Mildred Loving Says Loving is For Everyone

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.

- Mildred Loving

In the summer of 1958, Mildred Jeter (a black woman) and Richard Loving (a white man) crossed state borders to marry in Washington, DC. After their marriage, they returned to Virginia and continued their relationship only to be arrested in the middle of the night and convicted of misogynistic crimes. Mildred Loving spoke out in defense of gay marriage on the 40^th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision:

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that… it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love…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…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.

The criminal convictions for interracial marriage and the brutal hate crimes that over shadowed the civil rights movement in the 60’s is different from the gay rights movement of today. Yet, the Loving’s story seems so familiar to gays and lesbians all across the country that leave their home state to marry the person they love.

Echoing the majority rule of Prop 8, the majority of people during the ruling of Loving v. Virginia believed that it was God’s intention to keep the races separate. It wasn’t until sometime after Brown v. Board of Education that interracial marriage was legalized.

The Virginia trial judge that convicted Mildred and Richard Loving declared that the

“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.”

That sounds starkly similar to the argument of the religious right against gay marriage: “It is God’s intention that marriage be between a man and a woman.”

Using God as a wedge issue to elevate the majority and discriminate against the minority is not an innovative argument. Actually, the same verbiage used to describe interracial marriages as ungodly or unnatural is used to describe gay marriages today.

Although there are major differences between the experiences of the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement, let us remember that at one time the majority believed that interracial marriage was unnatural. Let us remember that at one time the majority believed that blacks should not have the right to vote or attend white schools.

If we are resilient and remember the history of our nation, one day America will rejoice in saying: At one time, the majority believed that gays should not have the right to marry.