Mildred Loving died
yesterday at her home in Virginia, USA of pneumonia,
aged 68.
In 1958, Mildred
Jeter, a black woman legally married Richard Loving,
a white man in the District of Colombia, USA. They
returned to their home in the state of Virginia.
Under a Virginia law enacted in 1691, blacks and
whites were prohibited from marrying.
| |
 |
| |
Mildred and Richard Loving in 1967
Photo: Associated Press
|
In 1967, in the
case of Loving v. Virginia, the US Supreme
Court struck down miscegenation laws that prohibited
blacks and whites from marrying as a violation of
the US Constitution's equal protection clause.
In 1958, the country sheriff and two deputies broke
into the bedroom of newlyweds Mildred and Richard
Loving. They were arrested for violating Virginia's
Racial Integrity Act. Their prison term was
suspended on the condition that they not live in
Virginia and that they not return to the state for
any other purpose at the same time for 25 years.
There were 38 US
states that, at one time, had miscegenation laws. In
1948, the California Supreme Court was the first
state to judicially overturn such a law. Previous
attempts to overturn miscegenation laws were
unsuccessful. In 1967, when Loving v. Virginia
was decided there were 16 states that still
prohibited interracial marriage.
Under miscegenation
laws, children from interracial marriages were
considered illegitimate and spouses and heirs could
not receive inheritance rights or death benefits.
When the Lovings
were tried in Virginia, the presiding Judge Leon
Bazile upheld the Racial Integrity Act by stating
that if God had intended the races to mix he would
not have placed them on different continents.
Acting on advice
from the then US Attorney-General Robert Kennedy,
the Lovings sought the assistance of the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU took the case
from the Virginia Supreme Court to the US Supreme
Court.
In 2007, on the
40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, Mildred
Loving issued a statement urging that gay men and
lesbians be allowed to marry. The full statement
appears below.
Her life is an
important vindication of marriage as a cherished
civil right, and a testament to the importance of
fighting for equality, rather than sitting by
silently, indifferently, or complacently in the face
of cruel exclusion.
Loving for All
By Mildred Loving
Prepared for Delivery on 12 June 2007
on the 40
th
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.
