Letters to the Editor
-
Interstingly enough...
The same day I read Midred Loving's obit, I also read that a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania is dead on arrival in the state house (after having passed the state senate judiciary and appropriations committees). It's discouraging to see how many politicians are enthusiastic about denying gays and lesbians their civil rights. (The amendment would not only have forbidden marriage and civil unions, it would have eliminated many of the legal protections that same-sex couples can now obtain on the grounds that they are a "semblance of marriage.") Reading their arguments, I was struck by how much they sounded like a retread of the ones Mildred Loving and her husband heard against their interracial marriage years ago. And yes, I do think this is a similar issue of bigotry; if these politicians weren't prejudiced against homosexual people in the first place, they wouldn't think it was such a big deal if same-sex couples were permitted to legally marry.
Problems with marriage aren't the fault of gays and lesbians. They're the fault of straight people, who have pretty much trashed it as an institution. If these politicians were really serious about protecting marriage, they'd be pushing things like mandatory pre-marital counseling, crackdowns on spousal abuse, and making divorces harder to get. Yet I hear not a peep out of any of them about these issues.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how people want to tell you how to live your life...
As if there weren't enough real issues in the world, people have to step in and prevent you from doing something that hurts no one and makes you happy.
I keep hoping we're beyond this but I don't see it, when "gay marriage" was the lead issue in 2004 (as opposed to, say, hundreds of thousands dead in a pointless war and the Treasury looted).
RIP, Mildred Loving - she fought the good fight, the world is better for it (though what a tragedy that her husband died so young...)
-
Bless you, Mrs. Loving
Bless you for understanding the larger lesson of your own struggle - that no one should be denied their civil rights.
-
Too bad she didn't live to see it.
And after last night, Barrack Obama, the child of a mixed marriage, is almost certain to be the next President of the United States.
Too bad she didn't live to see that.
-
@ TomRitchford
I fear gay marriage will be the lead issue again in 2008.
-
Government must get out of the marriage business.
The marriage problem for gays and other minority groups is based mostly on religion, but this can be solved if we separate marriage from government. The government should grant domestic partnership licenses to consenting adults (including more than two adults), and leave the rite of passage known as marriage to religious and other non-governmental institutions. The domestic partnership license can provide the full panoply of legal rights currently offered by a marriage certificate.
This way, consenting adults of whatever orientation or other quality can obtain the legal protections of marriage, and religious institutions will be free to discriminate in accordance with their superstitions.
Problem solved. Next!
-
From the statement Mildred Loving made made on the 40th anniversary of winning the case
"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."
Mildred Loving, Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007, The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement
What a lovely, kind woman.
-
Loving Day
the name is appropriate.
Too bad she had less than ten years with the husband she fought so bravely to marry. Life can be a cruel irony, too.
-
Denying gay marriage is an attack on marriage
I think it does damage to the institution of marriage to deny it to gay couples, forcing them to live as uncommitted individuals. It really baffles me how marriage can be damaged by anyone who wishes to marry another adult.
-
thank you, Broadsheet....
Thank you, Broadsheet, for a posting which should serve to remind everyone to value a smart, brave, and good woman.
I didn't know that Mildred Loving had died, so thank you for your good tribute to her.
sincerely,
David Terry
-
Hmmm
Read the whole story and you discover that she was 11 years old and he was 17 when they started dating. That sort of put a strange spin on the whole thing for me...
-
Actually...
Loving is incorrect in the quote given. It's actually rather intellectually shallow and conflating her particular situation with the issue of state's rights and the purpose of marriage.
That the state was inappropriately regulating interracial marriage out of racism and irrational fears is beside the point of whether marriage is inherently state regulated.
Marriage's central purpose has always been a social contract between the individuals, AND the community recognizing it and conferring certain benefits given with the community's consent. As opposed to relationships generally which are entirely between individuals and confer no endorsement or benefits from the community and therefore require no community consent either.
btw, As a mixed person myself, and as someone who has studied the issue, I can understand why there were "anti-misogination" efforts made long ago, over a century ago, aside from racism.
Of course by the mid 20th century they were absurdly outdated as there was enough data on mixed people.
However, while it may seem strange now, there was once a legitimate concern that people from distant corners of the earth interbreeding for the first time in millennium would potentially produce people with defects, that would be difficult to measure with pre-industrial cognitive and medical sciences. That could lead to a "race" of biologically inferior people which would be a terrible dilemma. What little was known about breeding in animals indicated the possibility.
Of course there were also ulterior motives. But none the less, there was once legitimate scientific doubts about the outcome of mixed people from disparate corners of the globe.
So, while it was unjustified to prohibit racial intermarriage by Lovings' time, it was once a legitimate concern. And it has always been the state and community's right to regulate marriage as a social institution, as opposed to relationships and private commitments which are entirely between the individuals.