Mildred and Richard Loving, January 26, 1965. (AP Photo)
by Frank James
On this day when people in Indiana and North Carolina are choosing between the Democratic candidates for president, one of whom is the offspring of an interracial union, it's mind-boggling to think that just over 40 years ago, marriages like that which produced Sen. Barack Obama were illegal in many states, including North Carolina where voters are going to the polls.
But all that was changed in 1967 because of two quiet and courageous people who fought for their love by fighting an unjust law, Richard and Mildred Loving of Virginia. Their desire to have their marriage recognized in the eyes of the law in native state led them all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which struck down all anti-miscegenation laws in the nation.
Mildred Jeter Loving, an African-American, died at 68 last week. Her husband was killed in 1975 by a drunken driver. But she and he will forever have a place in history as the Loving family in ironically perfect legal citation Loving v. Virginia.
A humble woman by all accounts, Loving didn't see herself as a hero akin to Rosa Parks. But she and her husband started something that hasn't ended, for champions of same-sex marriage view the Lovings as a model.
The Washington Post has a very good piece today that gives a sense of the bizarreness of the laws that banned interracial marriages and the contorted lengths to which their defenders went.
That wasn't true in 1958, when then-17-year-old Mildred Jeter and her childhood sweetheart, Richard Loving, a 23-year-old white construction worker, drove 90 miles north to marry in the District. Pretty and slender, she was known by her nickname, "Bean," and she was already pregnant with the first of their three children.
Loving later said she didn't realize that it was illegal for a black woman and a white man to wed, although her husband might have. "I think he thought [if] we were married, they couldn't bother us," she said.
Nevertheless, when they returned to Central Point, Va., between Richmond and Spotsylvania, to set up their home, someone called the law.
Caroline County Sheriff R. Garnett Brooks rousted them from their bed at 2 a.m. in July 1958 and told them the District's marriage certificate was no good in Virginia. He took them to jail and charged them with unlawful cohabitation. They pleaded guilty, and Caroline County Circuit Court Judge Leon M. Bazile sentenced them to a year's imprisonment, to be suspended if they left the state for the next 25 years.
"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," Bazile ruled.
The Lovings moved to Washington in 1959 and lived with one of her cousins on Neale Street NE. They didn't like urban life and yearned to return to their rural roots.
Then the story goes on to mention this interesting fact:
Five years later, while visiting her mother, they were arrested again for traveling together. Loving, who had been following the 1964 civil rights legislation, wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to find out if the new law would allow the couple to travel freely. The couple was referred to the American Civil Liberties Union and assigned an attorney, Bernard S. Cohen. "It was a terrible time in America," said Cohen, who was at Loving's home when she died. "Racism was ripe and this was the last de jure vestige of racism -- there was a lot of de facto racism, but this law was . . . the last on-the-books manifestation of slavery in America."
What's interesting about that is that RFK's Justice Dept. referred the woman to the ACLU. What was that about? Was that a decision made by some low-level person in the department or was it made by a higher up for political reasons, someone who wanted to avoid further antagonizing southern voters during a presidential election year?
In any event, what remarkable history Mildred and Richard Loving set in motion. They will be remembered, especially by efforts like Loving Day, a celebration of legalized interracial marriage that is observed by some every year on or around June 12, the day high court handed down its momentous decision.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
""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," Bazile ruled."
I'm sure Scalia wishes he was on the supreme court back then. He probably would have upheld the law on similar grounds as Bazile.
Posted by: syj | May 6, 2008 10:25 AM
Today we have an American, of African descent, running for the Presidency!! America has begun to work through its period of insensitivity and inhumanity, from our past and present!! Here is hoping, we continue to recognize our mistakes, as a nation, and remedy them, any way we can. Our African-American population, I think, for starters, would appreciate an apology and then, we could discuss the reparations that could be considered. We must also try to make amends with our Native American population. These two original sins, the historical fact of slavery in America and the attempted annihilation of the American Indian population, must be addressed honestly and fairly!!! I am a man of Irish heritage and I know, only to well, what oppression has brought to my ancestors in Eire! Today the Irish are partially free of English rule, but for 800 years the Irish had to contend with unspeakable atrocities at the hands of English soldier-criminals. Those days are coming to a close in Eire as I hope they will be closing here in this great nation of ours, America. One way we can begin the healing process is by recognizing the great contributions the African- American community provided in helping to sustain the great American dream, in spite of their horrific treatment during the times of slavery and afterwards!! A vote for Senator Obama would be a great signal to our nation and the world, that America is going to practice what it preaches: All men and women are equals!! Vote for Senator Obama!!! It's the right thing to do!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | May 6, 2008 10:40 AM
Oh, Don--your torturing your prose to make this stick.
The Obamas are Black Nationalists and you know it.
So does Christopher Hitchens.
http://www.slate.com/id/2190589/]
And there's nothing wrong with being a Black Nationalist.
There is a problem with saying you're a 'uniter' when you're not.
There's something wrong with being a HYPOCRITE.
Posted by: Loving is NOT relevant to Obama | May 6, 2008 11:09 AM
The Obamas are Black Nationalists and you know it.
Posted by: Loving is NOT relevant to Obama | May 6, 2008 11:09 AM
What an indepth look into the race issue. 40 years ago a white and black couldn't get married. They could suffer all sorts of discrimination, but that has nothing to do with the race issue and Obama......BRILLIANT!
Posted by: bill r. | May 6, 2008 11:21 AM
Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | May 6, 2008 10:40 AM
People like Don are the HOPE of America. Not all whites are racist or prejudiced. Father Fleger from the Southside of Chicago is one of my favorite people in the WORLD and he is white. Race relations were making a turn for the better until a lot of white people began the insane notion that THEY are the ones being discriminated against. You hear it over and over, but you never hear one EXAMPLE. And its downright insulting to our entire race. Black people have endured and we turn on the tv and a brother is getting shot with 50 bullets. I am hurt for us and those Native Americans - as I WAS FOR THE JEWS concerning Hitler.
And then comes Barack Obama - with healing words in his mouth and what happens. Clintons mount a racist attack on the man and paint him as an african american with a racist pastor. That man NEVER mentioned his race. And his pastor - contrary to belief - is a GREAT american that refuses to treat white people like most blacks do. With fear and trepidation. And have to go to church and sit with Dr. Wright and many others to remind us that we are still human beings.
Don what you have written hear is HOPEFUL, honest, and healing. I receive it in the spirit of true brotherhood. Now that is an American gesture.
Posted by: Keith Lifetime Chicagoan and Southsider | May 6, 2008 11:36 AM
Posted by: Keith Lifetime Chicagoan and Southsider | May 6, 2008 11:36 AM
I agree 100% with Don and Keith. People who use the Wright issue have the gall to think they are being discriminated against as if 40 years ago discrimination disappeared.
Posted by: bill r. | May 6, 2008 11:55 AM
God bless these 2 people. I hope they have been reunited in heavan.
I also hope that Tiger Woods and Ellen Nordgren, Roger Ebert and his wfie, and other mix raced couples are aware of the sacrafices of those who had to fight discrimination before them.
Just a side note, but the film "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" came out the same year as the Supreme Courts ruling. Coincidence? Yeah, probably. But still interesting.
Posted by: Steve34 | May 6, 2008 12:08 PM
"bizarreness of the laws that banned interracial law and the contorted lengths to which their defenders went."
Someday we'll be able to say the same thing about laws banning any marriages between two consenting adults no matter what race, creed or gender those adults are.
Posted by: Cheryl | May 6, 2008 12:21 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: syj | May 6, 2008 10:25 AM
What a dumb thing to write, syj.
The Court decided Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 8 (1967) on the unremarkable and well established principles that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States" and, therefore, "that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny . . ." (See Id., at 10-11.) Inasmuch as the guiding principles in Loving were based on the explicit language of the 14th Amendment (e.g. No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") one might rightly expect Justice Scalia, a textualist/originalist, to agree with that decision.
And, indeed, he does. In one case he explicitly wrote:
"In Loving, however, we correctly applied heightened scrutiny, rather than the usual rational basis review, because the Virginia statute was 'designed to maintain White Supremacy.' Id., at 6, 11. A racially discriminatory purpose is always sufficient to subject a law to strict scrutiny, even a facially neutral law that makes no mention of race. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 241-242 (1976). "
Thus your suggestion that Justice Scalia stands for every neanderthal social position you don't particularly like is borne of nothing more than your ignorance and bias. He would not have voted the way you suggest had he been on the Court that decided Loving.
Posted by: John W. | May 6, 2008 12:27 PM
Thus your suggestion that Justice Scalia stands for every neanderthal social position you don't particularly like is borne of nothing more than your ignorance and bias. He would not have voted the way you suggest had he been on the Court that decided Loving.
Posted by: John W. | May 6, 2008 12:27 PM
I guess it's only some neaderthal social positions he stands for, like opposition to equal protection of the rights of homosexual americans to marry or fro that matter to have sexual relations, as he showed in Lawrence. I personally think that Lawrence shows clearly where Scalia would have gone with Loving...don't interfere with the state's right to descriminate.
Posted by: Lawrence | May 6, 2008 12:50 PM