Miscegenation Laws: The Loving V. Virginia Case

The Lovings traveled to Washington, D.C. to marry, where interracial marriage was legal, and it was the nation’s capital that they would later return to when they were forced to leave their home. But in 1950s Virginia, their relationship wasn’t that simple. Richard was white and Mildred was black, and in the eyes of the state’s anti-miscegenation laws, they were committing a felony. Find out how a couple in love brought forward the landmark case, Loving v. Virginia, which forever changed the color of marriage in the United

Virginia 16 states had laws regarding interracial marriage whether it was not permitted or had specifications on how large of a fraction African American or another race a person was. However that all changed after the decision made by the Supreme Court. The laws prohibiting interracial marriage were invalidated and ruled unconstitutional, meaning adults in the United States of America could marry the person they chose. In 1967 3% of people recently married were married to a spouse of a different race. In 2015 the number of recently married interracial couples rose to 17%.

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.

Anti-miscegenation laws in the US were created to strictly enforce racial segregation of interracial relationships. A problem with biracial mixing is that it does not allow one to be discriminated against as easily. For example, a person could be half white, but does not look white at all. The dominant culture does not know how to face and handle these interracial relationships, so they banned them from getting married. Anti-miscegenation laws have its roots between whites and blacks following slavery. Laws were later passed that barred Asians from marrying Whites. In 1850, an anti-miscegenation laws stated that it was illegal for a

In fact, interracial unions appear to have been sought

In 1958 in Caroline County, Virginia. A white man named Richard Loving was married to a black and native woman, Mildred Loving. This was very illegal (Brown 18). They decided to fight it and take it to court. In 1967 Richard and Mildred went to supreme court and won. This changed the interracial law in sixteen states (Brown 18). When Mildred was later talked to she said that people mixed all the time she didn’t know any different. She said how she had no idea there was a law against it (Brown 20). In Caroline County families help each other harvest crops so it isn’t really that crazy that Richard and Mildred would meet and fall in love like

Many people who fell in love with each other could not marry because the other person was of a different race. This persisted until 1967 when the case of “Loving v. Virginia” was considered by the United States Supreme Court. The Lovings had gotten married in Washington D.C. in 1958 where these marriages were legal. They returned to their home in Virginia where they were charged with violating the ban on interracial marriages. They fought their case all the way up to the Supreme Court in order to get the law that banned such marriages in Virginia and fifteen other states overturned so that they could marry who they loved (Loving). This monumental ruling brought America even closer to

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

2- In this case, in my opinion, there is an interracial conflict, real or fomented antagonism between the different races. Usually in a favor legislation that dictates for itself the race that the government exercises or predominates in a country or time. Of greater importance is the persistence of white and black races in various American and African peoples, especially in the United States, because of the prolific color of the people of color, and in the Union of South Africa. These icons are reflected in laws, and even more so in the avoidance of coexistence, in the exclusions of managerial positions and of whatever social selection is considered for the denigrated race. The term interracial refers to a couple, family or any other group that includes individuals who are members of different races. This differs from the biracial term, which refers to an individual whose racial heritage includes two different races. 5

The Loving vs Virginia case back in 1958 was about an interracial marriage. Two people were in love and decided to get married. The state of Virginia didn’t allow interracial marriage. To which they went out of the state to get married and upon coming back home they were arraigned and convicted for violating the Racial Integrity Act. Now this goes into another scenario when it comes to marriage. Instead of

Gay marriage is marriage involving two persons of the same sex is a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It can be seen as a phrase that is used by the Government, social and religious groups to have the recognition of marriage between two persons of the same sex. There is a social movement, so that people can get their rights and responsibilities in countries like the United States of America. Legal issues involved in this type of marriage have been made to the procedures of the federal Government in the traditional system, the federal Government had no attempt to have the meaning of marriage and, therefore, he had the idea that any marriage that was appreciated by the State, has also been known by the federal Government, even if there was a problem of recognition of such marriages from other States. This means that the State was responsible for the enforcement of rights that people need so that people can have their partner through the Act. The defense of marriage act and then people quickly find how issues that had to be met, and that might work and it did only definition that a marriage could be a Union between a man and a woman. Therefore, there is no company that has the recognition for this same sex as those who had pushed for legalization of sex type. (Justin, 1990)

The case Obergefell v. Hodges was a fight for the rights given to us in the equal protection clause and due process clause which are both under the Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. The due process clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. The equal protection clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. Overall the justice system was asked two questions: does the Constitution require states to allow same-sex couples to marry and are the states required to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who were legally married in another state.

The ancient people have always viewed marriage as the union between a man and a lady. The opinion can be derived from the first table where one can see that those over the age of fifty are the least supporters of gay and lesbian couples. The institution of marriage should also confer dignity to the partners. The millennia are slowly changing to accommodate various views. It does not seem practical for people to hold on to the past cultures and values that reduce the values and rights of other human beings. Did the world not eventually accept to appreciate women and accord them similar rights as men? Many critics apparently faced the decision and some still continue to defy the laws concerning women rights. However, the world, in general, is changing, and the same case will happen if the marriage equality is established. Let us assume that the court will decide against the plaintiff, and then we should expect a huge mess to arise. The argument is that over the past years, various states have declared same gender marriages as constitutional. They removed the ban on gay and lesbian couples terming them as unlawful. The opinion was based on what they called equality and dignity for the partners (Green, par. 3).

This year, the Supreme Court will now have decide once again how to define marriage in the 21st century. This issue is not new to the United States Supreme Court, as the forty-eight years ago they unanimously ruled that the Virginia 's anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. Therefore the 1883 Pace v. Alabama case was overturned [Ryan, Joe]. This allowed Mildred Delores Loving and Richard Perry Loving, the plaintiffs in the landmark United States Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, to legally live as an interracial couple in the state of Virginia. The case of Loving v. Virginia was not only a major turning point of the Civil Rights Movement, but an imperative step toward equitable treatment for all Americans. The Supreme Court not

The ways America shows their attitudes toward interracial marriage and illustrate an awkward historical moment and the changing nature of race relations in the United States is by the disconnection between Americans’ attitudes toward interracial marriage and their behavior illustrates the awkward historical moment that we currently inhabit. On the one hand, in the four decades since the U.S. Supreme Court declared laws prohibiting interracial marriage unconstitutional, the number of interracial families in the United States has rapidly increased, interracial dating on college campuses has become more common, and attitudes toward interracial marriage have improved. On the other hand, interracial families continue to report unique external pressures due to the persistence of racism and negotiations over the classification of their mixed-race children. As a result, interracial couplings continue to be the rare exception (and certainly not the rule) when it comes to marriage in the United States.