When Mildred and Richard Loving crossed the


the idea that equality is not something we achieve,


it’s something we constantly redefine for ourselves as a society.”


The universal concept, is


racial divide—and state lines—from segregated Virginia to Washington D.C. in order to marry in 1958, little did they know the precedence they would be set- ting. One that would carry echoes, right through to last year’s debate and eventual Supreme Court Decision affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry.


For them, it was a simple ceremony to cement their


love and protect their children’s legitimacy. To the world they lived in at the time, it was cause for arrest and incarceration under Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act. Anti- miscegenation laws as they were called, which allowed Sheriff R. Garnett Brooks and his deputies to break down doors with impunity and in this case, literally drag the Lovings from their bed. The first of the many indignities the couple would face. After spending one night in jail, Richard was released


on bail, but when he attempts to secure the same outcome for Mildred, who was African-American and Native- American, it is flatly refused, forcing her to spend another five nights in jail. Upon her release, the two make their appearance in court and at the advice of a lawyer, plead guilty to the charges. The punishment imposed by Judge Leon Bazile was Orwellian at best: One year in prison with their sentences suspended, on the provision that they leave the state of Virginia and not return for 25 years. Reluctantly obeying, the couple move to Washington


D.C., living there with Mildred’s cousin for several years as they attempt to put the experience behind them. In the midst of that unhappy time and through the encouragement of an acquaintance, Mildred writes to Attorney General Bobby Kennedy to ask for help. He replies, referring them to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), where attorney Bernard Cohen and Philip Hirschkop take up their case, filing an appeal in 1963 with the court to vacate the Loving’s conviction and sentence. The motion is summarily denied and in Judge Bazile’s defense of the law he opined, “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 arrangement 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.” Though the Virginia Supreme Court upholds his decision, it recommends the “excessive” sentence be reexamined by the lower court. Then in March 1966, Loving v. Virginia is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Cohen and Hirschkop and finally, in June of 1967, their conviction is overturned. Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion on the case was as follows, “Under our constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person


of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state.” An argument and precedent, that would be used in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges same-sex marriage case of 2015, nearly 50 years later. The film Loving, based on the couple and the historic


case, illustrates the fight waged by this quietly modest, genuine, devoted couple, who never really saw them- selves as crusaders. Decent people whose only wish was to be left alone and live their lives in Where they wanted and in the company of their children, friends and families. A fact illustrated by Richard’s simple answer when asked what he wanted the justices to know about them, “Tell the judge, I love my wife.” We owe a debt of gratitude to Mildred, Richard and


all the others who helped them, forLoving. When I asked Director Jeff Nichols about how he approached the film, he offered this, “I didn’t want to make a courtroom procedural, no matter how fascinating that might have been. I’m just not the guy to do that. I am the guy however, to make the one about two people who are committed to a marriage. I’ve done that before and that’s what I was relating to. Once you make the decision to latch on to their point of view, now this fascinating thing happens. You have this monumental court case, Loving v. State of Virginia, which changed the history and direction of our country and you have it seen from the people at the center of it, but that are not at the center of the details. They are watching it from the sidelines, that’s interesting to me and now that’s something that I can get into and invest in.” Joel Edgerton [Richard] spoke also of the couple’s


deep connection and how the actors approached the roles and the subject matter. “It’s about the relationship in this movie and about where those individual discoveries for Ruth [Negga] and I then came together. That’s the hard thing to study and quantify, but it became the most important part for us. I think the real road map for that, was Jeff’s screenplay and his lovely observation of and portrayal of a relationship that isn’t about overtures, love speeches and false declaration…Or, billowing curtains and love scenes.” Laughing as he continues, “It’s about the space between two people that’s often unspoken, a connected, constant dance, one where you lead and I’ll follow, you wish and I’ll grant. Particularly deeper into a relationship, when there is sort of a third mind that grows and you begin to intuit each other.” Ruth Negga [Mildred] talked of the experience and her respect for all those involved, including the protagonists. “I’d fallen in love with Mildred when I auditioned for the part, two years before. The film was a very connected experience and Jeff is such a collaborator and he works with people who are that way by nature. He does this thing too, where he elevates the ordinary into a greatness that


NOVEMBER 2016 | RAGE monthly 23


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64