When Richard and Mildred got married they didn’t want to make “a political statement or start a fight.”
They were just in love.
They had to go to Washington to get married because the authorities from Virginia -where they both grew up, fell in love and wanted to make their family- they were forbidden to marry .
It was the year 1958.
“You see, I’m a woman of color and Richard was white and in At that time people believed it was okay to prevent us from getting married because of their ideas about who should marry whom, ”Mildred wrote several years later.
When they returned to Virginia , they had no intention of defying the law, they were “happily married.”
But everything changed one morning.
“They were like 2: 00 in the morning. I saw the light And when I woke up, the cop was on the side of the bed. He told us to stop, ”Mildred said.
The sheriff, along with two deputies, asked Richard who she was. “My wife,” he replied.
Although the marriage certificate was hanging on the wall, they were both arrested “for the ‘crime’ of having married the guy from the wrong person, ”said Mildred.
This is the love story that had a momentous impact on society and American laws and that BBC Mundo remembers on Valentine’s Day.
The Loving
Mildred Jeter, who was of Black and Aboriginal roots, had met Richard Loving in Virginia when they were both children. He was six years older than her.
Although than in the years 50 racial segregation was intensifying in the southern United States, in the rural county town where they Black and white lived, worked and shared freely.
Both families were friends , but Their children’s romance grew when interracial marriages were prohibited in that state.
That is why, after being arrested in their bedroom, in 1959, were sentenced to one year in prison.
However, a judge s They suspended the sentence on the condition that they did not return together or at the same time to the state by 25 years .
The Loving had no choice but to accept and pleaded guilty to violating the Integrity Act Racial of that state.
In the ruling of his exile, the judge referred not only to the local law, but to what many Southerners considered was “God’s will“.
“Almighty God created the white, black, yellow, malay and red, and placed them on separate continents. If it were not for interference with this arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages [interraciales]. The fact that he has separated the races shows that he did not intend for them to mix ”
The couple returned to Washington, although they did not feel happy there and wanted return to the place where they were born, close to their families.
In 1963, looking for help, Mildred decided to write to then Attorney General Robert Kennedy , who forwarded the letter to one of the main groups promoting civil rights.
The letter would reach good hands.
The lawyer
“I was a young lawyer and was practicing in private law. He was also a volunteer attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ”Bernard Cohen told journalist Simon Watts on the BBC Witness program.
In his early twenties, he was assigned the case because of his knowledge of Virginia law.
“I felt very strongly that the case was perfect to prove the unconstitutionality of the statutes from Virginia, “he said.
” I was excited to get involved, even though, frankly, I had only been in practice two or three years since I had left college. Law. ”
When Cohen met the Loving, he was impressed not only by their simplicity and shyness, but by their last name as well.
“I thought the name was fortuitous. How could anyone resist hearing the story of their love for each other? It was a very good omen “.
As an adjective, in English, loving means loving or loving something and is also the continuous form of the verb love : loving.
“Few words”
Cohen recalled that “they had their feet on the ground. They were very unpretentious people. They weren’t liberal agitators or anything like that. They were just ordinary people. ”
“Richard Loving was a bricklayer. My partner Philip Hirschkop, who eventually came to work on the case with me, used to laugh and say that Loving was the quintessential southern provincial. In fact, he had a very fair complexion and a red sunburn mark around his neck, “he said.
” He was a man of few words, of very soft, and Mildred was the one who spoke the most when we met. ”
Even though Cohen was excited about the case, I knew he was leaning a long legal battle , something that surprised the couple.
“What was unusual was the naivety of Mr. and Mrs. Loving about the seriousness of the legal case they were about to get involved in,” Cohen evoked.
“Mr. Loving suggested that I go see the judge to see if I could change his mind five years after they were found guilty.
“When I explained to him that that was simply not possible and that this case, in my opinion, was going to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court, Richard was speechless and shook his head. I could hardly believe what I was saying. ”
Loving vs. Virginia
It was a complicated legal battle that was called: Loving vs. Virginia.
Watts explains that the two attorneys came across a dark law from the decade of 1860, which allowed them to challenge Virginia’s original ruling and take it to the Supreme Court as a test case.
“I was quite nervous . I know I left a puddle of sweat on the lectern where I stood while presenting my argument to the judges. But since then, I’ve listened to recordings of my argument and I think I did better than I could remember. ”
And so it was. With a clear voice and great determination, in his historic intervention the lawyer said:
“The state is ignoring a very important point that it will never be over-emphasized and that is the Richard and Mildred Loving’s right to wake up in the morning or go to sleep at night knowing that the sheriff will not knock on their door or put a light on their face in the privacy of their bedroom. ”
“ The Loving have the right to go to sleep at night knowing that if they do not wake up in the morning, their children would have the right to inherit from them in intestate succession. ”
“They have the right to the security of knowing that if they go to sleep and do not wake up in the morning, one of them, the survivor nte, you are entitled to Social Security benefits. All that is denied to them. ”
And the verdict came with a“ great joy ”.
“We were happy with the result. It was a nine to zero decision in our favor. We immediately called the Loving and told them we had won. ‘We won, we won!’ And they said, ‘What does that mean?’ And we told them that that meant that could live freely in Virginia and would not be convicted of any crime, ”Cohen recalled.
The significance
In the decision of the United States Supreme Court he was granted the “right” Richard and Mildred to be “husband and wife, father and mother,” in Virginia.
But what happened that 12 June 1967 was historic not only for the Loving but for the rest of the country: the Supreme Court abolished the prohibition of interracial marriage qu It was ruled in Virginia and many other states across the country.
Then-Chief Justice Earl Warren called laws against interracial marriage as “ unbearable for a free people “.
Cohen , who died in October, was always proud of his role in legalizing interracial marriage in the United States.
“I feel that this decision put the nail in the coffin of racial discrimination in America. It was a momentous case because it not only touched on important legal issues, but delved deep into the emotions, “the lawyer told Watts.
” There were many people who did not feel racist, but were strongly opposed to interracial marriage and it took a long time for the sociological effects of the [del caso] Loving decision to make their way into the mindset of most of the Americans .
“Today the majority of Americans are not opposed to interracial marriages.”
“The freedom to marry for all”
When they returned to their state, the Loving lived in the house that R ichard had built for his wife.
They had three children: Donald, Peggy and Sidney.
Richard died in a car accident in 1975, Mildred died of pneumonia in 2008.
A year earlier, when the 50 anniversary of the historical failure, Mildred published a statement, from which we extract some fragments:
“My generation was bitterly divided for something that should have been very clear and correct. Most believed that what the judge said was God’s plan to separate people and that the government should discriminate against people in love.
But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The fears and prejudices of the previous generation have given way and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have the right to marry.
-
“It is important to talk about race and those conversations should focus on raising anti-racist children”
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by without me thinking about Richard and our love, our right to marry and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person that he was precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ to marry me.
I think all Americans, regardless of their race Regardless of their sex, regardless of their sexual orientation, they should have the same freedom to marry. The government does not have to impose the religious beliefs of some people over others . Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s name and mine are in a court case that can help reinforce love, commitment , justice and the family that so many people, white or black, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life.
I support the freedom to marry for all . That’s what Loving and loving is all about ”.
Remember that you can receive notifications from BBC News Mundo. Download our app and activate them so you don’t miss our best content.
