Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
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.
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.
Comments
And people today still try to deny the parallels between this case and the fight for same sex marriage.
So now according to the Supreme Court of the United States marriage is a basic civil right.
According to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights marriage is a human right.
what rational basis do we have for excluding homosexuals from this right?
Posted by: Robert | June 15, 2007 10:10 AM
'cause they're "icky?"
There is no rational basis, everything those who oppose gay marriage point to can be refuted by actual evidence. It all boils down to a few cherry picked lines in the Bible that really only serve to support their basic idea that gay = man sex = icky.
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 15, 2007 10:41 AM
It's only been forty years? So my parents' 1966 marriage would probably have been illegal in much of the South? I'm truly shocked.
Posted by: IanR | June 15, 2007 10:48 AM
Mrs. Loving has done the honorable thing, as did Coretta Scott King (the wife of Martin Luther King, Jr.): recognize that we are all engaged in a struggle for civil rights. Mrs. King was in favor of equal rights for same-sex couples, and Mrs. Loving has expressed the same.
They recognize that: civil rights for some means no civil rights for others.
I am proud of the fact that the MA state Constitutional convention yesterday voted not to allow an anti-civil-rights state constitutional amendment to proceed.
Posted by: raj | June 15, 2007 10:54 AM
I just dugg it!
I trully hope it gets dugg up. Everybody should read this!
Posted by: Alex the Canuck | June 15, 2007 10:57 AM
I'm white, my wife is black. It is very uncomfortable sometimes. That's all I'll say.
Posted by: Juju-Quisp | June 15, 2007 11:15 AM
I've posted this at my own blog, Ed. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Posted by: meatbrain | June 15, 2007 11:32 AM
At the time of Loving, around 17 states (mostly former slave-holding states) still had such laws. After Loving, such laws became defunct. Alabama was the last state to actually remove the laws from the books, in 2000.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 15, 2007 11:38 AM
So God created man five separate times?
I'm confused. The other creationists keep telling me it was just once.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | June 15, 2007 12:35 PM
So there should be a law against the Village People?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nHuw1OasKw
Posted by: kehrsam | June 15, 2007 1:04 PM
Just don't tell the fundies why the young men are going to the YMCA or joining the Navy.
Posted by: MAJeff | June 15, 2007 1:18 PM
Thank you Richard and Mildred Loving! It all it matters is character. It does not matter if a person is African-American, Caucasian, Native American, or Asian. We wish you well Richard and he went Home to be with the Lord on June 29, 1975. God bless the Lovings and the relatives.
Posted by: Vasili | June 15, 2007 1:25 PM
So there should be a law against the Village People?
Yes, yes there should.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 15, 2007 1:55 PM
By Mildred Loving*
Why the asterisk?
Posted by: Coin | June 15, 2007 3:21 PM
Err, never mind, it's in the PDF.
Posted by: Coin | June 15, 2007 3:23 PM
Coin... from the pdf file:
Posted by: doctorgoo | June 15, 2007 3:24 PM
Hi Ed,
I another thread where we disagreed I said...
This is an example of what I was talking about.
Nicely done
Posted by: Thought Provoker | June 15, 2007 3:32 PM
Maybe.
As regards the article, I'm truly stunned. Having done a lot of reading on this, I know that Mrs. Loving is not, as she says, a political person, and generally didn't like the attention paid to Loving v. Virginia. I'm impressed by, and grateful for, this statement.
Posted by: Skemono | June 15, 2007 3:56 PM
It's stuff like this that shows the fallacy of the "slavery ended a long time ago, get over it" argument. At the time of Loving, it had been over a century since legal slavery. Clearly we've been pretty slow as a nation to just "get over it."
Posted by: Mark | June 15, 2007 6:26 PM
Agreed, Mark.
Posted by: Skemono | June 15, 2007 10:31 PM
What can I say? That is a beautiful and eloquent letter. It says it all.
Posted by: Jeff Knapp | June 16, 2007 2:43 PM
Whenever a member of my family goes off on "activist judges" ruling against the wishes of the people, I remind them of this case.
"So are you saying that you wish my marriage was still illegal in 17 states? Because if it wasn't for an "activist" ruling, it still would be."
Posted by: Ick of the East | June 17, 2007 9:09 AM
A little copy-and-paste issue:
As a check of the PDF confirms, the (capitalized) word "Loving" in the final sentence should be italicized; she's referring to the court decision, not (directly) to her surname.
Posted by: Rieux | June 18, 2007 4:28 PM
Four days after the victory from the U. S. Supreme Court that Mildred Loving and Richard Loving won, my mother graduated from high school in Oakland, California, the same day Reginald Leigh Denny went Home to be with the Lord!
Posted by: Vasili | August 10, 2007 3:59 PM
Richard Perry Loving's ancestors came from Britain and Ireland, while Mildred Dolores Jeter-Loving's ancestors came from Africa and Rappahannock Tribe. The Rappahannock Tribe, like other Native Americans came from Siberia.
Posted by: Vasili | December 12, 2007 12:26 PM
This country was founded on the lies of one man to another man in the name of GOD. If the courts still vote every for years on slavery and feel that it is justified, than why is it hard for you to beleave that the goverment will tell you who you can and cant marry.The country is built on the misjustice of others is why is this hard for people to believe..
Posted by: Missjustice | May 5, 2008 7:39 PM
Really. One man, you say? Who was it?
Posted by: Skemono | May 5, 2008 9:05 PM
why do people seem to make God think like us.they don'tknow who God might be? these people must have thought that God was and or is a racist. if God wanted us to stay in the place where we live. why did God gave us feet? we were not to move from place to place? just stand there, not to move at all? to say God gave each race a place. why did man learn how to make things to travel here and there. invention is way of God? i believe God wanted man to move about through out this world of ours, to seek and find new ways to meet different peoples and customs. i find that the judge did not know what he was talking about. why wasn't he living in the place where his ancestors came from. why was he living in a place that native americans dwell for centuries. who the hell was he? people listen to me love have no eyes to see what color you are.love does have no sense of judgement. love is free and natural. it is hate, upbringing, brain washing,and ignorance seem to rule our thought and feelings. for love neither have time nor patience to make sense of things. love is free with no conditions at all. we the people want to control no wonder people so unhappy. that is what i think what about you. what do you think, huh?!
Posted by: Lynette | May 5, 2008 9:29 PM
thanks
Posted by: netlog | January 23, 2009 5:24 PM
thank you.
Posted by: aşk şiirleri | March 18, 2009 2:15 PM
As a black woman in an interracial marriage and family, I find that Mildred Loving is a role model for all persons who believe that love is the answer for any type of relationship. Even today, I find that I go through the same criticisms and ingnorance that she faced in her day. I just hope that my children even being mixed with black and white will find it a lot easier when they want to marry someone that they love no matter who they are.
Posted by: Merrique | April 15, 2009 10:24 PM
thank you
Posted by: aşk sözleri | August 11, 2009 8:45 AM