May Mildred Loving Rest In Peace:
>> From today's New York Times.com> >
In Loving v. Virginia, Warren wrote that miscegenation laws violated the Constitution's equal protection clause. "We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race," he said. By their own widely reported accounts, Mrs. Loving and her husband, Richard, were in bed in their modest house in Central Point in the early morning of July 11, 1958, five weeks after their wedding, when the county sheriff and two deputies, acting on an anonymous tip, burst into their bedroom and shined flashlights in their eyes. A threatening voice demanded, "Who is this woman you're sleeping with?" Mrs. Loving answered, "I'm his wife." Mr. Loving pointed to the couple's marriage certificate hung on the bedroom wall. The sheriff responded, "That's no good here." The certificate was from Washington, D.C., and under Virginia law, a marriage between people of different races performed outside Virginia was as invalid as one done in Virginia.
At the time, it was one of 16 states that barred marriages between races. After Mr. Loving spent a night in jail and his wife several more, the> couple pleaded guilty to violating the Virginia law, the Racial Integrity Act. Under a plea bargain, their one-year prison sentences were suspended on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return together or at the same time for 25 years. Judge Leon M. Bazile, in language Chief Justice Warren would recall, said that if God had meant for whites and blacks to mix, he would have not placed them on different continents. Judge Bazile reminded the> defendants that "as long as you live you will be known as a felon." They paid court fees of $36.29 each, moved to Washington and had three children. They returned home occasionally, never together.
But times were tough financially, and the Lovings missed family, friends and their easy country lifestyle in the rolling Virginia hills. By 1963, Mrs. Loving could stand the ostracism no longer. Inspired by the civil rights movement and its march on Washington, she wrote> Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and asked for help. He wrote her back, and referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union. The A.C.L.U. took the case. Its lawyers, Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop, faced an immediate problem: the Lovings had pleaded guilty and had no right to appeal. So they asked Judge Bazile to set aside his original verdict. When he refused, they appealed. The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the lower court, and the case went to the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Cohen recounted telling Mr. Loving about various legal theories applying to the case. Mr. Loving replied, "Mr. Cohen, tell the court I love my wife, and it is just unfair that I can't live with her in Virginia."
Mildred Delores Jeter's family had lived in Caroline County, Va., for generations, as had the family of Richard Perry Loving. The area was known for friendly relations between races, even though marriages were forbidden. Many people were visibly of mixed race, with Ebony magazine reporting in 1967 that black "youngsters easily passed for white in neighboring towns." Mildred's mother was part Rappahannock Indian, and her father was part Cherokee. She preferred to think of herself as Indian rather than black.
Mildred and Richard began spending time together when he was a rugged-looking 17 and she was a skinny 11-year-old known as Bean. He attended an all-white high school for a year, and she reached 11th grade at an all-black school. When Mildred became pregnant at 18, they decided to do what was elsewhere deemed the right thing and get married. They both said their initial motive was not to challenge Virginia law.
"We have thought about other people," Mr. Loving said in an interview with Life magazine in 1966, "but we are not doing it just because somebody had to do it and we wanted to be the ones. We are doing it for us." In his classic study of segregation, "An American Dilemma," Gunnar Myrdal wrote that "the whole system of segregation and discrimination is designed to prevent eventual inbreeding of the races." But miscegenation laws struck deeper than other segregation acts, and> the theory behind them leads to chaos in other facets of law. This is because they make any affected marriage void from its inception. Thus, all children are illegitimate; spouses have no inheritance rights; and heirs cannot receive death benefits.
"When any society says that I cannot marry a certain person, that society has cut off a segment of my freedom," the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1958.
Virginia's law had been on the books since 1662, adopted a year after Maryland enacted the first such statute. At one time or another, 38 states had miscegenation laws. State and federal courts consistently upheld the prohibitions, until 1948, when the California Supreme Court overturned California's law. Though the Supreme Court's 1967 decision in the Loving case struck down miscegenation laws, Southern states were sometimes slow to change their constitutions;
Alabama became the last state to do so, in 2000. Mr. Loving died in a car accident in 1975, and the Lovings' son Donald died in 2000. In addition to her daughter, Peggy Fortune, who lives in Milford, Va., Mrs. Loving is survived by her son, Sidney, of Tappahannock, Va.; eight grandchildren; and 11 great-grandchildren. Mrs. Loving stopped giving interviews, but last year issued a statement on the 40th anniversary of the announcement of the Supreme Court ruling, urging that gay men and lesbians be allowed to marry.
*May they know that their lives and their struggle to be free and happy was an example for me to follow. Who ever you love and for what ever the reasons, finding love is the most important thing. The divorce rate doesn't change due to your race.
From Mildred Herself:
I'm surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by thatI don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me tohave 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, nomatter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom tomarry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs overothers. 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 courtcase that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that somany people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support thefreedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.
*Well spoken!
Any thoughts?
