In the late 1950’s, a Virginia judge upheld a law declaring that blacks and whites could not marry each other. He sentenced Richard and Mildred Loving to one year in jail or 25 years of exile from Virginia for the simple crime of marrying each other - a black woman and a white man.
The Loving couple fought the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court. In 1967, the Supreme Court justices unanimously decreed that Virginia and numerous other state laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional.
Richard and Mildred Loving have long been heros of mine. They didn’t take up the marriage torch for political reasons or to make a point to others. Rather, the Lovings did it for love. I admire them for that, and for succeeding in legitimizing their love in the eyes of the law for the most noble of reasons.
Richard Loving died in 1975. Last Friday, Mildred Loving passed away at the age of 68.
It is my sincere hope and desire that, one day soon, my partner — the man I love — and I will be able to marry. And that our two daughters would have two fathers who are married to each other. Not because it makes health insurance easier. Not because my retirement would then cover my boyfriend. Not because it would make it much, much easier to make sure one father can still keep our daughters should the other father pass away. No. It’s because we love each other.
Currently, gay men and women can marry in Massachusetts. But their marriages would not be recognized in most states. If my partner and I were to marry in Boston and then return to Maryland, little would have changed. Except, of course, for our love - which would still not be legitimized by the state nor the Federal government.
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
By Mildred Loving
Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007,
The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia AnnouncementWhen 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.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
17 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Well said. I hope for the same thing.
Those words by Mildred Loving are powerful. Thank you.
And I hope someday you and your boyfriend earn the right you should already have to get married.
Marriage is a states matter. Keep the fed out of my bedroom. If you want to marry, move to Boston. Seems simple enough, no?
Thanks for sharing Loving’s inspiring thoughts.
“Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” — A groundbreaking and classic film was produced in the same year as the Sumpreme Court’s decision. I love the movie!
Scott, I wish it was that simple. The Loving couple got married in another state and came back to Virginia where police broke into their house to arrest them. What if they were just travelling through? If I were to travel through Oklahoma with my children and partner, the state would not recognize our adoption of our girls. And police could take away our girls even when we fly thru or stop at a rest stop in Oklahoma. Leaving civil rights up to the states - it’s something that is spouted from the mouth, but does not meet practical experience. Why do you think it took Federal action to allow interracial marriage, stop forced segregation, and allow my partner and me to even sleep together in most states?
I agree with you, Josh. Leaving it up to the states is like playing Russian Roulette with a gun. If not for the passage of Civil Rights, I wouldn’t be able to sit next to you on the bus, train…or even drink out of the same water fountain. I would have to drink out of the “Colored” one…and last time I checked, my skin isn’t rainbow-colored.
I think that love is already hard enough to come by, so if you’re lucky, count your blessings. Why denying a couple (regardless of their gender makeup) the ultimate high of coupledom–marriage.
The first moment I realized how lucky I was to be actually married came when my husband had an horrible accident requiring stitches. The ER allowed me to sit right by his side during the whole procedure, and it made me feel so much better knowing that I was literally there for him “all the way”. Had it just been two months earlier, before we got married, I would have been forced to sit idly for hours in the waiting room. While everybody has a different idea of what marriage takes, it really shouldn’t take a single piece of paper to issue such “privileges” - one of them being the ability to freely declare your love for another.
Wow, that’s a beautiful example, Happily. Thanks for sharing that example with us.
As an ordained minister, I have had the pleasure of officiating over weddings and commitment ceremonies for both heterosexual and same-sex couples.
There is no ritual that gives me as much joy as the one which unites two lives, two souls, and two hearts together.
I was once asked (by a fundamentalist preacher, naturally) why I would engage in marrying same-sex couples, when such acts are clearly “an abomination to God.”
My response was simply to shrug my shoulders and say “because they love one another.”
Thanks for sharing this piece with us, Josh. It is indeed a very “loving” post… in more ways than one.
I do hope that some day you and your partner will be able to engage in that legal ceremony.
Josh– There’s so much hate in the world I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why anyone wastes their energy trying to keep people who love each other apart. Good luck and blessings to you and your partner.
I am a conservative, but, I just don’t see the state’s interest in the bedroom or in religious ceremonies. However, it is the state’s interest to encourage “family” units even if it does not fit the traditional concept.
If you want to get married and have the legal protections that come with it, you have my blessings. I am quite certain that you will be a better parent with your partner of your children than a lot of heterosexual couples out there.
To Happily Married, when my then-girlfriend went to the ER I asked to go along with her. She is my wife now and I always go in the ER rooms later.
and Josh, your daughters have your name and you can rpove you the parent. May single parents go through the same thing in case the cops stopped. I thought a lot of gays people moved from VA to MD because MD has a better health insurance coverage for gays people?
Hi Marylander — problem is, in states like Oklahoma, by state law any contracts or even court decisions involving gays and lesbians are automatically null and void inside that state. And so, my adoption of my children would be void there as long as I’m in the state. Really scary. Virginia has something similar, but not as drastic.
And health insurance — perhaps you’re thinking of health insurance coverage for people who work for the State government? As far as I know, the state of Maryland doesn’t offer domestic partnership benefits, If you work for Montgomery County or even the District of Columbia, then health care would also cover domestic partners. I work for the Federal government, however, and the Fed gov’t absolutely won’t cover my partner. So, I gotta pay for separate health insurance (and everything else) for my partner …
Well, at least one more state has taken a step in the right direction, in light of the news from California today.
Josh: Your blog entry evidently has prompted California to join Massachusetts. Do you think you could keep writing blog entries on this issue and successively knock some sense into each of the remaining 48 states?
LOL! I just finally read / skimmed through the entire 120-page decision by the California Supreme Court. This is no mere “step” — that court declared that California shall allow gay marriages, period. No requiring legislature to pass a law recognizing gay marriage (like what happened in Mass.) — the court simply says to allow gay marriages, period. I think this will become effective in 30 days, and that means same-sex couples would be able to marry after 30 days from today. Wow!!!! What’s even more incredible is that the justices on this California Supreme Court is mostly conservative, and yet a majority decisively found in favor of gay couples.
You know the appeals will be a mess. The ruling was 4-3… sigh. I wish it had been 5-2 or even 6-1. Granted, 6 of the 7 judges were appointed by Republicans, so that says a lot.
However, this IS California. It’s not Oklahoma. So I can see the possibility of this decision having far-reaching effects:
1) Borderline states (moderate states that can go either republican or democrat) may swing to the republican side in the general election and create a potential win for McCain
2) Religious right/ultra conservative states will start passing laws or initiatives to ban gay marriage, with voter referenda, to show that gay marriage “goes against the ‘will’ of the people.”
Of course, half the country is thrilled about what happened in California, and the other half is crying out that the judges are legislating from the bench.
I chatted with my father about this — he grew up in a segregated town in Texas and is now an attorney. (And yes, he’s a democrat.)
He thinks this is the worst timing in the world for this kind of ruling, because this means the gay marriage issue will become a major one during the rest of this election cycle. And that voters will be thinking about this when they select their candidate for President, and not issues like the Iraq crisis, economic/housing market, etc…
In short, he doesn’t think the time is right for this to happen. Obviously, it needs to happen, but during a Presidential election year?
I’m hoping that the voters have common sense and will stick to the country’s economic and international political issues. And that more people realize that the judges’ ruling is correct.
Legalizing same-sex marriage IS the right way to adhere to the constitutional rights we all have. Just as blacks and whites fought for interracial marriage 40 years ago, so are we all fighting for same-sex marriage.
But the difference between the two is pretty significant:
Unlike with interracial marriage, same-sex marriages comes with the connotation/idea that the “act” of intercourse between the two partners is “morally wrong” (anal sex, etc.), as well as the long-held beliefs that being gay is a choice, that it is immoral, etc., blah blah. It’s a different level of inferiority than was placed upon blacks.
Once same-sex marriages are legalized in the midwestern/flyover/conservative/red states, then I’ll believe we’re really on track for achieving civil rights for GLBT folks. In the meantime, it’s going to be a battle in each state.
At least until it goes to the Supreme Court.
Hilary - your father’s right - this is probably the worst timing for this opinion to come out. The Republicans need a rallying issue to get voters to come out to the polls in droves. I’m hoping that saturation will help defuse this issue, though. In Mass., the legislature had the opportunity to revoke the law authorizing gay marriage, and Republican legislators tried to do so once a year for the past three years. However, each time they tried, the attempt garnered less and less votes (even from Republican legislators themselves) as they saw that society in Mass. didn’t implode, that couples and families of every gender, color, and creed were happy, that churches remained standing, and that no comets (or hurricanes!) walloped Mass. in punishment.
I’m hoping the same will happen here.