The U. S. Constitution: Loving vs. Virginia

Mildred and Richard Loving were an interracial married couple who were sentenced to imprisonment because they had violated the State of Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which was an anti-miscegenation statute that prohibited marriage between whites and blacks ("Mildred Loving"). Mildred Loving was black and Richard Loving was white. In a unanimous Supreme Court vote, 9 to 0, the Court held that the Virginia law prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional. The decision ended race based constraints on marriage. A former ruling, in 1883, Pace v Alabama, had ruled that anti-miscegenation was constitutional (‘Loving vs. Virginia”). Sixteen states of which fifteen were southern and the State of Delaware, had laws that allowed anti-miscegenation.

As a result of the decision, the rate of interracial marriages in the United States increased (Goff). In addition to interracial marriage, the Loving v Virginia case was cited as providing legitimacy to subsequent cases, such as Obergefell v. Hodges, a 2015 Supreme Court decision which held that statutory schemes placing restrictions on same-sex marriages were unconstitutional ("Obergefell v. Hodges").

The United States has a deep and storied historical relationship with laws that place restrictions on blacks (“Race Discrimination”). In 1954, the Supreme Court struck down a law that said it was legal to separate blacks and whites in public schools. The case overturned a prior Supreme Court decision, Plessy v Ferguson, in 1896, which upheld state segregation laws that allowed “separate but equal,” accommodations in public facilities ("Plessy v. Ferguson"). In 1948, in the Supreme Court case, Shelley v. Kraemer, real estate covenants that restricted the ownership of land to whites only were found unconstitutional (“Race Discrimination”). In 1962, Bailey v. Patterson, prohibited the racial segregation of transportation facilities used in interstate or intrastate commerce. Jones v. Mayer Co., a 1968 case, prohibited racial discrimination in the public or private sale or rental of homes (“Race Discrimination”). Batson v. Kentucky, a 1986 case, prevented the intentional exclusion of African American jury members, when an African American defendant is placed on trial. Over time, Constitutional challenges have changed the fabric of America incrementally (“Race Discrimination”). 

Mildred Delores Loving, formerly Jeter, married Richard Perry Loving in 1958, in Washington, D. C., when Mildred became pregnant. They married in the District of Columbia because it did not have anti-miscegenation laws, thus allowing interracial couples to get married (“Loving v Virginia”). By marrying in D. C., the couple avoided Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, making interracial marriage a crime. After returning to their small town, of Central Point, in Virginia, police received an anonymous tip, thereafter raiding their home after hours in the hopes of encountering them having sex. In addition to interracial marriage being illegal, having interracial sex was also illegal. The Lovings were found asleep in bed and they showed the police their marriage certificate on their wall. The pair were charged with "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth" (Gastañaga) of Virginia. Virginia Code 1950 read, in part:

§ 20-58. Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage (“Loving v. Commonwealth”).

§ 20-59. Punishment for marriage. -- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years (“Loving v. Commonwealth”).

The potential sentence the couple faced was prison for one to five years. The trial judge, expressing his opinion on the subject of interracial relations said, 

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 (“Loving v Virginia”)

In 1959, the Lovings accepted a plea of guilty and received a sentence of one year in prison (Gastañaga). They were offered a 25 year suspended sentence if they moved from Virginia, which they did, moving to the District of Columbia. Their inability to travel to visit their family in Virginia became the subject of frustration for Mrs. Loving, so she wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who referred her case to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU filed a motion in the trial court to have the decision vacated as it was inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution says:  

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (emphasis added) (“14th Amendment”).

The State of Virginia had, for lack of a better phrase, a stunningly ignorant interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause. In fact, it is difficult to even present it on their behalf, but onward and upward. The State of Virginia argued that the Equal Protection Clause, pursuant to the thinking of the Framers of the Constitution, only requires that the laws apply equally to both whites and blacks, such that they are punished evenly and to the same degree (“Loving v Virginia”). Meaning, that the offense must be applicable to blacks and whites consistently, and that in this case, both spouses were punished, thus the anti-miscegenation law was constitutional (universal eye roll, please). The State’s second argument was that on the subject of treating interracial marriages differently than non-interracial marriages, since the scientific evidence on why miscegenation is troublesome is in doubt, the State and the Court, should be able to rely on the wisdom of the legislature in the adoption of preventing interracial marriages (“Loving v Virginia”). On October 28, 1964, the ACLU brought a class action case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Lovings presented their argument to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. The appellate court held that the anti-miscegenation statutes were constitutional and affirmed the Lovings’ convictions. The ACLU appealed the decision to the Supreme Court (“Loving v Virginia”). In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws were in violation of both the Equal Protection and the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and overturned the Lovings’ conviction (Loving v Virginia).

Chief Justice Earl Warren gave a stinging opinion on the law and a cacophonous indictment against the State. The basis of the Court’s philosophy, which effectively condemned the entire State of Virginia, whose state slogan two years later became, Virginia is for Lovers, (hypocrisy not lost here) saying that there was no other foundation for the existence of this law than to perpetuate racism with the goal of advancing the invidious cause of white supremacy (Loving v Virginia). The opinion was quite stunningly articulated, by Supreme Court standards. On the issue of Equal Protection of the Laws, Warren pointed to the discussion of the Court in McLaughlin v. Florida (1964), demonstrating that the Equal Protection Clause requires contemplation of if the classifications established by any statute represents a random and abominable discrimination – which was obviously true in this case. The main objective of the Fourteenth Amendment was to prevent all sources of repugnant racial discrimination in the States. On the issue of Due Process of Law, Warren noted, that the right to marry has long been considered a personal right that every American citizen has, fundamental to our existence. It is the cornerstone of the pursuit of happiness by all who are free. The denial of such a basic right with such baseless reasoning as racial classification subverts the concept of equality at the very heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, and as such violates a citizen’s right to liberty without due process of law. The right to marry is an individual choice, not one that can be encroached upon by the State (Loving v Virginia).

With that said, all bans against interracial marriage in the United States met their Maker that day. What was particularly wonderful about the Supreme Court decision is that it started with the Lovings’ attorney, Mr. Cohen, reciting the words of Mr. Loving, who did not attend the hearing, to the Supreme Court: "Mr. Cohen, tell the Court I love my wife, and it is just unfair that I can't live with her in Virginia” ("A Loving Fight") Each time I read these words, my eyes well up with tears.

Loving: The Aftermath

The legal concepts contained within the Supreme Court opinion in Loving v Virginia, became the backdrop for the legalization of same-sex marriages across the United States (Obergefell v Hodges). The Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), relied upon the logic of many cases, but in particular referenced the precedence set in Loving (no case name has ever matched its case subject better than this case).

Richard Loving died in 1975 (“Mildred Loving”), and Mildred Loving passed away in 2008 (Gastañaga). Together, the couple left a powerful legacy, before Mildred passed away, though, she left her voice:

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.  The government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others.  Especially if it denies people’s civil rights…I support the freedom to marry for all.  That’s what Loving and loving, are all about (Gastañaga).

Works Cited

"14th Amendment." Legal Information Institute. n. d. Web. 12 September 2016. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv>.

"A Loving Fight." Records of Rights. National Archives. n. d. Web. 12 September 2016. <http://recordsofrights.org/events/22/a-loving-fight>.

Gastañaga, Claire Guthrie. "Loving Day – Celebrating the Freedom to Marry." 12 June 2013. Web. 12 September 2016. <https://acluva.org/13299/loving-day-celebrating-the-freedom-to-marry/>.

Goff, Keli. "How the ‘Loving’ Case Changed the US." The Root. Univision Communications Inc.. 12  June 2013. Web. 12 September 2016. 

Lai, Lawrence. "Black History: Virginia Wasn't Always for Lovers." ABC News. ABC News Internet Ventures. Yahoo! - ABC News Network. 8 February 2012. Web. 12 September 2016. <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/black-history-virginia-wasnt-always-for-lovers/>.

"Loving v Commonwealth." Justia US Law. Justia. n. d. Web. 12 September 2016. <http://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/supreme-court/1966/6163-1.html>.

"Loving v Virginia." Legal Information Institute. University of Cornell Law School. n. d. Web. 12 September 2016. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1>.

"Mildred Loving." Biography. A&E Television Networks, LLC. n. d. Web. 12 September 2016. <http://www.biography.com/people/mildred-loving-5884>.

"Obergefell v. Hodges." Legal Information Institute. n. d. Web. 12 September 2016. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556>.

"Plessy v. Ferguson." Legal Information Institute. n. d. Web. 12 September 2016. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quotation/%5Bfield_short_title-raw%5D_214>.

"Race Discrimination: U.S. Supreme Court Cases ." FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. n. d. Web. 12 September 2016. <http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/race-discrimination-u-s-supreme-court-cases.html>.

Villet, Gray. "Black History: Virginia Wasn't Always for Lovers." ABC News. ABC News Internet Ventures. Yahoo! - ABC News Network. 8 February 2012. Web. 12 September 2016. <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/black-history-virginia-wasnt-always-for-lovers/>.