Since Loving vs. Virginia was mentioned here, let's here some words from Mildred Loving...

[Solon]

These words were given out in a statement from her and her family on the 40th anniversary of the Loving vs. Viriginia decision.

Its a PDF file, so you've been warned:

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf

Here's the final two paragraphs of the statement:

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.

[DavidDvorkin]

1. That's a beautiful statement.

[Lavender Brown]

2. Great way to put it. Rest in peace, Mildred

:kick:

[Laughing Mirror]

3. And she, more than anybody, would know

Thanks!

[WeDidIt]

4. I'm proud to give this the fifth rec. n/t

[IndianaJones]

5. was a court case really necessary for this interracial thing? weren't there more inclusive ways? nt

[QC]

6. Couldn't there have been a pragmatic compromise?

Maybe half of interracial couples could be forbidden from marriage and half allowed to marry? Like a lottery or something? That would have been far more pragmatic and post-ideological and reachy outy that a court case that made people uncomfortable.

[IndianaJones]

7. patience and changing minds would have been less confrontational. nt.

[QC]

10. And much more reachy outy, too. n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

8. It should have been decided at the state level by referendum.

A democratic approach is best when it comes to basic rights because the majority will never be tyrannic.

[IndianaJones]

9. it was until activist judges got involved. nt.

[Solon]

11. Yeah, I heard that argument here, and was flabbergasted by it. n/t

[xxqqqzme]

13. History is your friend - THAT was the problem!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Or you forgot the :sarcasm: symbol?

[boppers]

16. You need to lurk moar.

IndianaJones often punctures arguments this way, often without the tag.

edit: correct username

[MadMaddie]

12. It was religion then and it's religion now

Enough is enough, it is time to do something about it. I think taxing the churches is a start. It would have to be a sliding scale. These Mega churches and their billions of untaxed dollars are reaking havoc on America.

[soleiri]

14. This should be on the front page

Thank you.

[satya]

15. "Govt has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others.Especially if it denies

people's civil rights."

That's it in a nutshell. This is not something that is put to a vote. Those who want to live in a theocracy are welcome to leave this country. Please. Now.