Mildred Loving’s Statement
Ed Brayton on Jun 15th 2007 11:45 am |
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 Uncategorized
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 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. __________________ "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. [...]