Writing to Right the Wrong – Reflections on Loving v. Virginia

As a lawyer, I am plagued by a three year hellish experience known as law school.  When I began to think about how I would participate in today’s “blog-in” on Proposition 8, my mind ran to the case of Loving v. Virginia,  388 U.S. 1 (1967).  A white man had married a “mixed race” American Indian/African American woman in DC in 1958.  They got married in DC to evade Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act, which said a “white” person could not marry any “non-white” person. (Let us pause for a moment on those words “racial integrity act” and contemplate similar legislative experiments in Germany in the 1930’s.)  

Virginia, which prides itself on being hospitable to lovers, was not the only jurisdiction to have such a statute on the books.   Upon moving back to Virginia, Mr. and Mrs. Loving (how ironic the surname) must have attracted some attention, because local police raided their home, hoping to catch them in a sexual act, which was, in and of itself, a violation of Virginia law. In her own defense, Mrs. Loving pointed to the couple’s DC marriage license hanging on their bedroom wall.  The cops were suffused with glee.  The Lovings pled (yes, I say pled) guilty and were sentenced to one year in the can, suspended, if they left Virginia.    

Mildred and Richard Loving

 They skedaddled back to DC, but that terribly hooded organization, the ACLU, filed suit on their behalf to vacate the Virginia criminal judgment and sentencing. Churches, even the Roman Catholic,  got involved on the Loving’s side. When the case got to the US Supreme Court, the justices struck down Virginia’s law as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.  

No judge, lawyer or law professor has been more eloquent about this case than the Plaintiff herself. On the 40th anniversary of the decision, Mildred Loving had this to say about gay marriage:

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.

To attempt to add or detract from that statement would be the height of arrogance on my part.  I will only refer to a statement by Congressman Barney Frank made recently in a debate. Barney said he could not, for the life of him, understand what motivates people to interfere in the happiness of others.  Neither can I.

‘Nuff said.