American Government

Before the Civil Rights Movement, everything was segregated and one race was viewed as more powerful than all the other races. If there were interracial couples before the movement, the power of the institutions would easily punish them and justified it through religion and supremacy (Westlaw, 2015). I believe interracial couples are key to becoming a society that is more open minded and diverse. If people saw that we have many more commonalities than differences, than they would be more open to having a diverse community. Implications for the target group after this law was overruled was another step towards equality between races. All races were now free to marry outside their race without being arrested and kicked out of their homes. It is baffling to think about the extent some people would go through to destroy a happy couple because their skin color does not match. I believe our country has come a long way since Loving v Virginia, but we still have improvements to make to somehow end racism. Loving v Virginia is important because it implies that all races are equal. Before this ruling, it was looked down upon for a Caucasian to marry outside their race since they were the “superior” race, but now it is much more common than anyone would have figured it would be 50+ years ago. Racial color blindness is key when discussing Loving v Virginia and interracial marriages. If someone were to say they do not see color, then it would completely disregard the struggle that the Loving couple (and other interracial couples) faced. Just like we discussed in class, racial color blindness tends to disregard what African Americans have gone through and ignores institutional racism. It is very easy for people who have not been discriminated against to say they do not see color, I believe these people tend to forget about institutional racism since it does not affect them (Mulder,

On July 11, 1958 a couple of hours after midnight, Richard Loving a white man and Mildred Loving an African American woman were awakened to the presence of three officers in their bedroom. One of the three officers demanded from Richard to identify the woman next to him. Mildred, full of fear, told the officers that she was his wife, while Richard pointed to the marriage license on the wall. The couple was then charged and later found guilty in violation of the state's anti-miscegenation statute.

Interracial marriage was a very tough topic not very long ago, and most of the nation has grown to accept it. The Supreme Court delivered a verdict in favor for couples to marry interracially in 1967, they stated that the laws to prevent interracial marriage was nothing more than an attempt "to maintain white supremacy" (Stoddard 413). The United States Supreme court concluded that laws against interracial marriage served no purpose other than discrimination, and that they should be eliminated. The gay rights movement has become very similar to controversy about interracial marriage. The problem is of whether or not same sex marriages should be legitimate in the United States. In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage

Virginia do all this, but it also had some many unforeseen impacts in the future, as well. For example, similar anti-miscegenation laws in about 15 other states were eventually overturned like Virginia’s marriage ban. In the case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in the November of 2003, a similar case to Loving v. Virginia, the restrictions on marriage were argued yet again. However, instead of interracial marriage being the problem, it was same-sex partners who were unable to wed. Like the case for the Lovings, the Supreme Court eventually ruled against the ban on members of the LGBTQ community marrying, as it was also deemed

Before this case, a number of states had anti-miscegenation statues in place, criminalizing love in the name of racism. This case brought an end to the acceptance of scientific racism in the realm of marriage in that showed such legislation not as sound or logical but as hateful and unconstitutional. Loving’s legacy is strong even today, as it played a pivotal role in the groundbreaking same sex marriage case, Obergefell V. Hoges, paving away for the legalization of gay marriage. Without this case and the intervention of the federal government, states could have very well continued their practice of anti-miscegenation policies. The atrocities committed upon the Lovings and the millions of couples affected by such hateful policies are an embarrassment to our nation’s history. This case acted as a federal resolve to past and future Americans fighting for the right to love. Loving V. Virginia led the nation away from its dark past and towards a more equal future, filled not with “scientific” defenses for racism but with scientific defenses against

In 1967, the Supreme Court made a landmark civil rights decision in the case Loving v. Virginia by invalidating laws prohibiting interracial marriage. The conflict over race in marriage had been challenged by Richard and Mildred Loving who were married in 1958 in the District of Columbia. The Lovings refused to compromise by separating or divorcing, even after they were arrested and forced to leave the state of Virginia. The landmark civil rights decision helped to weave a path toward the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Facts of the case: this was a landmark civil rights case that overturned laws that prohibited interracial marriage. The case involved a black woman named Mildred Loving and a white man Richard Loving, who was sentenced to prison in the state of Virginia for getting married. It was a crime because the marriage of the two was a violation of the state’s anti-miscegenation law, which was called the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The couple got married in Washington, DC and upon their return they were indicted for unlawful cohabitation and placed in jail. Mildred Loving wrote a letter to the Attorney General; who was Robert F. Kennedy for assistance and in return she was referred to the ACLU who represented the couple in the case. The Supreme Court governed that Virginia’s bans on interracial marriages were considered unconstitutional. The court found that the anti-miscegenation laws did not infringe on the Equal Protection Clause

Proposition 8 was placed on a ballot in California which made same- sex marriage illegal, and was also deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Once the elected officials of California chose not to defend Proposition 8 once it was deemed unconstitutional the case should have been dismissed, and the petitioners shouldn’t have been allowed standing for appeal. DOMA was purposed that if States recognized same- sex marriages they were to be classified as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law. The definition of marriage between a man and a woman is a religious ideology. To deny a person their right as a citizen of the United States of America to marry whomever they choose is illegal, and the Courts have agreed. Since the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the decision in the Loving v. Virginia (1958) which deemed the laws of banning interracial marriages unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment. Justice Earl Warren noted “Under the Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, the person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.” This has opened up many discussions that because the ban of interracial marriages was deemed unconstitutional the laws that marriage is only between a man and a woman is a gendered based classification. Restricting marriage on the foundation of a person’s gender is just as unconstitutional as laws restricting marriage on the basis of a person’s

Virginia case successfully outlawed legislation that prohibited members of different races to wed in holy matrimony, despite the fact that society’s view on interracial marriages remained intractable. In 1924, legislation was passed in Virginia that was designed to limit mixed-race relationships, called the Racial Integrity Act. Not only did it try to prevent intermixing, but it also produced two strict racial categories of “colored” and “white” that divided society even more. Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple, fought to repeal that act in 1967 when they were both arrested for getting married, despite Virginia’s ban on marriages between blacks and whites. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the couple knew that they could not legally marry in their state of Virginia, so they went to Washington, D.C, and after “returning to their home state…the couple was charged with unlawful cohabitation and jailed” (ACLU). During the state court trial, the presiding judge, Leon Bazile found the couple to be guilty, justifying his ruling saying “[the] Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents...the fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” After this ruling, Mildred felt compelled to write a letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, asking for assistance fighting this state ruling. Soon, they were referred to the ACLU

On June 2, 1958 Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving went to Washington D.C. to get married and they went back to Virginia a few days later. But because Mildred was of African-American and Native American decent, and Richard was white they were arrested for violating the state law that prohibits interracial marriage. At the time, Virginia was one of 17 states, including Texas and Alabama, that had laws prohibiting interracial marriage (Wolfe). The Supreme Court Case Loving v. Virginia is an important of part of American history that has had a huge impact on racial equality and has helped change the definition of marriage in the United States forever.

The basis of this case coming to the Supreme Court attention was because a white 23 year old male Richard Loving married a Negro 17 year old woman Mildred Jeter, who were both from Virginia, where in this state they had a law that marriages

Virginia case consisted of a black and white couple that were married outside of the state. They came to virginia to live there life when they were accused of committing a crime against the law stating black and white people cannot get married. The plead guilty because yes they were in fact married. They were originally sentenced to one year in prison. Later they were given the opportunity to leave the state. Bernard S. Cohen (who was representing the lovings)"... filed a motion in the Caroline County Circuit Court to vacate their 1959 conviction for violating the state law that forbids interracial marriage. He also asks that the two one-year suspended sentences be set aside." as Encyclopedia Virginia put it. That though was in 1963, In 1967 the supreme court unanimously rules out the law as a violation of the fourteenth amendment. That was the ending of the Loving v. Virginia case. I was surprised about this case I believe some aspects of it are in our lives

I disagree with the holding in the case of loving v. Virginia for three following reasons. One of the reasons being that The state of Virginia had the right to adopt the anti miscegenation laws in order to protect the the purity of white race in contrary to the black race which one believed such association would weakened the racial hygiene and the stability of homes and families . The anti miscegenation laws stated a rational argument that expressed the negative impact interracial marriage will have on either race. On the other hand , the court should not intervene and invalidate the anti miscegenation laws due to the tradition of marriage. Marriage has been subject to state regulation without. Federal intervention. Therefore , it is not

-In 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, the US Supreme Court struck down all laws prohibiting interracial marriages.

Marriage is an abstract concept that may have different definitions for different people. For Barber, marriage is the legal union strictly between a man and a woman as seen when she defends interracial marriage: “As marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, there was no ‘legitimate overriding purpose’ to outlaw marriage between a white man and a black woman ...” (257). She also states that the two subdivisions of marriage- interracial and same-sex marriage- are not equal