A Loving Story
It appears now that with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding Californias' Prop 8 unconstitutional and the courts in NY and Mass finding the same thing regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex marriage will get its day in the Supreme Court. Coincidentally it was 45 years ago this month that the Supreme Court decided that the arrest and conviction of Mildred and Richard Loving was unconstitutional also. Its hard to fathom that in my lifetime people of mixed race were arrested and jailed for marrying, but that was the case. The battle for the right of marriage between races was even harder than the battle being waged today for same-sex couples. It also tore families apart, but people were arrested and jailed for violating anti-miscegenation laws and the battle for their rights lasted for nearly a century.
The first breakthrough back then also came from the California Supreme Court who decided in 1948, nearly 20 years before the Loving case, that a marriage license denied to Andrea Perez and Sylvester Davis violated the 14th Amendment. Ironically, if Andrea had listed her race as Latino instead of white, the license to marry a black man would have been granted and the case would never have materialized, because the anti-miscegenation laws only pertained to whites. In entering their decision the court stated “A member of any of these races may find himself barred from marrying the person of his choice, and that person to him may be irreplaceable." That word, irreplaceable, rings true in the fight today.
By 1958, eight states and the District of Columbia had removed anti-miscegenation laws from their books, but a Gallop poll that same year found that 96% of white people were against mixed race marriage. If so many people were against it, how in the world were the laws being struck down? The answer is quite simple, the beliefs of the many should not and cannot deny the rights of the few. Its the way our constitution was written and as a person we shouldn't want it any other way.
1958 was also the year that Mildred Jeter, who was black, and Richard Loving, who was white, were living in Washington DC and decided to marry. They moved to northern Va. soon after and it wasn't long before the police broke in in the middle of the night (in the hope of catching them fornicating which was also against the law) and arrested them under the states anti-miscegenation law. Using their marriage license against them as proof of their guilt they were convicted in 1959. In writing his decision the judge stated "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. 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." Sound familiar? Lets deny rights to others based on what a person believes God wanted. Oh, and those damned boats and planes that allowed us to travel across continents.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That's Section I of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and that's what the ACLU used in the Va. courts to overturn the Lovings conviction in 1963. After winning a few decisions and losing a few, their case finally made it to the Supreme Court in 1967, and that court, just like the Supreme Court of today, really didn't want anything to do with the case. They knew that when the decision had to be made, it wasn't going to be popular. They understood though, however unpopular the decision, there was only one way to decide it, and they did it unanimously.
In 1967 the state laws concerning miscegenation were much like the ones concerning same-sex marriage today, all over the place. Some states have bans and some have statutes against same-sex marriage. Some allow it and some allow only unions. In the State of Hawaii, some islands ban it while some allow unions and on the big island they have both, it just depends on what side of the island you live on.
The 2012 Supreme Court has a tough decision to make. Its not a hard decision, because the courts before them have already made the hard decision. The California court made the hard decision in 1948. The Supreme Court made the hard decision in 1967. Its only tough for the 2012 court because it will be unpopular.
As for the Lovings, Richard died in a 1975 car wreck caused by a drunk driver. Mildred passed away in 2008. The only official statement by either was issued by Mildred in 2007 on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling. In its conclusion Mildred stated,
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.
The first breakthrough back then also came from the California Supreme Court who decided in 1948, nearly 20 years before the Loving case, that a marriage license denied to Andrea Perez and Sylvester Davis violated the 14th Amendment. Ironically, if Andrea had listed her race as Latino instead of white, the license to marry a black man would have been granted and the case would never have materialized, because the anti-miscegenation laws only pertained to whites. In entering their decision the court stated “A member of any of these races may find himself barred from marrying the person of his choice, and that person to him may be irreplaceable." That word, irreplaceable, rings true in the fight today.
By 1958, eight states and the District of Columbia had removed anti-miscegenation laws from their books, but a Gallop poll that same year found that 96% of white people were against mixed race marriage. If so many people were against it, how in the world were the laws being struck down? The answer is quite simple, the beliefs of the many should not and cannot deny the rights of the few. Its the way our constitution was written and as a person we shouldn't want it any other way.
1958 was also the year that Mildred Jeter, who was black, and Richard Loving, who was white, were living in Washington DC and decided to marry. They moved to northern Va. soon after and it wasn't long before the police broke in in the middle of the night (in the hope of catching them fornicating which was also against the law) and arrested them under the states anti-miscegenation law. Using their marriage license against them as proof of their guilt they were convicted in 1959. In writing his decision the judge stated "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. 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." Sound familiar? Lets deny rights to others based on what a person believes God wanted. Oh, and those damned boats and planes that allowed us to travel across continents.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That's Section I of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and that's what the ACLU used in the Va. courts to overturn the Lovings conviction in 1963. After winning a few decisions and losing a few, their case finally made it to the Supreme Court in 1967, and that court, just like the Supreme Court of today, really didn't want anything to do with the case. They knew that when the decision had to be made, it wasn't going to be popular. They understood though, however unpopular the decision, there was only one way to decide it, and they did it unanimously.
In 1967 the state laws concerning miscegenation were much like the ones concerning same-sex marriage today, all over the place. Some states have bans and some have statutes against same-sex marriage. Some allow it and some allow only unions. In the State of Hawaii, some islands ban it while some allow unions and on the big island they have both, it just depends on what side of the island you live on.
The 2012 Supreme Court has a tough decision to make. Its not a hard decision, because the courts before them have already made the hard decision. The California court made the hard decision in 1948. The Supreme Court made the hard decision in 1967. Its only tough for the 2012 court because it will be unpopular.
As for the Lovings, Richard died in a 1975 car wreck caused by a drunk driver. Mildred passed away in 2008. The only official statement by either was issued by Mildred in 2007 on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling. In its conclusion Mildred stated,
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.
Comments
Post a Comment