TERRE HAUTE —
In the summer of 1958, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving left their home city of Richmond, Va., for Washington, D.C., so they could be married. Jeter, who was 18 and pregnant, was of African and Native American ancestry, while Loving, six years her senior, was white.
The two were prohibited from marrying in Virginia by the state’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924. A few weeks after the Lovings came home, police descended upon their house and confronted them in their own bed. The police had timed their raid in anticipation of catching the couple engaged in sex, which also was illegal between races.
The Lovings’ D.C. marriage license compounded their crime because Virginia not only outlawed interracial marriage and sex, it also prohibited mixed-race couples from marrying in another state and coming back to Virginia.
On Jan. 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty at trial to the felony charges of marrying out of state, returning to Virginia and “cohabitating as man and wife against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.” To avoid a year in prison, Mildred and Richard moved to the District of Columbia.
Over the next eight years, thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union, their determination to be legally recognized as sanctioned husband and wife wound its way through the lower and appellate courts. Virginia and other states with similar anti-miscegenation laws fought the entire way, arguing everything from the need to maintain racial purity and states’ rights to God’s divine and deliberate discrimination.
On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in the Lovings’ favor, pronouncing marriage a fundamental right of U.S. citizens and finding Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act a violation of the Lovings’ Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Anti-miscegenation statutes throughout the nation were wiped out.
Loving vs. Virginia has enjoyed a renaissance this past week, outside of the customary confines of law school curriculum and civil rights history: A federal judge in California expressed similar reasoning in his ruling against Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot measure that made same-gender marriages illegal in the state.
Denying lesbian and gay couples state-sanctioned marriage — with all its legal and financial privileges and benefits — placed California in violation of the United States Constitution, ruled Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker.
Appointed by the first President George Bush, Walker wrote in his 135-page ruling: “The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal. Proposition 8 violates the equal protection clause because it does not treat them equally.”
The case, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, was brought on behalf of two, same-gender couples and was argued before Walker in January. The plaintiff’s legal team is an unlikely but powerful duo: liberal Democrat David Boies and conservative Republican Ted Olsen, who had been on opposite sides of the Florida recount case during the 2000 Presidential election. Although California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s name represented the state in the lawsuit, neither he nor Attorney General Jerry Brown supported the defense with legal or monetary aid, and both hailed Walker’s ruling.
Walker said the defenders of Proposition 8 had failed to demonstrate how same-sex marriage threatens the welfare of the state and thus justifies discrimination against homosexual couples.
Proposition 8, Walker said, “was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. The Constitution cannot control private biases, but neither can it tolerate them …”
“That the majority of California voters [52.3 percent] supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant,” Walker wrote. “Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
Last month, a federal judge in Boston employed similar logic in ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1998, violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Likewise, in the 2009 unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court that overturned a 10-year prohibition of same-sex marriages, Justice Robert Cady wrote: “We are firmly convinced that the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective.”
Referring to the “religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate,” the seven-justice Iowa court said: “Our [state] constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a duel-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection under the law.”
At Mildred and Richard Lovings’ trial in 1959, the sitting judge, Leon N. Bazile, defended what the state of Virginia insisted was the legitimacy and authority of its Racial Integrity Act.
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and he placed them on separate continents,” Bazile said. “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.”
On the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, Mildred Loving, in her mid-60s and a widow, felt compelled to speak about her and her husband’s fight for their peace and dignity as a married couple. In a rare public statement, she said:
“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.”
Some day, when appeals in the Proposition 8 and Boston cases are heard by the U.S. Supreme Court (as all involved parties predict they will be), Mildred Loving will not physically be there: She died in May 2008. But the Lovings’ struggle to be recognized as worthy of a government-issued marriage license in the United States of America will be as present as the Constitution that affirmed their worth.
Stephanie Salter can be reached at (812) 231-4229 or stephanie.salter@tribstar.com.
Opinion
STEPHANIE SALTER: Part of the back story of recent same-sex marriage rulings
- Opinion
-
-
RONN MOTT’S MINUTE: Robins
I’m sure you know the American bird is the Bald Eagle and I’m sure you know it almost didn’t get that job.
-
READERS’ FORUM: May 29, 2012
• ‘Laboring in a rut of Darwinism’
-
LIZ CIANCONE: Avoiding the heat no puzzle to Indy the dog
When it gets this hot, I’m with my eldest granddog, Indy. We both look for a room with a ceiling fan. She also demands that the room have a tile floor to cool both bottom and top. She has the floor of course, but there is a cool corner for me in a comfortable chair and a small table for my ice water.
-
EDITORIAL: Saluting his sacrifice
If you need a new reason to reflect upon the historic meaning of Memorial Day, let the ultimate sacrifice that Arronn D. Fields made a week ago today be your inspiration.
-
READERS’ FORUM: May 28, 2012
• Veterans, especially from WWII, deserve our lasting thanks
• All Bibles agree on ‘Golden Rule’
-
MARK BENNETT: Stuck in the middle with you
Thank goodness, members of Congress do not drive in the Indianapolis 500.
-
EDITORIAL: Remembering Henryville
In the era of instant communication, the past seems to arrive much quicker.
-
FLASHPOINT: Is this really the best we can do?
As you know if you pay attention to national affairs, the United States faces a perfect fiscal storm at the end of this year.
-
BRIAN HOWEY: Climbing the Ladder: 51 percent of the population in Indiana is female, and 31 of the 150
It was, utterly, one of the most painful political episodes I have ever had to watch as a political writer.
-
READERS’ FORUM: May 27, 2012
• Alaska connection vital to Hoosiers who love wildlife
• Commissioners sell out Woodgate
• Same-sex marriage equalizes for all
• Mourdock can’t compromise on taxes
• Sweet lessons on ‘Lemonade Day’
• African Americans, slavery and Islam
-
READERS' FORUM: May 25, 2012
• Mayor, Republic solve trash issue
• Negative ads pervert politics
• VCSC team gives all-star response
-
RONN MOTT’S MINUTE: Confused
I am confused. For those who know me, that is not an unusual state. But, while listening to a political commercial on TV, I heard the announcer say the candidate was “real conservative.” If he is a “real conservative,” is someone not quite a “real conservative” an “unreal conservative”?
-
EDITORIAL: Towering response
It comes as incredibly sad news that a Garfield Towers resident has succumbed as the result of a fire last week at the northside apartment complex.
-
READERS' FORUM: May 24, 2012
• Cartoon unfunny, insults disabled
-
MARK BENNETT: 500 history runs in her veins, but she’ll pass on the buttermilk
Katy Balch appreciates tradition. The 20-year-old from Terre Haute understands how neatly her role as one of 33 Indianapolis 500 princesses fits her family.
-
READERS’ FORUM: May 23, 2012
• The rule of the ‘government czar’
• Promises often don’t prove noble
• Smoking not going away soon
• Primary voting gets it wrong
• Where’s the pride in our parks?
-
RONN MOTT’S MINUTE: GSA Debacle
The recent General Services Administration debacle is enough to gag a whale.
-
READERS’ FORUM: May 22, 2012
• Try a new approach to control drugs
• Our president is ruining the USA
-
LIZ CIANCONE: She wasn’t hooked by the fishing hobby
I’m told that eveyone should have a hobby. If “hobby” means collecting something like stamps or coins, I don’t have one.
-
EDITORIAL: Noteworthy in the news
• Cream of the crop
• Keep the ideas flowing
• Remembering fallen officers
-
READERS’ FORUM: May 21, 2012
• Some still don’t understand presence of pervasive racism
• Thanks for help in emergency
-
EDITORIAL: Hazards of the spring abundant now on I-70
A major holiday weekend is approaching. The weather has been consistently inviting for travel and outdoor activity. Gas prices are even inching downward.
-
MARK BENNETT: Roadway Role Models: Adults need to remember habits often rub off on teens
Plenty of dads connected with a car ad that first aired on TV two years ago.
-
READERS’ FORUM: May 20, 2012
St. Ann’s gives thanks to those who supported its mission
No deception, just GOP spin
Disdain for only liberals
Writer doesn’t know the Bible
Flawed primary discourages voters
Recognition was much appreciated
Who’s fanning marriage issue?
-
FLASHPOINT:Bipartisan vs. Nonpartisan
During the primary election season there was much discussion regarding whether bipartisanship is a positive or negative attribute as it relates to the work of the United States Congress.
-
EDITORIAL: Embrace the Sycamores
Terre Haute should understand the rarity of an opportunity to celebrate a championship.
-
READERS’ FORUM: May 18, 2012
• Romney imperfect, but better option
• Great support for Strassenfest
-
RONN MOTT’S MINUTE: ‘Political Super Pacs’
The Supreme Court has told us it is not constitutional to restrict how much money someone can put into a super political action committee.
-
EDITORIAL: Good choice for stability
For the first time in 25 years, Indiana will have a new chief justice for its Supreme Court. For those who value stability on the state’s highest court — and we count ourselves among those who do — the appointment Tuesday of longtime Justice Brent Dickson is good news.
-
READERS’ FORUM: May 17, 2012
• Don’t ignore what GOP won’t tell you
• Scotties help keep neighborhood tidy
- More Opinion Headlines
-




