Mildred Loving’s Statement
Ed Brayton on Jun 15th 2007
On the 40th anniversary of the ruling in Loving v Virginia, Mildred Loving has released a public statement that really must be read. I’m going to post the full text below the fold and encourage others to distribute it far and wide, put it on Fark and Digg and Reddit and anywhere you can for the widest possible reach. Americans need to read this statement and see how far we’ve come and how far we still have to go to protect liberty and equality in this country.
Loving for All
By Mildred Loving*
Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007,
The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement
When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn’t to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.
We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn’t allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.
When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is?
Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “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.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.
We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.
Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn’t have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.”
My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.
Filed in The Basement
Obviously Loving was a case of activist judiciaries run amok. These activist judges have overturned the solemn will of the lawfully elected legislatures in all fifty states. This type of meddling in the name of ‘unenumerated’ rights can not be allowed to continue despite what the ninth amendment may or may not say.
:-^)
[...] This is it — this is how equality wins. Mildred Loving’s wonderful statement on the fortieth anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia is also worth remembering, as Brayton has already noted: My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. [...]
[...] It’s not about marriage rights. It’s not about civil rights. It’s about human rights. And 40 years after the landmark United States Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, the battle continues. Mildred Loving (nee Jeter) married Richard Perry Loving in 1958. Their home state of Virginia refused to recognize the legality of their marriage with Judge Leon Brazile imafamously proclaiming: [...]
[...] Monday, June 18th, 2007 in Pragmatics, Language, Philosophy Take a look at the following sentence, from this statement from Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in Loving v. Virginia: We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. [...]
[...] This is EXACTLY why gay marriage should be legalized. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “”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.” Today. it’s the same bigoted defense just a different class of people and it’s still wrong after all these years. [...]
[...] Thank you, Mildred Loving Loving vs Virginia was the seminal 1967 US Supreme Court case that finally recognized that despite a majority of Americans being opposed to it, it was simply wrong to make interracial marriage illegal. And now on the 40th anniversary of that decision, the wonderful Mrs Loving reflects on that time and how it applies to our situation today. You must read and be moved by the entire statement, but I wanted to highlight this part: Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. [...]
This is EXACTLY why gay marriage should be legalized.>>
God forbid. Unenumerated rights are left to the states, and the states are overwhelmingly against homosexuality.
Regards
Thank you sir for taking the time to post this. I have done as you requested.
Have a good day :)
[...] 40 years since out-of-control judges destroyed marriage at least according to conservatives and the majority of Americans at the time, using the Bible and religion as their main argument. From Andrewsullivan.com: Mildred Loving. She was the woman who had to fight for her right to marry a man of a different race in, yes, Virginia - in my lifetime. She won the case forty years ago, in the historic decision "Loving vs. Virginia." She has just issued a public statement on the anniversary of this act of "judicial tyranny" against the clear wishes of a large majority in Virginia. Here it is in full (hat tip: Jonathan), continued after the jump:When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasnt to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married. We didnt get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldnt allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom. When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isnt that what marriage is? Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the crime of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: 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. He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile. We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love. Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didnt have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men, a basic civil right. My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was Gods plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generations fears and prejudices have given way, and todays young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I dont think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the wrong kind of person for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some peoples religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies peoples civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richards and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. Thats what Loving, and loving, are all about. __________________ "Love thy neighbor is not a piece of advice, it’s a command. That means in the global village we’re going to have to start loving a whole lot more people. His truth is marching on." - Bono "If you are one of the 28% still suckling at the loser-in-chief’s teat, then you are a sociopath and should be locked up - you’re a menace to society." - Hecklers, 6/4/07 [...]
In response to Mr. Goswick’s post:
Unenumerated POWERS are left to the states (10th Amendment).
With respect to unenumerated RIGHTS, please see the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
It is more apparent to me by this testomonial that marriage is defined by love, not creed, race or orientation……..and let no man or court dictate what love can or cannot be.be
Hi. My name is Gang and I am a Filipina docu film-maker and writer. I chanced upon your blog while searching for photos of the old Philippine flag. (can’t seem to trace now how your page ended up on my google when I couldn’t find a flag photo on it) but anyway–here I am, so here I go.
I read your entry on Mildred Loving. I was based in the US right for a number of years and I’ve heard of Loving v. Virgina. In my country this happens still on a different tilt. Marriages just happen between people of the same socio-economic strata. The disparity between the rich and the poor in my country is so gross that we could very well be considered two races. Same ethnicity, different language, food, mode of transport, lifestyle, almost different air quality index, even. Comparing the lush residential areas to the squalid congested urban streets.
I’m not sure why I wrote here or why I even equated this to your entry. I just wanted to, I guess.
I run an NGO that promotes a different activism from the young. We do our alternatice social studies classes through rock and roll culture. Instead of the obsolete forum set up, we hold discussions on civic issues through rock concerts, sports meets, short films and photography. We call ourselves Rock Ed Philippines. (surf http://www.rockedphilippines.org if you’re curious and you have time.)
Cheers from the Third World,
Ms. Gang Badoy
http://www.rockedphilippines.org
I am the mother of a gay son who has been in a loving relationship for 10 years now with a wonderful man. I’m not politically savvy, I don’t have a college education and was a “stay at home Mom” for 32 of my 38 year marriage. I say all of this to make a point…or rather to ask a simple queston. In Mildred Loving’s speech she mentioned the following :
[on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.”]
My question is simply this…if this is the exact wording of the ruling by the highest court in the land, why then does it not apply to gay marriage as well as inter-racial marriage? There are no words in the above quoted ruling that define precisely what “marriage” must consist of. So it would seem to me that by using the Supreme Court’s own ruling gay marriages should be legal. Am I missing something here?
Mrs. Loving, I applaud your courage and your willingness to “go to the mat” for your marriage and the marriages of all others. You may not have set out to accomplish this but you have achieved “Hero” status to many thousands of “loving” couples. I thank you.
David Vitter: Another Victim of Gay Marriage…
I hope that Congress revives the Federal Marriage Amendment and renames it the David Vitter Marriage Amendment, in honor of one man who tragically exemplifies the havoc that gay marriage is wreaking in our society….
[...] The nefarious influence of gay marriage is already spreading around the country as Errol Louis points out in a column in the New York Daily News. “There are disturbing signs all over the country that conservatives were right to predict that proponents of odd and radical sexual practices would try to slip through the political and legal doors opened by the gay rights movement,” he wrote yesterday of the slippery slope of gay marriage. “Advocates of same-sex marriage should recognize that you don’t have to be a religious fanatic or a bigot to wonder, with a certain uneasiness, where all of this is heading,” said Louis, who no doubt realizes that the loosening of the meaning of marriage began with the Supreme Court’s 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, which overturned miscegenation laws. Mildred Loving herself recently acknowledged the case’s ramifications when she came out in favor of gay marriage on the 40th anniversary of the case. Hopefully, our new Supreme Court will overturn this ill-considered ruling soon. [...]
Thank you, Mildred and Richard, for struggling and fighting so that those that came after you might have it easier. As a wife and mother of 2 incredible, strong black men, I am blessed to have them in my life. Love knows nothing but love…
[...] The judge made the following statement (hat tip Positive Liberty): “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.” [...]
[...] Farewell to a courageous and exemplary American, one who continued until the end of her life to stand up for what she believed in. [...]
I came across this posting, and to my great dismay. Was surprised by the apparent ignorance, and short sightedness of the then Virgina judiciary. How is it possible for learned men of high office, to be so blatantly foolish to pontificate about whether or not God intented the races to mix or not. With great joy and no remorse, those who believe this, are no longer relevant in today’s world. Hopefully people all over this country will read and learn that bigotry, hatered, and fear will not deter or disuade good people like Mildred and Richard Loving, from making this world a better place for us all.
[...] Lase year marked the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia. NPR has a good piece on it here. Mildred also released a public statement that I wanted to share. (h/t Positive Liberty) Loving for All By Mildred Loving [...]
[...] Almost a year ago, on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v Virginia decision, Mrs. Loving released a statement. Here’s part of what she said: My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. [...]
[...] In a public statement last year, on the 40th anniversary of the Loving decision, Mildred said, in part: [...]
[...] From her statement, made a year ago on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision: I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about. [...]
[...] And perhaps it is this heart-based agenda that allowed Mrs. Loving to see her own plight mirrored in the lives of same-sex partners who are denied the same happinesses that she had been denied. On June 12, 2007, fourty years after she won the right to be married to Richard Loving in every state in the Union, Mildred Loving released a statement supporting the struggle of gay men and women to be married. It concludes as follows: Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. [...]
I am completely for Gay marriage as a heterosexual male. I believe that this will make life a little more stable and prevalent in many communities where there are people who now have an out ( no pun intended), by not getting married and living a free lifestyle. This will also add to the tax base, as married couples pay more income tax than single couples. In addition, thsi will also add to the questionaire we all fill out at workplaces, if we are to compare sexual orientation to race. Then we should start keeping track of voluntary information provided on applications of someon’e sexual orienation as well, to be certain that employees are not discriminating against homosexuals. I also believe there are states who have moved away from the mandatory blood test, I am certain that a union of homosexual will re-enforce the blood teste and we will find that there are a number of Heterosexual with sexually transmitted diseases that have been undetected…
[...] In the years since her landmark case, Loving kept a low profile. The one notable exception came on June 12, 2007, the 40th anniversary of the ruling, when Loving released a statement condemning constitutional amendments like the one in Virginia banning same-sex marriage. [...]
What an emblematic name, Loving! Moving the world by just being your own true selves.
Wow…this is really strong. I agree with Mildred that everyone and anyone should marry the person they love. It is not right for anyone to deny otherwise. And the race with different countries thing..I think everyone has their own culture. But it does not affect on who should marry who. Gay, straight, red, blue, skinny, fat…it really doesnt matter. And I really admire Mildred Loving for that..and also her husband Richard Loving as well.
I honestly have not heard of Mildred or Richard Loving before till today. But she really made a big difference in taking that step with that help of her husband and other groups with marriage.
So passes another hero of our history. The lovings battled for all of us who love wisely and where we will across lines once believed to define true differences in our humanity.
We are only one - we are human. We love where our heart leads and as we are created. Man has no business imposing laws that are intended to define us as other than full enfranchised members of society and the human race. Certainly the racist and oh so “Christian” minority has no business imposing their misaligned and mispurposed reading of the Bible on our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Thank you Mr. and Mrs. Loving for your good fight.
Mildred Loving has long been a heroine of mine. This coming June 2 would’ve been their 50th Wedding Anniversary. Sadly Richard died in 1975, and Mildred has just passed on last week.
I believe that she and Richard are together again in Heaven. If not for their courage and bravery, I wouldn’t have been able to get married in 1980 to my 1st husband, and I wouldn’t be free to be with the man whom I am in a relationship with today. The pair lived up to their last name, and it’s the least we all could do.
I’m going to reprint her statement in my blog. It will be my honor to do so. May Richard and Mildred both rest in peace…and may their legacy never be forgotten.
[...] I kind of knew about interracial marriage being illegal, but not too much about it or when it was legalized. This caught my attention because it questioned my ignorance, obviously. I would just like to commemorate Mrs. Loving, and her success in helping the US reconsider its stance on race. I admire anybody who can change society without trying, as Mildred Loving did. She’s quoted to have said When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn’t to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married. [...]
[...] In unrelated news, Mildred Loving, the person whose 1967 lawsuit Loving v. Virginia overturned all US laws which forbade people with one colour of skin to marry people with another, died on Friday. She made a statement on the fortieth anniversary of the case last year, which bears repeating now in her memory: [...]
Hi! Thank you for posting this statement. I have read the case and always wandered what really happened back then.
Today I discovered that she had passes away. It takes such courage to challenge an entrenched system. That she and her husband did, driven by their love for each other. Now 41 years later there are so many inter-racial marriages happening without being prejudiced by the society, thanks to the Lovings!
Richard and Mildred Loving’s story was not an uncommon plight, but rather the norm. It took about nine years, nine long years for the courts to finally agree on Lovings’ assertions. Many wonder why it took so long for so many educated men to reach a common sense decision; they lacked common sense. I worked for a bank in Wall St, N.Y. in 1967. One of my co-workers was Black and we became close friends outside of work. One day at work she seemed withdrawn and I could tell she had been crying. She told me she was from Mississippi, and had gone “back home” for the holidays. She then told me things I really thought did not happen anymore. “I have to sit in the back of the bus, drink from “negro” water fountains, and use the “negro” bathrooms. There are certain public places were “negroes” are not welcomed. There’s no signs anymore, but we all know better. I went to a cafeteria, sat on a stool by a counter and wanted to order a soda, but even though most of the stools were empty, the clerk never came to ask me what I wanted. That’s when it really hit me, I can’t come back here. I cannot come home”. As I listened to her poignant story the weight of the world fell heavy on my shoulders. I was young and ignorant, so I told her not to go back. Today I would tell her “let’s go back and let’s fight this injustice together. Richard and Mildred Loving fought right there and then, that takes courage and determination. My respects to the Lovings.
[...] RIP Mildred Loving May 5, 2008 1:42 PM Subscribe Mildred Loving of Loving v. Virginia (1967) has passed away. posted by Morrigan (48 comments total) ☯ posted by tachikaze at 1:44 PM on May 5 [2 favorites] . posted by ALongDecember at 1:46 PM on May 5 And remember, all: Loving Day’s on June 12th! Let’s all get out there and miscegenate! posted by Greg Nog at 1:46 PM on May 5 [1 favorite] Is there another world like eponysterical, except that it means ‘touching’ and not ‘funny’? posted by empath at 1:52 PM on May 5 Shit. My dad was a travel agent in the early 1960s, and part of his job was to go around and promote travel to Hawaii. My dad was Hawaiian (and dark-skinned), and my mom was not, and they decided that it was too risky for a brown man and a white woman to travel together when he had to travel in the South. On those trips, he went alone. There is irony, or something, in the fact that their daughter (me) is a lesbian, whose partner is a native Virginian - her parents still live there. I quake a little with fear when we travel there, because Virginia says that all of the arrangements we’ve made - domestic partnership recognized in our home state of California, marriage recognized in Canada, various legal things giving each other rights - count for nothing if one of us gets hurt or hospitalized in Virginia. Whose marketing motto is "Virginia is for Lovers." So thank you, Mildred, and Richard. We’ve got more work to do, and we’re going to keep doing it. posted by rtha at 1:53 PM on May 5 [18 favorites] I’m so glad that there are people like Mildred Loving out there to fight for rights and for love. What saddens me is that 40 years later, our society is still having this same argument over gay marriage. Why do we keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over again? So in Mrs Loving’s honor, everyone go out there and love the person of your choice and keep on working for the day when government gets the hell out of our bedroom. posted by afflatus at 1:54 PM on May 5 [3 favorites] Whose marketing motto is "Virginia is for Lovers." I thought it was "Virginia is for Snipers". posted by kuujjuarapik at 1:59 PM on May 5 [2 favorites] Is there another world like eponysterical, except that it means ‘touching’ and not ‘funny’? posted by empath at 1:52 PM on May 5 [+] [!] Eponystouching? (e-ponys touching?) posted by basicchannel at 2:00 PM on May 5 [2 favorites] . posted by dismas at 2:02 PM on May 5 I listened to the audio arguments in the case a couple of years back. The arguments against interracial marriage then sound remarkably like the arguments against gay marriage today, and just as bogus. posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 2:03 PM on May 5 [1 favorite] So in Mrs Loving’s honor, everyone go out there and love the person of your choice and keep on working for the day when government gets the hell out of our bedroom. Here, here! posted by notjustfoxybrown at 2:04 PM on May 5 I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. God bless her. . posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:04 PM on May 5 . posted by Stynxno at 2:05 PM on May 5 . posted by Avenger at 2:06 PM on May 5 This ruling made it possible for my wife’s parents to get married, and, I suppose, for me to marry her. In an odd twist, though, we chose not to get married in DC, where the Lovings were married and where we live, because it was just too much damned trouble (for non-racist reasons). Instead, we drove across the river to, you guessed it, Virginia, where the process isn’t mired in red tape. Sometimes it’s easy to forget how much times have changed. posted by MrMoonPie at 2:07 PM on May 5 . posted by brujita at 2:10 PM on May 5 As a native Virginian who can’t get married in her home state, here’s to change, and to someday looking back with the same level of astonishment that there were ever such laws making it illegal for people to get married. . posted by gingerbeer at 2:10 PM on May 5 I love how all the ‘protect marriage’ laws are about preventing people from getting married, and not a single one makes it easier to get a divorce. . posted by mullingitover at 2:20 PM on May 5 [1 favorite] …and by ‘easier’ I mean ‘more difficult.’ posted by mullingitover at 2:20 PM on May 5 [1 favorite] I’ve been reading Stephen B. Oates’ excellent Lincoln biography With Malice Toward None lately. I got to the Lincoln-Douglas debates yesterday and was really surprised. They’re always held up in elementary school history class as a shining example of rhetoric and vigorous debate, but Douglas reads like a nineteenth century Rick Santorum. He raises the terrifying possibility that if the slaves were freed, next thing you knew your neighbors would be marrying them. Plus ca change. posted by EarBucket at 2:31 PM on May 5 Here’s to Mildred Loving and all those who have the courage to stand up to the bigots to be with the person they love. posted by scody at 2:32 PM on May 5 Thanks, Mildred, from a mixed-race couple. God bless you. posted by optovox at 2:34 PM on May 5 Thanks Mildred! Many of my friends and coworkers would not be happily married now if it weren’t for your bravery. mullingitover : I love how all the ‘protect marriage’ laws are about preventing people from getting married, and not a single one makes it more difficult to get a divorce. I’ve often wondered about that myself. It’s one of those hypocrisies, where you have someone loudly advocating against gay or interracial marriage or other thing which might diminish the eternal bond shared in the eyes of God between two people (or whatever), and you find out the person has been divorced three or four times. You just desperately want to ask: "So, when you say, ‘protecting the sanctity of marriage’ you mean, from people like you, right?" Of course, that would require the press to actually be aggressive in their pursuit of truth. Not just big headlines. posted by quin at 2:39 PM on May 5 [1 favorite] ♥ posted by granted at 2:49 PM on May 5 [2 favorites] I got to the Lincoln-Douglas debates yesterday and was really surprised. They’re always held up in elementary school history class as a shining example of rhetoric and vigorous debate, but Douglas reads like a nineteenth century Rick Santorum. Yeah, Douglas is totally disengenous in the debates. It was a shock when I read them too. Anyway, for Ms. Loving, . posted by Ironmouth at 2:50 PM on May 5 It is thanks to Loving v Virginia that my wife and I were able to marry. Thanks Mildred. . posted by sotonohito at 2:51 PM on May 5 . Astonishingly, a lot of people aren’t even aware of the word "miscegenation" or that interracial marriage was a crime. We’ve come a long way and have a long way to go. posted by desuetude at 2:52 PM on May 5 [1 favorite] They’ve tried to make it harder for folks to get divorced. Weirdly enough, people don’t seem to be flocking to this option. Go figure. And much love, Mildred. posted by BitterOldPunk at 2:53 PM on May 5 I’ve often wondered about that myself. It’s one of those hypocrisies, where you have someone loudly advocating against gay or interracial marriage or other thing which might diminish the eternal bond shared in the eyes of God between two people (or whatever), and you find out the person has been divorced three or four times. Especially because, unlike with homosexuality, Jesus actually cared enough about divorce to make his opinion known. posted by granted at 2:55 PM on May 5 someday looking back with the same level of astonishment that there were ever such laws making it illegal for people to get married. Sorry, I couldn’t wait: I’m looking right now at such laws with utter bewilderment. RIP Mrs. Loving. We’ve still got a lot of fighting left to do, but thank you so much for your and your husband’s bravery. posted by lord_wolf at 3:09 PM on May 5 .. <- posted by Inspector.Gadget at 3:16 PM on May 5 Damnit, didn’t know metafilter stripped font color tags. posted by Inspector.Gadget at 3:16 PM on May 5 We’ve still got a lot of fighting left to do, but thank you so much for your and your husband’s bravery. Indeed. We cannot rest until our right to polygamous marriage is recognized and respected. posted by Krrrlson at 3:18 PM on May 5 [2 favorites] . posted by hydropsyche at 3:20 PM on May 5 Sadly, I only know about her from the movie, Mr. and Mrs. Loving. posted by 445supermag at 3:26 PM on May 5 We cannot rest until our right to polygamous marriage is recognized and respected. And dogs and kleptomaniacs! Santorum über alles! posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:37 PM on May 5 So to speak… posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:40 PM on May 5 But I don’t want Santorum all over everything. What amazed me the most was finding out how recent this case was. I had a vague idea that miscegenation had used to be illegal, but I filed it away as something that happened a long time ago. Thanks for the post. posted by nebulawindphone at 3:52 PM on May 5 . posted by CitizenD at 3:57 PM on May 5 Loving v. Virginia is probably one of the most important U.S. civil rights cases that nobody has ever heard about. What amazes me most of all is that two states, Maryland and Virginia, had anti-miscegenation laws on the books dating from the 1690s. Thanks to the Lovings, my wife and I can happly miscegenate here in Maryland. I can only hope that an equivalent case for gays and lesbians will come soon. posted by thewittyname at 4:17 PM on May 5 . posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 4:37 PM on May 5 Best. Casename. Evarrrr. posted by zekinskia at 4:54 PM on May 5 [1 favorite] . posted by rmd1023 at 5:47 PM on May 5 i wouldn’t be here for her and neither would my kids. two generations of miscegenated love. melanin, not optional. thanks ms. loving and say hi to your guy for me. posted by liza at 6:07 PM on May 5 It really does seem like the logic of Loving should be applicable to laws forbidding same-sex marriage. The court was quite clear that anti-miscegenation laws that equally burden the rights of blacks and whites still violate equal protection. The obvious analogy is that even though laws allowing only opposite-sex marriage equally burden men and women, this apparently shouldn’t be seen as avoiding the equal protection problem. Gender and racial classifications are subject to different levels of scrutiny, and this could result in differing outcomes, but the underlying argument seems sound. Of course, we’d know the answer, except Kennedy punted on the equal protection analysis in Lawrence. posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 7:21 PM on May 5 The wikipedia article on the etymology and history of miscegenation is pretty darn interesting as well: The word was coined in an anonymous propaganda pamphlet printed in New York City in December 1863, entitled Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro. The pamphlet purported to be in favor of promoting the intermarriage of whites and blacks until they were indistinguishably mixed, claiming this was the goal of the Republican Party. The pamphlet was revealed to be a hoax written by Democrats David Goodman Croly, managing editor of the New York World, a Democratic Party paper, and George Wakeman, a World reporter. (New York City at the time was a place where people often criticized the ongoing American Civil War, to the point of rioting against that war in a massive brawl that had racial overtones.) It wasn’t just a southern thing. posted by jenkinsEar at 7:51 PM on May 5 ♥ posted by Pope Guilty at 9:18 PM on May 5 I’ve never seen a couple with a more apt surname. RIP. posted by punchdrunkhistory at 9:20 PM on May 5 [...]
I am thankful for the case, but also a bit disturbed that the case really did not address the issue of race.
It is very unfortunate that this nation just accepts the idea that there are separate races. It is very unfortunate that we still accept the idea that race exists — even in the absence of proof that there is such a thing as race. This is not my opinion, but that of virtually every credible geneticist in the world. They say, one may belong to specific groups, or have DNA that reflect an admixture of different groups. These may be traced back to places (population in specific places) but never to a racial type.
Remember Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings? Hemmings and Jefferson’s wife were sisters. They had the same father. So, how are they of a different race? Is it because somewhere in the dark past, there was an African women who gave birth to a slave-master. And, any series of slave-masters took these offsprings, and mated with them. By the time Hemmings came along, she just looked like any other “white” person. This did not stop with Hemmings and Jefferson, but perpetuated through their offsprings. (Some of whom were essentially left alone to “run away” and integrate into a white society. They married other “whites”, and buried their African heritage. The others were sent to Ohio to join other mixed “race” populations, and become “Black”.
This idea of race is not unique to the US, nor was the whole race construct first created in the US. In Europe, those of royalty believed anyone who lived outside the palace walls were of a different race. Those outside the walls believed the Irish and Scots were of a different race. During earlier times, the Anglos believed the Saxons were of a different race. And, it continued in the US. Just ask some of the older populations of first generation immigrants who came here from Ireland or Italy. They have stories about those, “Yankees” who afforded them the same treatment as was (and remains) realized by African-Americans. These populations, and others from Europe would mix and become “white”. Those of African descent, however, no matter how much racially mixed, remained “Black”.
This now undiluted race of “Black”, remains a very odd fixture of Americana — even post Loving v. Virginia. In our present society, Senator and Presidential hopeful Barack Obama is literally an African American. This is because being “Black” perpetuates even in instances where his is not only born of a “white” mother, but also raised by his “white” mother and “white” grandmother.
It is my hope that some day, we have another Loving. In the next instance, it is my hope that we legally explode the social construct of race, and just settle on being human. It is just a better approach than one of imprecise social constructs. To the extent we classify ourselves, such should be based on things like purity of one’s heart and the good we do in this world.
(The last paragraph is actually an instruction from the Prophet Muhammad [pbuh]).
May the Loving family, and their offsprings, continue in the steps of their brave parents.
[...] Loving for All [...]
She was an inspiration and will be trully missed. Her work and strength will be remembered.
http://respectance.com/Mildred_Loving
[...] Loving for All [...]
[...] I love these thoughts from Mildred Loving, and I wanted to share these with you in closing. These thoughts are truly what loving is about. Loving for All [...]
I think Mrs. Loving sums it up best in a single statement:
“I support the freedom to marry for all.”
Thank you Mrs. Loving. Hopefully, one day, we will all have the freedom that you were once denied and subsequently won for so many.
Thank you, Mrs. Loving. If it wasn’t for you, my brother and I wouldn’t be here today. :)
[...] Last year she penned a message which includes an account of their arrest, treatment by the justice system and subsequent exile from Virginia. Chilling. Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “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.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile. [...]
[...] Civil Rights Pioneer Mildred Loving, Dead at 68 Civil Rights Pioneer Mildred Loving, Dead at 68 by RS Davis The Freedom Files Hello Freedomphiles! Mildred Loving, pictured above, passed away yesterday at the age of 68. You may not recognize her, but she is an important part of our history, and laid the path for future civil rights victories, as well. Mildred Delores Jeter, a black woman, married Richard Loving, a white man, in Washington DC in June of 1958. Upon return to their home in Virginia, they were arrested by police on Virginia’s miscegenation law, for "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth." She was rightfully pissed, and sued Virginia. She lost, and it was upheld on appeal. So she appealed to the highest court in the land and won, based on the Due Process clause and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. 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. It is this decision, I believe, that gives the federal government the right to get involved in the gay marriage debate, and this precedent that should force the federal government to recognize gay marriages or none at all. It will be on these grounds, I believe, that this will happen. Forty years after the decision, Mildred Loving issued a statement, which reads, in part: Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about. ****in A, Mrs Loving, and Godspeed… __________________ Libertarians: Trying to get people to mind their own business since 1971. MySpace.com Blogs - RS MySpace Blog [...]
[...] They have a great story, romantic and heartbreaking. But what makes their story so truly touching is this idea that the injustices that exist today, the separate-but-equal approach America has on marriage and other issues, will not always be the way it is. We may never see the likes of a Warren Court again (damn these strict, narrowly interpretive times) but you have to believe that if we did it once, we can do it again: Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. [...]
[...] May 7, 2008 at 7:02 am (work) Loving’s statement [...]
[...] But what I want to post today, to me, isn’t really about politics, though I know some of you may not view it that way. It’s about love. I saw this article, and couldn’t help but be moved by the letter this woman wrote. It really puts things into perspective, you know? Loving for All [...]
Hope I don’t sound too pessimistic, but I think it will be a cold day in hell when all people are considered equal. Yes, one can easily focus on an isolated case and call it a victory, but in reality things aren’t that black & white if you will. If you are an out of the box thinker, if you keep your eyes wide open, if you ask questions, then you know what I’m talking about. Mildred & Richard sounded like amazing individuals. I wish that I had the opportunity to meet them. May God rest their beautiful souls. -E
[...] Mildred Loving died [Monday] at the age of 68. Here is a copy of a statement she made on the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, last June. [...]
There are still many unConstitutional pieces of VCC (Virginia Criminal Code) 18.2 Chapter 8, “Crimes against morals and decency”, left to overturn, despite the strong and well funded state ACLU chapter (among others) having overturned additional pieces of bad state laws many times since “Loving”. When some here speak of activist judges, they demonstrate functional illiteracy, largely of issues where the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 imposed civil rights law on states formerly exempt. Upholding and enforcing the rule of Constitutional law is not judicial activism, but a core purpose for the existence of courts within our government.
Ultimately, “gay marriage law” is a bad idea, but not for the reasons proponents of Virginia’s presently in litigation law restricting many details of Constitutional compliance would assert. Putting the state in the business of defining what are in essence only civil contract terms, framed in language shared with many different religious and cultural practices and traditions, encourages controversy over what should be legal non-issues. Federal precedent or statute simply banning all “marriage laws”, but fully implementing and enforcing “full faith and credit” for civil law and economics based “domestic partnership laws” open to any number and sexes of persons lawfully entitled to contract, would take more work than adding binary same sex privilege to existing state marriage laws, but would be the start of defining a level playing field and clarifying boundaries of church or personal issues from state jurisdiction. The practical details of how that relates to employment, insurance, taxation, and thousands of other specifics law touches, to create a true rather than superficial only “level playing field” including for unmarried by choice or circumstance persons, and any or all chosen family constructs, would be far less simple.
[...] Mildred Loving died May 2 at home in Virginia. Here is her statement prepared for delivery on June 12, 2007, the 4oth anniversary of Loving v Virginia. It was not that long ago that these ordinary heroes had to fight for the right to marry a partner of a different race. Gays and lesbians today are still fighting for the right to marry whom they choose: Loving for All [...]
[...] “Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”Mildred Loving Mildred Jeter Loving is dead. Mildred Jeter married Richard Loving in the District of Columbia in June 1958. They were not allowed to marry in their home state of Virginia as Mildred was biracial - African and Native American, whereas her husband Richard was white. They returned to Virginia, and were later awakened in the middle of the night, in their bedroom, by deputy sheriffs who arrested them. They were charged with violating Virginia’s ban against miscegenation, convicted and sentenced to one to five years in prison. Their sentence would be suspended if they left Virginia. The Supreme Court heard their case (Loving v. Virginia) and in 1967 overturned the convictions. Anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in many states, unenforced until 2000 when Alabama removed its law against mixed-race marriage. The judge that originally sentenced the Lovings said,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.Christians have sought to define and control marriage since the beginning of these United States. It is appalling that marriage between blacks and whites was illegal as late as 1967. The state, misguided in its attempt to appease its bastard charge religion, continues to deny blacks and whites the right to marry should they choose a mate of the same gender. Christian crackers like Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council just don’t get it. The FRC site only once refers to Loving v. Virginia, and not to laud the decision or regret Christianty’s role in this injustice, but to complain of the case’s logic being extended to cover the issue of gender. DOMA Won’t Do It: Why the Constitution Must Be Amended to Save Marriage The FRC writes,The defining features of marriage are a union between a man and a woman that is (a) monogamous; (b) sexually exclusive; (c) the morally legitimate context for raising children; and (d) permanent.By dropping a few names I can immediately level the FRC’s arguments that (a) monogamy, (b) sexual exclusivity, and (d) permanency are required for legitimate marriage. Bakker, Haggard, and Swaggart, caught with their pants down, stand beside a host of Christian leaders who have defied the commandments of Jesus not to divorce their wives. We can demolish point (c), that marriage is “the morally legitimate context for raising children,” since having children is not required in marriage and many couples don’t bother. So what is the point of marriage? Marriage is a commitment between two consenting adults. Or three, or four. What do I care? Consent is key. Commitment is key, though variable in length and quality. Adult is key since marriage is a contract. Beyond that, marriage is something created by and between people, not imposed from above by a sexless and sex-hating spook. Mildred Loving’s Statement Representative John Lewis on the Defense of Marriage Act, which Representative Lewis says, “should be called the defense of mean-spirited bigots act.” AP: Mildred Loving, matriarch of interracial marriage, dies Posted by: miss_poppy on May 08, 08 | 10:15 am [0 comments] Testify! (0 views) | | link [...]
[...] On the 40th Anniversary of Loving v Virginia Mrs. Loving released a statement: My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. [...]
This is a wonderful testament. I was saddened by the recent passing of Ms. Loving. She was definitely a courageous and wonderful woman who stood up in the face of what was wrong. While her main goal was to right the inequity in law that prevented her from being legally married to someone not of her own race, she advanced the civil rights movement to its ultimate conclusion (at least in terms of legal rights that were being withheld).
I’ve written a big about Ms. Loving and the Loving case on my blog. Read about it at http://petercfrank.blogspot.com/2007/06/40-years-of-loving.html and read about my post on Ms. Loving’s passing at http://petercfrank.blogspot.com/2008/05/rip-mildred-loving.html
[...] May 16, 2008 by wolber Mildred Loving is a black woman who married a white man and almost went to prison for it. Not in 1930. In 1967! She gave a statement last year on the 40th anniversary of her and her husband’s miscegenation case. She eloquently draws the parallels between her situation and the current debate on gay marriage. Here’s an excerpt: [...]
[...] She was a black woman who wanted to marry a white man in the era when that was a punishable crime, and she fought for her right to be with the person she loved. (The quote actually comes from a speech last summer, but was mentioned in an article about the CA decision. You can read the rest of her speech here.) I think most people would agree, 40 years later, that there is no question a person should be allowed to marry a person of a different race. It’s interesting to realize that similar arguments used against inter-racial marriage at the time are being used against gay marriage now. I can only hope that eventually we will see the same outcome, from courts or legislative bodies or courageous individual politicans (or a combination of all those things, which is more likely) - and even if it takes a while I think that most people will come to see that there is no threat at all to them or their “traditional” marriages by permitting gay people to marry and care for each other. [...]
People are pretty much the same to a certain extent. what makes for tide water is civilization and its approach either orhodox or not to living together day to day. When a couple marry. They may have the grandest intentions but normally people have families. Maybe in not every circumstance but generally speaking if someone marries catholic or a budhist or in islam or in fourteen other faiths. They bring into the picture a family. Sure for those who believe in one god. We’re curtainly all the same. But reality sets in motion the strange undertoe of reality. If we were all just all one big happy family of people on earth- Wouldn’t that be so great?. Or the flip side — what a Disaster. Daniel L.Phillips/Thecrystaltomahawk
[...] Finally, Mildred loving did not survive to see the nomination of Barack Obama to be President of the United States, or this year’s anniversary, dying in early May. She did, however, make this statement last year: [...]
[...] to PositiveLiberty.com for the [...]
Please do not use Mildred Loving’s experience to validate gay/lesbian marriages. In this case, a man and woman of different color were denied their God given right to marry….God given. Man and Woman. Not man to man and woman to woman.
But, why is our government slowly accepting gay marriages? Because that is what the people want and we, like children, will invent any excuse to have what we desire, right or wrong.
Just because the government says something is right, doesn’t mean God is pleased with that decision. Now you may not believe in God, but that does not mean He doesn’t exist. And one day those who have done abominable things in His eyes, will regret the decision. Unfortunately, it will be too late to repent.
America - the entire world, for that matter - do not forfeit your souls in order to fulfill the lust of the flesh. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life.”
John 3:16
Jesus Christ paid the price in FULL for our sins. His precious blood was shed so we may live FOREVER. There is no room in the Kingdom of God for those who live immoral lives. Living a life of homosexuality is detestable in the eyes of God. Lying, cheating, adultery, murder, etc., all these things must stop before it’s too late. God will wait for you to change. But a day is coming (and soon) when His beloved Son will judge the earth….will you be able to stand faultless before a Holy God?
[...] article about interracial should be read by everyone. After you read it, go here and sign [...]
[...] Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. [Source] [...]
[...] Jim Crow disrespects Black history. Even the Loving decision, which is the most obvious parallel (and one Mildred Loving herself endorsed) had a profoundly different history than the history of gays and lesbians. Angry Black Woman [...]
[...] sursa textului (în engleză): http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/06/mildred-lovings-statement.html [...]
[...] all, separate is not equal! Didn’t the Loving decision in the late 1950s finally resolve that? Mildred Loving, in a statement from 2007 on the 40th anniversary of the landmark American decision o… I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual [...]
[...] of gay marriage. One of the best arguments for it came from Mildred Loving, who issued a rare public statement on the recent 40th anniversary of Loving v. [...]
[...] Especially since more than four decades after she made history — Mildred Loving is today one of its biggest supporters. [...]
[...] Especially since more than four decades after she made history—Mildred Loving is today one of its biggest supporters. [...]
[...] Loving herself had this to say on the subject:(click to read her entire essay, written for the 40th Anniversary of the ruling in Loving v. [...]