Celebrating Loving Day: June 12

[Steve M. Galbraith]

From FAIR, the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism"
"Loving Day is an annual celebration held on June 12, the anniversary of the 1967 United States Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia, which struck down all anti-miscegenation laws banning interracial marriage remaining in sixteen U.S. states.
 
On Loving Day, we celebrate the fact that there is only one human race, and that we all have the right to live free of racialized group identity categorizations. The day serves as a reminder that our intrinsic right to be human must always be protected, both inside and outside the courts.
 
Loving Day activities for the FAIR community will include an online event starting at 3:00 pm ET on June 12 to introduce the FAIR Learning Standards and to preview the FAIR Race & the American Story Curriculum and will feature FAIR Advisors Daryl Davis, Ian Rowe, and Melissa Chen. In addition, FAIR chapters in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and other locations are planning to celebrate with their own in-person Loving Day celebrations."

On the 40th anniversary of the ruling, Mildred Loving said the following (her husband was killed in a car accident in 1975).

"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. 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.

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.

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."

The Loving and loving couple, Mildred and Richard Loving, are pictured below. Perfect names.

[Jon Banks]

Still crazy to me that mixed race marriages were illegal ever.

Probably in the same way, it will seem crazy to future generations that Same-Sex marriage was illegal.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Still crazy to me that mixed race marriages were illegal ever.

Probably in the same way, it will seem crazy to future generations that Same-Sex marriage was illegal.

I guess it makes sense. or made sense, if you only see race or sexual orientation and don't see real people, real human beings and real lives.  That is treating people as "things" or a member of a group and not as individuals with real hopes and dreams.

I have to admit though, that up through the 1990s I was against same sex marriage. It just didn't "make sense" to me; marriage was between a man and a woman. End of story. Gay people can have civil unions, live together, have all of the rights and benefits of marriage; but marriage was a heterosexual institution. I didn't see gay people as humans but only as gay people. The same sort of view - substitute race for orientation - that the anti-miscegenates had (of course, they had all of that racial inferiority/superiority stupid/evil view too)

The terrific Jonathan Rauch opened my eyes during this when he related a story about how his college friends got together and discussed what they were going to do with their lives after college. They talked about marrying, having careers, building their lives. But as a gay man - and this was before civil unions - he wouldn't have that life. Why? That really revealed what was being denied to human beings - not GAY human beings but real life, flesh and blood men and women.

This is my problem with "identity politics" and "critical race theory." Or the main one. Nowhere in either view is there a sense of any shared humanity, any shared experience that we all have. We're born, we live, we struggle, we die. Our humanity transcends these racial or ethnic or gender differences. But all the proponents of these worldviews can see is race or identity. Nothing deeper. That's an impoverished view of life.

[Jon Banks]

I guess it makes sense. or made sense, if you only see race or sexual orientation and don't see real people, real human beings and real lives.  That is treating people as "things" or a member of a group and not as individuals with real hopes and dreams.

I have to admit though, that up through the 1990s I was against same sex marriage. It just didn't "make sense" to me; marriage was between a man and a woman. End of story. Gay people can have civil unions, live together, have all of the rights and benefits of marriage; but marriage was a heterosexual institution. I didn't see gay people as humans but only as gay people. The same sort of view - substitute race for orientation - that the anti-miscegenates had (of course, they had all of that racial inferiority/superiority stupid/evil view too)

The terrific Jonathan Rauch opened my eyes during this when he related a story about how his college friends got together and discussed what they were going to do with their lives after college. They talked about marrying, having careers, building their lives. But as a gay man - and this was before civil unions - he wouldn't have that life. Why? That really revealed what was being denied to human beings - not GAY human beings but real life, flesh and blood men and women.

This is my problem with "identity politics" and "critical race theory." Or the main one. Nowhere in either view is there a sense of any shared humanity, any shared experience that we all have. We're born, we live, we struggle, we die. Our humanity transcends these racial or ethnic or gender differences. But all the proponents of these worldviews can see is race or identity. Nothing deeper. That's an impoverished view of life.

I don't know exactly what Critical Race Theory means. It seems to have different definitions depending on whom you ask.

What I will say is that the goal of recognizing America's history of racial and social injustices should be to learn from our past mistakes and bring us together going forward. We can't move forward until we reconcile the past.

I do believe America has much to be proud of so far as progress on race relations, women's rights, gay rights, immigration, etc.. Despite the resistance to social change, our country continually makes progress on social issues. So I don't support any ideological views that paint America as an irredeemably bigoted country.