RICHMOND, Va. – Mildred Loving, a black woman whose challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws nationwide, has died, her daughter said Monday.
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.
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.
I hadn’t realized that Mildred Loving was a supporter of same-sex marriage rights. She’d be a hero regardless, but finding that out makes me admire her even more.
(I’m already wincing at the thought of the political cartoons that will be appearing. My guess is that several cartoonists will do Mildred and Richard, reunited at the Pearly Gates, while Saint Peter comments that no one will be able to keep them apart now.)
Related link: NPR page on the 40th anniversary.
Curtsy: Shakes.
I would support a general ban on political cartoons depicting the Pearly Gates. I’ve yet to see a good one.
This case has been the standard reference in the same-sex marriage fight, but another analogy, a little closer to home for some, would be the situation under slavery, where black people were not allowed to marry other black people.
I think you’re mistaken; Loving v Virginia is a much apter comparison than slavery.
LOVING vs Virginia, sounds like the state is trying to stop them from loving. And ain’t it the truth? Perfect name for it.
Pingback: Loving, of Loving v. Virginia dies « don’t ya wish your girlfriend was smart like me?
How so? Opponents of gay marriage say that the laws don’t forbid gays from marrying; we can just marry women. Likewise the miscengenation laws did not prevent whites or blacks from marrying; they just had to marry whites or blacks respectively. The situation under slavery is a much closer analogy – slaves could live together, have children and so on, but these unions had no recognition under the law. That is a very close analogy.
No, Jim: read back the first part of what you just wrote. Slavery prevented slaves from marrying ANYONE, even other slaves. Loving vs. VA only prevented Black people from marrying white people. Black people could live with white people, but with no legal recognition.
Same-sex marriage opponents have no problem with gay women marryng men, etc. But if they want to live with women, their unions will have no recognition under the law. No one says a gay woman or gay man can’t get married at all: THAT would make the situation analagous to slavery.
What a lovely statement from a heroic person.
Interesting that the non-blog press (AP and NPR so far) are steering clear from the modern-day marriage equality debate side of this story, and refraining from mentioning Ms. Loving’s statement about gender-based marriage discrimination. . . instead they’re using this quote from her statment: “It wasn’t my doing,” Loving said. “It was God’s work.”
(also interesting that Ms. Loving had a daughter whose name is Ms. Fortune!)
I’m right there with Marmalade. For all the times I’ve heard this case referenced, I had no clue she was so expansive in her views about marriage rights. I am in one of the couples that got “married” at San francisco City Hall in February of 2004. Prior to that, marriage rights for gay people were not really on my radar: after that point it became crystal clear to me that this is another area where our democracy does not meet its potential, and undermines its integrity by disregarding deep and valid relationships that are part of the social fabric. For a brief time, I tasted what it might be like to live in a society where one might not have to move to another country to be with the one they love, or might have rights to things like, say, survivor benefits or social security.
Immigration is indeed an area where the law discriminates. Since 2000, there has been legislation introduced into congress to help alleviate the plight of bi-national same-sex couples, but not near enough cosponsors or political will. There is an easy way you can help take action about this, by going here:
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/uafa_0508/ixgww8g4z7w8x58d?
In memory and in honor of Mildred Loving, it seems like a right and positive thing to do.
Something that has always amazed me is that there were 19 years – a whole generation – between when California struck down its state anti-miscegenation law (1947) and when the US supreme court made the rest of the states do the same(1968). Astounding that it took so long for something so right.
And Alabama didn’t take it’s law off the books until 2000. Fifty-three years of very conscious legal bigotry! Doesn’t bode well for our ability to live and let live, as Ms. Loving so eloquently advocated.
OK, ADS, I see your point. It doesn’t really defeat my point – neither analogy is all that close, maybe only one or two features. The real point is that this woman “was so expansive in her views about marriage rights.” Would that clergy in the Black Church had the same level of moral conscience. Some are starting to come around, and some, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, have had their heads on right all along on this issue.
“Immigration is indeed an area where the law discriminates.” You are so right. Andrew Sulivan has been highlighting this for that past couple of days.
Speaking of cartoons, Keith Knight did a pretty decent one this week:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/think-loving-couple.html
[drift]Nobody who has a comics page in this town runs Keith Knight’s cartoons. Which proves conclusively that this town is full of “hipsters” who wouldn’t know talent if it bit them on the ass. I mean, the Portland Mercury runs that execrable Dinosaur Comics but not Keith Knight. Hell, even Mort Walker’s zombie empire isn’t worse reading than Dinosaur. Feh. [/drift]
Pingback: On miscegenation and gay marriage