman trial at face value, assuming the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  Criticism of the prosecutor’s evidence and arguments can rightfully be made.  But for blacks, Trayvon will understandably be viewed as one more young man of color, gunned down without cause and without recourse to the law: not the aggressor in this case (as the defense alleged) but a victim, pure and simple.

With Trayvon gone, tragically, no one can say they are wrong. 

Blind Justice and the Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court of the United States undermined years of progress toward the goal of racial justice when it struck down the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Passed into law after a peaceful march from Selma to the statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama, ended with protesters being gassed, clubbed and bullwhipped by rioting police troopers, the Voting Rights Act ended the shameful legacy of Jim Crow at the polls that had barred generations of African Americans from exercising their franchise across the South.
  
The majority of Justices appeared to have no sense of this history.  Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, has simplistically asserted that the “way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” as if the pretense of being colorblind—closing our eyes to the realities of racism—will make it go away.  Writing for the majority, Roberts reasoned that the Voting Rights statute, which required federal approval for changes in electoral procedures for nine states in old Dixie and for scores of jurisdictions in the North that had track records of voter suppression, no longer reflects current conditions.  Massachusetts today, Roberts said, has more problems with voter discrimination than Mississippi.

Really?  Mississippi like many Southern states been trying hard to pass restrictive new voting requirements that will disproportionately keep the poor and people of color from the polls.  A Mississippi initiative written last year by State Representative Joey Fillingane (R), for instance, would require citizens to present a photo ID before they can cast a ballot, with the Catch-22 that in order to get a photo ID, a birth certificate is needed (and the only way to request a birth certificate in Mississippi is to present a photo ID.)   How different is this initiative from those pre-civil-rights-era “literacy tests” that required black voters to recite the U.S. Constitution from memory or guess how many bubbles were in a bar of soap?  Up until last week,  Representative Fillingane’s initiative, which was approved by a majority of the state’s voters, could not be enacted without an okay from the U.S. Department of Justice.  Now, thanks to John Roberts and his cohorts, Mississippi is poised to act, just like Texas, which within hours of the Court’s ruling announced it would institute electoral re-districting that, up until that moment, had been blocked for discriminating against black and Latino voters.

This ruling is not just shameful.  It is naked power politics, intended to reduce turnout among constituencies that have traditionally voted Democratic, exercised by the one branch of government that is supposed to rise above partisan agendas.
  
The Goddess of Justice is traditionally portrayed wearing a blindfold, meaning that distinctions of race, ethnicity, and income mean nothing before the bar of truth.  But the purported “color-blindness” of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonio Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kenney is a cynical pose that suggests another meaning, as in Langston Hughes’ poem:

That Justice is a blind goddess
Is a thing to which we black are wise:
Her bandage hides two festering sores
That once perhaps were eyes.

Gay Marriage A Blessing For Us All

Whatever the Supreme Court rules this week, gay marriage appears to be headed toward legal affirmation.  A dozen states now embrace the principle of marital equality, with polls showing over half of all Americans in favor of equal rites.

There is almost an element of inevitability here, because gay partnerships that are long-term, responsible and mutually committed are a fact of life.  Trying to prohibit or annul these relationships by constitutional amendment is like trying to overturn Newton’s laws through legislative edict.  Same-sex marriage exists--like the law of gravity.  The only question is whether these relationships will receive the full range of protections and benefits that heterosexual marriages receive.  More and more Americans are inclined to answer yes. 

As a minister, I’ve been performing these unions for years.   Way back in 1997, the church I served in Burlington, Vermont, went on record by filing an amicus brief on behalf of two same-sex couples who had petitioned the state Supreme Court for the right to wed.  That opened the door to a court ruling creating Civil Unions—equivalent to marriage in all but name--in the Green Mountain State back in 2000.   What seemed radical then has now become tame.

I recall when our legislature was debating the issue.  Vermont had become a national battleground, and roadsides were littered with placards pro and con.  The statehouse was packed for the hearings.  Most of those testifying against gay marriage cited scripture or church teaching.  In contrast, those testifying in favor talked about their families—sons and daughters denied the right to visit their dying lovers in the hospital, or unable to receive an inheritance, or enjoy the tax advantages that come with married status.  One side used the vocabulary of rulebooks and dogmatic authority.  The other spoke in the language of equity and compassion.  There was little communication between the two, which seemed a pity.

For I have always supported marriage equality on traditionalist grounds, because I so vigorously support the institution of matrimony, which is decline.  A recent report by the Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, for example, found that “by age 25, 44 percent of women have had a baby, while only 38 percent have married.”  Anyone concerned about the next generation should be alarmed, for while single parent households can be as nurturing and healthy as any (and I was raised by a single mom, after my father died), we know that kids born outside of marriage are at higher risk for falling into poverty, dropping out of school, and falling behind their peers by almost every measure.  In these circumstances, shouldn’t we be acting to strengthen stable families and support healthy marriages?

Against the atomizing forces of modern life--the “every man for himself” ethic of the marketplace, the politics of division, the cult of privatizing everything from Social Security to public utilities and natural resources--everything possible must be done to sustain our social fabric: to care for our families, our children, our neighborhoods, our communities, our environment.  That’s why, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, I’ll continue to bless and consecrate the bonds of human interdependence, be they gay or straight.