Menu
Former Miss Idaho describes power of law in civil rights battles
The power of law in the battle for civil rights was, and remains, fundamental to the success of achieving equality for all, Sade Aiyeku Turner told a full house gathered at the Hampton Inn for the Saturday morning Martin Luther King, Jr., Prayer Breakfast.
The 16th annual event, sponsored by the Mountain Home Black History Committee, brings together leaders from throughout the community for a morning of prayer and to remember "the dream" of Dr. King.
This year's featured speaker was the newly married Turner, who reigned in 2005 as Idaho's representative to the Miss USA national beauty pagent, and currently works as a litigator in Utah.
"It was a fantastic experience for me to represent the state at the pageant," she said, but noted that "when I was crowned Miss Idaho USA, many people began referring to me as the first 'black' Miss Idaho which may be considered odd to some, as Idaho is too frequently referred to as the state that once housed the Aryan Nation Compound in Hayden Lake."
But, she said, "because I'm a stickler for facts, I researched whether or not I was, in fact, the first 'black' Miss Idaho and much to my chagrin, I wasn't.
"The first black Miss Idaho was Dorothy Johnson. Miss Johnson was crowned in 1964, in the heat of America's largest Civil Rights Movement, which Dr. King was instrumental in bringing about.
"Miss Johnson hailed from the eastern part of our state and not only was she the first black Miss Idaho, she was also the first black semi-finalist at Miss USA.
"I know that Miss Johnson represented the state famously and was a testimony to Idaho's stature as an amazingly progressive state. Despite the unfounded 'infamy' (of the Aryan Nations), our state was the first state to look beyond the then social mores and crown the best and most beautiful woman."
In fact, she said, "in accordance with Dr. King's teachings and wisdom, Idaho has been a leader in the progression of the Civil Rights Movement."
Idaho, in fact, is famous for its tolerance, she said, including the tolerance of allowing the Ayran Nations compound in northern Idaho "until, the Aryan Nations and their leader, Richard Butler, were litigated into obscurity."
In July 1998, security guards at the Aryan Nations compound in Idaho shot at Victoria Keenan and her son after their old rusty car backfired nearby. The Keenans were returning from a wedding and had stopped briefly near the compound to look for a wallet that had fallen out of the car.
Bullets hailed at the Keenans and their vehicle several times before they lost control of the vehicle and careened into a ditch. At this time, members of the Aryan Nations took the Keenans hostage at gunpoint. The compound was heavily guarded and consisted of the home of Aryan Nations leader Richard Butler and several other structures. For decades, it had served as the meeting place for the nations "most violent and extreme white supremacists," Turner said.
Subsequent to the criminal trial, the Keenans filed a civil lawsuit to seek justice for the brutality they had incurred. After a week long jury trial, the jury ruled that Butler and the Aryan Nations were grossly negligent in their actions and in supervision of the guards of the compound. In September 2000, the jury awarded a $6.3 million verdict against the Aryan Nations.
"As the assets of the Aryan Nations were woefully inadequate to satisfy the judgment, Butler was forced to turn over the 20-acre Aryan Nations compound to the Keenans. The Keenans sold the property to a philanthropist who later donated the land. The offensive buildings were subsequently bulldozed and as a result, no one ever has to drive by the compound and read the mantra of "Race is Our Religion" and feel threatened again," Turner said.
"This amazingly progressive litigation, is in accord with Dr. King's teachings of tolerance and Civil Rights for all Americans."
Turner, who recently married a white fellow attorney, Jared Turner, also spoke of the anti-miscegentation laws in the United States, which prohibited whites from marrying "non-whites," until 1966 when the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case Loving v. Virginia.
The case involved Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Delores Jeter Loving, whom had known one another for practically their entire lives in the rural community of Central Point, Va.
"For 23 years, Richard Loving's father had defied the racial mores of southern white society by working for Boyd Byrd, one of the wealthiest black farmers in the community. So when 'white' Richard began courting 'colored' Mildred Jeter, their budding romance drew little attention from either the white or black communities," Turner said. Mildred was part black and part Cherokee Indian. After steadily courting Mildred for seven years, Richard decided to legalize their relationship by marrying Mildred.
Mildred did not know that interracial marriage was illegal in Virginia, but Richard did. As such, Richard drove across the Virginia state line into Washington, D.C., to be married to Mildred. Mr. and Mrs. Loving returned to Central Point to live with Mildred's parents.
"Five weeks into their marriage, their quiet life was shattered when they were awakened early in the morning as three law officers... opened the unlocked door of their home, walked into their bedroom, and shined a flashlight in their faces. The county sheriff demanded to know what the two of them were doing in bed together."
When the couple explained they were legally married, the sheriff responded by saying "that's no good here," and arrested them. Because Virginia law prohibited the Lovings from both being in the state at the same time, Mildred moved to Washington, D.C., where she raised the couple's three children alone, while her husband remained behind in Virginia where his job was.
The Lovings were not interested in the Civil Rights Movement and did not become a party to it until 1963, when Mildred wrote to then U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy and explained her situation. Kennedy referred the case to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a writ with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were "an unconstitutional restriction on the fundamental right to marry, found in the penumbras of the Constitution," Turner explained.
"Amazingly progressive, and in accordance with Dr. King's teachings of tolerance and civil rights for all Americans," Turner noted.
More recently, Supreme Court decisions have struck down laws involving consensual sexual activity between adults that it says violates both the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
That ruling, in Lawrence v. Texas, "created a firestorm in many states where opponents to the decision argued that the decision would result in same-sex marriage," Turner said, using arguments similar to those used to argue against de-criminalizing inter-racial marriage.
Idaho, like many states, reacted and last year passed an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage, even though such a ban already existed under state statutory law, which Turner noted, however, "is independent from a constitutional amendment banning civil unions, domestic partnerships, and same-sex marriage."
"Marriage," she said, "is a cornerstone of our society and as such, is intensely personal. In fact, it was determined to be a fundamental right by the Supreme Court back in the 1960s.
"My speech today is not intended to attack individuals who either supported or opposed the constitutional amendment. Quite frankly, I see both sides of the coin," she said.
"But rather, my speech today was intended to focus on the power of law. Laws are the doctrines by which our society has chosen to govern itself so as to prevent chaos and promote order.
"I believe that laws are intended to protect individuals and community values. This is why I believe that each state should continue to be allowed to define and solemnize marriage as determined by its citizens and legislators.
"As an African-American, a woman, and a proud Idahoan, I have considered the constitution sacred territory, which grants liberties, rather than denies them.
"As such, I am eager to see where Idaho's position as a leader in the vanguard of the Civil Rights Movement will stand in 10, 20, or 50 years from now. Will we use the constitution as a document that is amazingly progressive and in accordance with Dr. King's teachings of tolerance and civil rights for all Americans? This is a discussion that will continue indefinitely, because our society will constantly be faced with the need to extend and protect individual civil liberties.
"It is my greatest hope that Idaho will choose to continue to be a beacon of light in the sometimes bleak outlook for the oppressed minority. I believe that as a leader in the Civil Rights Movement, Idaho will continue to balance the interests of the minority with the values of the community," she said.