TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Gay Marriage Rites And Civil Rights

ADVERTISEMENT

JOSEPH H. BROWN

The Tampa Tribune

Published: May 11, 2008

Mildred Loving died last Friday, very quietly and with little fanfare. It should not have been that way, but it was symbolic of the way she lived.

Loving, along with her late husband, was part of the landmark 1967 Supreme Court decision, Loving vs. Virginia, that changed the nation. To me it should be right up there with Brown vs. Board of Education for the dramatic transformation it produced. Then again, she and her husband weren't political or attention seekers. They just wanted to be married.

Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving were married in June 1958 in Washington, D.C. She was black; he was white. They then settled in Caroline County, Va., but soon their home - or more specifically their bedroom - was raided by police officers in the middle of the night in a manner not unlike the Gestapo of Nazi Germany. A grand jury indicted the Lovings for violating Virginia's law against marriage between whites and nonwhites. The two pleaded guilty and were given a choice: Go to jail for a year or take a 25-year suspended sentence on condition that they leave Virginia and not return. The Lovings opted to leave and moved to Washington.

In 1963, on the heels of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, they launched a court fight to overturn their convictions. In 1967 their case finally reached the Supreme Court, which had no trouble concluding that anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause barring race-based discrimination.

Still Deciding Who Can Marry

Loving's death comes at a time when the nation is again debating who should and shouldn't be married. Today it involves homosexuals.

In November, Floridians will vote on an amendment to make sure two men or women of the same sex don't get to tie the knot - even though gay marriage is already against the law in Florida. There's also the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996.

Still, many states put these amendments on ballots because many Republican officials see them as a "get out the vote" tool and a means of putting Democratic candidates on the spot with their support or opposition. Since the Defense of Marriage Act already "protects" marriage in its traditional state, however, these referendums are legally redundant.

Fewer Marriage Bans, Period

I don't agree with the similarities many gay marriage proponents have tried to draw between the Lovings and laws that forbid homosexuals from marrying; the circumstances are/were different. Still, if gay marriage is legalized, I can live with it. And it won't destroy marriage as we've known it because we heterosexuals are already doing that.

Last June 12, on the 40th anniversary of her court case, Loving, who had always avoided the limelight, released a statement that read in part:

"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."

Think about that when you vote in November.

Joseph H. Brown is a Tribune editorial writer.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT