Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

National News
See other National News Articles

Title: Quiet Va. Wife Ended Interracial Marriage Ban in U.S. -- Mildred Jeter Loving dead at age 68
Source: Washington Post
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... 008050502439.html?hpid=topnews
Published: May 6, 2008
Author: Patricia Sullivan
Post Date: 2008-05-06 15:40:20 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 3394
Comments: 12

Mildred Loving and her husband, Richard, took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1967 struck down bans on interracial marriage. (1965 Photo By Associated Press)

Mildred Jeter Loving, 68, a black woman whose refusal to accept Virginia's ban on interracial marriage led to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1967 that struck down similar laws across the country, died of pneumonia Friday at her home in Milford, Va.

The Loving v. Virginia decision overturned long-standing legal and social prohibitions against miscegenation in the United States. Celebrated at the time, the landmark case sunk to obscurity until a 1996 made-for-television movie and a 2004 book revived interest in how the young, small-town black and white couple changed history.

A modest homemaker, Loving never thought she had done anything extraordinary. "It wasn't my doing," Loving told the Associated Press in a rare interview a year ago. "It was God's work."

Today, according to the Census Bureau, there are 4.3 million interracial couples in the nation.

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.

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."

With fellow attorney Philip J. Hirschkop, Cohen took the case to the high court. Cohen said the couple didn't understand the importance of the case to anyone other than themselves. "When I told them I thought the case was going all the way to the Supreme Court, [Richard Loving's] jaw dropped. He didn't understand why I didn't go to Judge Bazile and tell him they loved each other and they should be allowed to live where they wished," said Cohen, now a retired state delegate from Alexandria.

On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared: "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. . . . There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause."

At a news conference at their attorneys' offices, the Lovings seemed stunned.

"I feel free now. . . . It was a great burden," Mildred Loving quietly said, according to news articles.

She and her husband returned to Caroline County, where they both were born. He built their house, and the couple settled there. Richard Loving was killed in 1975 when a drunk driver struck their car. Mildred Loving, who was also in the car, lost her right eye in the collision.

A 1996 Showtime movie about the case, "Mr. and Mrs. Loving," told their story. "None of it was very true," she said in 2007. "The only part of it right was I had three children."

Phyl Newbeck, a Vermont lawyer, saw the movie and wanted to read more about it. No one had written a book, so she sought out Loving for interviews but ran into the same shyness others had encountered. "She was very quiet. She really didn't like to talk about herself," Newbeck said yesterday. Newbeck's book, "Virginia Hasn't Always Been for Lovers," was published in 2004. "To her death, she never felt she had done anything noteworthy. She never considered herself a pioneer."

Others did. Loving's church, St. Stephens Baptist Church in Bowling Green, Va., gave her a certificate recognizing the trailblazing lawsuit.

"The preacher at my church classified me with Rosa Parks," she told The Washington Post in 1992. "I don't feel like that. Not at all. What happened, we really didn't intend for it to happen. What we wanted, we wanted to come home."

A son, Donald Loving, died in 2000.

Survivors include two children, Peggy Fortune of Central Point and Sidney Loving of Tappahannock, Va.; eight grandchildren; and 11 great-grandchildren.


Poster Comment:

Thank you Richard and Mildred Loving. (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Ferret Mike (#0)

Now we learn the rest of the story. Thanks.

Lod  posted on  2008-05-06   15:45:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Ferret Mike (#0)

Loving was a great name for that case.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-06   15:47:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Ferret Mike (#0)

What an interesting story. Thanks for the post. This serves as a shining example lof why just because the state proclaims something to be a ''law'', it is not necessarily valid. I am going to share this story with my wife.

MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist."
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Artisan  posted on  2008-05-06   16:03:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: lodwick (#1)

African American men are 2.6 times more likely to be married to White American women than African American women to White American men.

I am surprised at this statistic. I thought it was more like 10 times more likely. That's what I see around here. Of course, a lot of the blacks-on-blondes (and, no kidding, the woman is more often than not a blondie) are young people in cohabitation and with little to no intention of ever marrying one another.

“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston

Sam Houston  posted on  2008-05-06   16:07:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Artisan (#3)

Thanks. I was moved by this story in how it changed things for the better, and how little has changed with how government likes to interfere needlessly with decent, and law biding citizens.

To call a man and a woman joining in holy matrimony out of love and a deep commitment to one another an assault on the peace and dignity of the state is an act of obscenity we still see the likes of to an increasing degree in these United States in other issues in where government puts it's boot on the throat of our lives.

And we all know this is wrong and must be stopped.


"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy

Ferret Mike  posted on  2008-05-06   16:09:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Sam Houston (#4)

African American men are 2.6 times more likely to be married to White American women than African American women to White American men.

I am surprised at this statistic. I thought it was more like 10 times more likely.

I am not only surprised; I flat out don’t believe those numbers. I used to live in the land of fruits & nuts (Mexifornia) and I hardly ever saw a normal looking white man with negro woman. I’m going to go with your 10 to 1 ratio until I dig up some stats.

Of course Mexicans are counted as White, when it suits the statisticians fancy. If a Mexican beats up a white guy, it’s a white on white crime. A white beats up a Mexican, it is a racist crime.

karelian  posted on  2008-05-06   17:08:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Ferret Mike (#5)

From my view (Catholic), I found the following very interesting regarding marriage and the state:

(from a post I made i this thread) freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...? ArtNum=75652&Disp=12#C11

I have recently been reading humanum genus by Pope Leo XIII, which is one of the many Papal encyclicals on freemasonry. He addresses that very issue of state control over the marriage contract. this is from April 1884. So the basis for no state involvement in marriage is indeed compatible with a Christian , (in this case Catholic Christian,) view :

21. What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavored to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract—that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite. With the greatest unanimity the sect of the Freemasons also endeavors to take to itself the education of youth. They think that they can easily mold to their opinions that soft and pliant age, and bend it whither they will; and that nothing can be more fitted than this to enable them to bring up the youth of the State after their own plan. Therefore, in the education and instruction of children they allow no share, either of teaching or of discipline, to the ministers of the Church; and in many places they have procured that the education of youth shall be exclusively in the hands of laymen, and that nothing which treats of the most important and most holy duties of men to God shall be introduced into the instructions on morals.

MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist."
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Artisan  posted on  2008-05-06   17:09:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Sam Houston. all (#4)

I agree with you, but here in Austin, Dear God, you can see anything on anything 'relationships.'

And you know that I'm not joking about that.

Totally amazing.

Lod  posted on  2008-05-06   17:13:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Artisan. the thread (#7) (Edited)

Help me here -

There was no state 'licensing' of marriages until after the War of Northern Aggression - correct?

Lod  posted on  2008-05-06   17:16:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Sam Houston (#4)

I'd have thought the ratio would be much larger also. 2.6 is probably not a valid stat.

it seems white men with hispanics and asians is much more common than white men with black women. I do remember one such charming couple though?

ha ha. I once met Roxie Roker at a Jack la Laines gym grand opening in the 80's. she was nice.

MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist."
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Artisan  posted on  2008-05-06   17:19:08 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: lodwick (#9)

not sure about that one. would make for an interesting discussion though, when speaking to people about what 'authority' does the state even have in these and many other matters. In that regard this story of the Loving family is a valuable tool to get people to think. In an age where people dont seem to question the authority of govt, ( at least most of the people i come across) this might actually get them to think.

MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist."
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Artisan  posted on  2008-05-06   17:22:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Artisan. the thread (#11)

In an age where people dont seem to question the authority of govt, ( at least most of the people i come across) this might actually get them to think.

Is critical thinking still possible, or legal?

With the gov now giving itself the 'power' to steal our babies' DNA as their own property for 'research,' I'm sure that there will soon enough be developed the 'total dumb-ass' gene to be given to little kids' rounds of shots.

Dr. Mengele lives on, and on.

Lod  posted on  2008-05-06   18:00:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest