Gorak Welcomes

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.

Peggy Fortune said Loving, 68, died Friday at her home in rural Milford. She did not disclose the cause of death.

Loving and her white husband, Richard, changed history in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their right to marry. The ruling struck down laws banning racially mixed marriages in at least 17 states.

They had married in Washington in 1958, when she was 18. Returning to their Virginia hometown, they were arrested within weeks and convicted on charges of "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth," according to their indictments.

The couple avoided a year in jail by agreeing to a sentence mandating that they immediately leave Virginia. They moved to Washington and launched a legal challenge a few years later.

It's always sad when a civil rights pioneer passes, including ones that didn't set out to change an entire society.

It's worth noting that at the time of the SC decision, over 70% of the American public was opposed to inter-racial marriage. What does that say about those Americans? Was the ruling from the SC somehow "activist" then? If the decision to apply the equal protection clause to inter-racial couples, contrary to the vast majority of American's opinion, was not activist, then what is?

From the SC ruling;

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

You can see where I'm going with this.. as I've drawn this parallel to same-sex marriage many times.

Even in this decision, the court found marriage to be "fundamental to our very existence and survival", and yet some on the right (Jennifer) think we're somehow over stating the case, and that we're "drama queens".. and finds it amusing.. or as she says..

To make a long story short, he is angry because he is gay and can't get "married." It's dehumanizing to him. Dehumanizing? There are too many things in life that are dehumanizing but not being able to get married because you are gay is certainly not one of them!! I find that hysterical, truly! Talk about a drama queen.

Jennifer is astonished.. laughing hysterically.. that we want what is fundamental to our very existence and survival... then is shocked that I get angry about it.

That sums it all up right there.

And so, I asked her if she thought being gay was a choice.. to which she replied.. No, I don't believe it is a choice.

The issue, then, comes down to wording. In Jennifer's mind, the Loving's should have had a "separate but equal" marriage, granted the same rights, but using different "words". After all, society used the same bigotry in opposition to inter-racial couples that some use today with same-sex couples.

Truly, if being gay is not a "choice", then it is simply a natural condition (albeit a minority condition) of some human beings. Therefore, Jennifer is opposed to affording a minority the rights and responsibilities under the exact same laws as everyone else.

Further - she argues a morally inferior viewpoint for those who are different through no fault of their own. After all, if being gay is not a choice, then it is beyond the pale to refuse to treat them the same as everyone else. That is THE definition of bigotry.

If you want to take the theistic viewpoint, then if being gay is not a choice, then God must have created millions of gay people the way they are, and STILL Jennifer insists they are not worth of the same treatment as everyone else, and are STILL somehow morally inferior.

All because she cannot challenge the cultural norms of 2000+ years ago, enshrined in a book, written by men. I would also point out that Jesus said absolutely nothing.. zero.. nadda.. not a damn thing about homosexuality at all.

This is why people like Doug have to insist that being gay is a choice. It flies in the face of logic and science, but they absolutely have to claim that, otherwise they end up in the same bigoted camp as Jennifer. They think they can escape the claims of bigotry solely because they can claim that people are choosing to be gay.

Jennifer focused on the following three quotes from me, as if I'm contradicting myself somehow.

"Marriage" is just a term.. and I really don't care about terms. They are meaningless. What matter is what they represent.

There is no religious marriage in American law. It's all civil law - and it has nothing to do with religion. Each particular religion is more than welcome to define it they way they like..

Everyone should be governed by the the same law.. and what you call it is irrelevant.

I'm not sure how that can be considered inconsistent. Marriage is just a term.. and "marriage" in American law is civil. You don't have to be a religious person to get married.

I simply argue that everyone should be treated the same under the same laws. You can call marriage "hitching" or whatever label you want to use, but it must be used equally for everyone because in the United States, we don't treat minorities any different than the majority. If, as Jennifer says, being gay is not a "choice", then we're simply a minority group - no more moral, no less moral, no different than anyone else except for the gender of those we would marry.

The establishment clause, and the first amendment, certainly will protect churches to view gay couples as they like.. and grants them a freedom to be opposed to same-sex marriage, just as they can oppose inter-racial marriage. That doesn't mean they aren't bigoted.

Ultimately, the problem is that religious people always think the Bible is the last word on a topic, and that societal norms should never change. They completely miss the parallels of slavery and racial bigotry, to homophobia. It's even more illogical coming from people who think that being gay is not a choice.

Society does change. Our viewpoints that harbor old bigotry changes. Those that oppose same-sex marriage now, are EXACTLY the same as that 70% of Americans opposed to Mildred loving marrying Richard Loving. History will judge them exactly the same way.

Indeed, the deep South has traditionally been the most antagonistic to change, and acceptance of racial minorities. The South is, by far, the most antagonistic to same-sex marriage.

The Southern United States is the Bible belt.. dominated by "conservative", Republican politics.

On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement prepared for delivery on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision.

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.

Tell me again, who deserves the "pity"?

What a grand woman she was.. who stood up for herself and refused to allow the majority of bigots belittle her.. or think her desire to marry who she chose somehow "hysterical". If there is a God, she could stand before him and say that she believed the fundamental rights of all human beings. She can be proud.

As for the others.. well.. they might have some explaining to do.