Loving

What is the meaning of the word, "loving"? This seems like a simple enough question. However, the entire context in which the question is framed changes with the simple act of capitalizing the letter L -- an act that transforms the word from a mere dictionary entry into an epic love story of Shakespearean proportions: the tale of Richard and Mildred Loving.

The gist of where I'm going with this can be summed up in the two sentences Mildred Loving used to open an address she gave back in 2007: "When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, D.C. in 1958, it wasn't to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married."

The Lovings' story has been on my mind for the past several days, and I, no matter how hard I try, cannot shake the feeling that it's just about to have another round in the spotlight.

Last week, while I was vacationing in South Florida, I happened to catch a snippet of CNN's "State of the Union," in which Candy Crowley solicited comment from Governor Bob McDonnell (R-Virginia) regarding a federal judge's decision earlier in the week to overturn California's controversial law (known as Prop 8) banning same-sex marriage in that state. Governor McDonnell stated emphatically that he did not see fit that a court of activist judges should overturn the will of the voters of California. Upon hearing this, I immediately found myself troubled by the irony embedded in this statement. Not only were these words coming from the lips of someone who holds an office requiring him to protect his people, but they were coming from the lips of the governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia: the very setting of the story of Richard and Mildred Loving.

As it turns out, when Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter decided to marry in 1958, being law-abiding citizens, they left their home in Virginia and travelled to Washington, D.C. to obtain a license and ceremony. Virginia law in those days prohibited marriage between people of different races, and Richard was a white man while Mildred was African-American.

Mildred put it this way in her 2007 address:

"We didn't get married in Washington because we WANTED to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn't allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family."

At any rate, upon returning to Virginia, the couple promptly was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to one year in jail. The judge in the case agreed to suspend the sentence on the condition that the Lovings leave the commonwealth and not return for at least 25 years. The judge handed down his ruling with these words: "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 arrangment 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."

To make a long story short, the Lovings took their case all the way to the Supreme Court, where they won. And, just like that, with a decision by what today would be called "activist judges," all antimiscegenation laws across the United States became null and void. From then on, all consenting adults, or so it seemed at the time, would be free to marry whomever they happened to love, regardless of race; and although the majority in many parts of the United States at the time fully agreed with and supported the trial judge's opinion and ruling, the high court performed the task with which it is charged: it upheld the Constitution's guarantee that the will of the majority does not suppress the rights of the minority. This was not a court being "activist." This was a court merely doing its job.

Yes, there still exist some folks who hold interracial marriage to be immoral and contrary to divine plans, but I think it is safe to say that the consensus these days is that the "will of the people" back in 1958 regarding interracial marriage was, in fact, WRONG. I will go on to argue that even those who disagree with interracial marriage CAN agree that two people of different races marrying one another has no bearing whatsoever on any marriages beyond their particular union.

Now, let's fastforward some 50 years to 2010, where U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker has just overturned California voters' decision to outlaw same-sex marriages. People are shouting, "Activist judges!" Some even are going so far as to call Judge Walker's sexuality into question, arguing that rumors of his homosexuality make him unfit to decide this case. Of course, one must step back and rationalize that such arguments also hold that African-Americans are unfit to decide race-related civil rights cases, and even, in theory, imply that heterosexuals are unfit to decide any sexual orientation cases due to being inherently biased towards heterosexuality. But in cases where people's fundamental beliefs -- be they right or wrong -- are in question, sound rationale often falls by the wayside.

Nevertheless, Judge Walker stated in his opinion that the California law "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."

So, basically, what the judge has done is echo the Supreme Court's ruling in the Loving case and applied it equally to sexual orientation. Does this make Judge Walker an "activist judge"? No. In fact, it establishes him as a rational arbiter relying on the basis of precedent to safeguard the rights of a minority group against the will of an ill-informed majority. And, thus, he has upheld the Constitution of the United States.

So this takes me back to Governor McDonnell of Virginia and his assertion that the will of the people should always be the trump in matters of civil rights. It seems sadly ironic that the good governor knows so little of his own state's history. How is it that it doesn't occur to him that, in matters of civil rights, the will of the people is almost always going to require a little nudge from the courts or a courageous legislature? (Think LBJ's Congress in 1964.) Contrary to what some people would like to put forth, the will of the people is not always right and just. Governor McDonnell only needs to reference his own state's history books to be reminded of this.

Perhaps Mildred Loving says it best herself:

"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed what the judge said . . . and that government should discriminate against people in love."

Fortunately, she goes on to say:

"But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry."

The Loving case established that all Americans should have the right to marry without regard to race, sex, or sexual orientation. This is not to say religious bodies should be forced to perform ceremonies. That would infringe upon another one of our Constitutional guarantees. But, everyone should have access to the civil side of marriage, and to deny a couple a marriage license based upon sexual orientation is no more right in 2010 than it was to deny a license based upon race in 1958.

Mildred Loving died in 2008, but she and her husband, Richard, left behind a legacy the importance of which we are just once again beginning to realize. A year before her death, Mildred finished her address celebrating the 40th anniversary of the case that bears her name.

"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."

And with Mildred Loving's own words, I can attest here in 2010 that Loving, whether spelled with a capital L or a lower-case one, still resonates as loudly as ever.