Loving v. Virginia

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1][2] The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S. and is remembered annually on Loving Day. It has been the subject of several songs and three movies, including the 2016 film Loving. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.[3]

Loving v. Virginia
Argued April 10, 1967
Decided June 12, 1967
Full case nameRichard Perry Loving, Mildred Jeter Loving v. Virginia
Citations388 U.S. 1 (more)
87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1082
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorDefendants convicted, Caroline County Circuit Court (January 6, 1959); motion to vacate judgment denied, Caroline County Circuit Court (January 22, 1959); affirmed in part, reversed and remanded, 147 S.E.2d 78 (Va. 1966); cert. granted, 385 U.S. 986 (1966).
Holding
Bans on interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Abe Fortas
Case opinions
MajorityWarren, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceStewart
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Va. Code §§ 20–58, 20–59
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Pace v. Alabama (1883)

The case involved Mildred Loving, a woman of color,[note 1] and her white husband Richard Loving, who in 1958 were sentenced to a year in prison for marrying each other. Their marriage violated Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which criminalized marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Lovings appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which upheld it. They then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear their case.

On June 12, 1967, the Court issued a unanimous decision in the Lovings' favor and overturned their convictions. Its decision struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law and ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. Virginia had argued that its law was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the punishment was the same regardless of the offender's race, and thus it "equally burdened" both whites and non-whites.[4] The Court found that the law nonetheless violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was based solely on "distinctions drawn according to race" and outlawed conduct—namely, getting married—that was otherwise generally accepted and which citizens were free to do.[4]

Background

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States

Anti-miscegenation laws had been in place in certain states since colonial days. In the Reconstruction Era in 1865, the Black Codes across the seven states of the lower South made intermarriage illegal. The new Republican legislatures in six states repealed the restrictive laws. By 1894, when the Democratic Party in the South returned to power, restrictions were reimposed.[5]

A major concern was how to draw the line between black and white in a society in which white men had many children with enslaved black women. On the one hand, a person's reputation as black or white was usually what mattered in practice. On the other hand, most laws used a "one drop of blood" rule, which meant that one black ancestor made a person black in the view of the law.[6] In 1967, 16 states still retained anti-miscegenation laws, mainly in the American South.[7]

Plaintiffs
Main article: Mildred and Richard Loving
Mildred and Richard Loving in 1967

Mildred Delores Loving was the daughter of Musial (Byrd) Jeter and Theoliver Jeter.[8] She self-identified as Indian-Rappahannock,[9] but was also reported as being of Cherokee, Portuguese, and African American ancestry.[10][11] During the trial, it seemed clear that she identified herself as black, especially as far as her own lawyer was concerned. However, upon her arrest, the police report identified her as "Indian".

Richard Perry Loving was a white man, the son of Lola (Allen) Loving and Twillie Loving. Their families both lived in Caroline County, Virginia, which adhered to strict Jim Crow segregation laws, but their town of Central Point had been a visible mixed-race community since the 19th century.[12] The couple met in high school and fell in love.

Mildred became pregnant, and in June 1958, the couple traveled to Washington, D.C. to marry, thereby evading Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which made marriage between whites and non-whites a crime.[13] A few weeks after they returned to Central Point, local police raided their home in the early morning hours of July 11, 1958,[14] hoping to find them having sex, given that interracial sex was then also illegal in Virginia. When the officers found the Lovings sleeping in their bed, Mildred pointed out their marriage certificate on the bedroom wall. They were told the certificate was not valid in Virginia.

Criminal proceedings

The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20–59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.

On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pled guilty to "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth". They were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended on condition that the couple leave Virginia and not return together for at least 25 years. After their conviction, the couple moved to the District of Columbia.[15]

Appellate proceedings

In 1964, frustrated by their inability to travel together to visit their families in Virginia, as well as their social isolation and financial difficulties in Washington, Mildred Loving wrote in protest to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.[16] Kennedy referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).[17] The ACLU assigned volunteer cooperating attorneys Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop, who filed a motion on behalf of the Lovings in the Virginia Caroline County Circuit Court, that requested the court to vacate the criminal judgments and set aside the Lovings' sentences on the grounds that the Virginia miscegenation statutes ran counter to the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

On October 28, 1964, after waiting almost a year for a response to their motion, the ACLU attorneys brought a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This prompted the county court judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile (1890–1967), to issue a ruling on the long-pending motion to vacate. Echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, Bazile wrote:

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.[18]

On January 22, 1965, a three-judge district court panel postponed decision on the federal class-action case while the Lovings appealed Judge Bazile's decision on constitutional grounds to the Virginia Supreme Court. Justice Harry L. Carrico (later Chief Justice of the Court) wrote an opinion for the court upholding the constitutionality of the anti-miscegenation statutes. While he upheld their criminal convictions, he directed that their sentence be modified.[19] Carrico cited as authority the Virginia Supreme Court's decision in Naim v. Naim (1955) and argued that the Lovings' case was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for the crime of miscegenation, an argument similar to that made by the United States Supreme Court in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama.[20] However, the court did find the Lovings' sentences to be unconstitutionally vague, struck them down, and ordered them resentenced in the Caroline County Circuit Court.

The Lovings, still supported by the ACLU, appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, where Virginia was represented by Robert McIlwaine of the state's attorney general's office. The Lovings did not attend the oral arguments in Washington,[21] but one of their lawyers, Bernard S. Cohen, conveyed the message he had been given by Richard Loving: "Mr. Cohen, tell the Court I love my wife, and it is just unfair that I can't live with her in Virginia."[22]

Precedents
Date range where U.S. states repealed anti-miscegenation laws:
  No laws ever passed
  1780 to 1887
  1948 to 1967
  After 1967

Before Loving v. Virginia, there had been several cases on the subject of interracial sexual relations. Within the state of Virginia, on October 3, 1878, in Kinney v. The Commonwealth, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that the marriage legalized in Washington, D.C. between Andrew Kinney, a black man, and Mahala Miller, a white woman, was "invalid" in Virginia.[23] In the national case of Pace v. Alabama (1883), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the conviction of an Alabama couple for interracial sex, affirmed on appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.[24] Interracial marital sex was deemed a felony, whereas extramarital sex ("adultery or fornication") was only a misdemeanor. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex was not a violation of the equal protection clause because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex. The court did not need to affirm the constitutionality of the ban on interracial marriage that was also part of Alabama's anti-miscegenation law, since the plaintiff, Mr. Pace, had chosen not to appeal that section of the law. After Pace v. Alabama, the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws banning marriage and sex between whites and non-whites remained unchallenged until the 1920s.

In Kirby v. Kirby (1921), Mr. Kirby asked the state of Arizona for an annulment of his marriage. He charged that his marriage was invalid because his wife was of "negro" descent, thus violating the state's anti-miscegenation law. The Arizona Supreme Court judged Mrs. Kirby's race by observing her physical characteristics and determined that she was of mixed race, therefore granting Mr. Kirby's annulment.[25]

In the Monks case (Estate of Monks, 4. Civ. 2835, Records of California Court of Appeals, Fourth district), the Superior Court of San Diego County in 1939 decided to invalidate the marriage of Marie Antoinette and Allan Monks because she was deemed to have "one eighth negro blood". The court case involved a legal challenge over the conflicting wills that had been left by the late Allan Monks; an old one in favor of a friend named Ida Lee, and a newer one in favor of his wife. Lee's lawyers charged that the marriage of the Monkses, which had taken place in Arizona, was invalid under Arizona state law because Marie Antoinette was "a Negro" and Alan had been white. Despite conflicting testimony by various expert witnesses, the judge defined Mrs. Monks' race by relying on the anatomical "expertise" of a surgeon. The judge ignored the arguments of an anthropologist and a biologist that it was impossible to tell a person's race from physical characteristics.[26]

Monks then challenged the Arizona anti-miscegenation law itself, taking her case to the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District. Monks' lawyers pointed out that the anti-miscegenation law effectively prohibited Monks as a mixed-race person from marrying anyone: "As such, she is prohibited from marrying a negro or any descendant of a negro, a Mongolian or an Indian, a Malay or a Hindu, or any descendants of any of them. Likewise ... as a descendant of a negro she is prohibited from marrying a Caucasian or a descendant of a Caucasian. ..." The Arizona anti-miscegenation statute thus prohibited Monks from contracting a valid marriage in Arizona, and was therefore an unconstitutional constraint on her liberty. However, the court dismissed this argument as inapplicable, because the case presented involved not two mixed-race spouses but a mixed-race and a white spouse: "Under the facts presented the appellant does not have the benefit of assailing the validity of the statute."[27] Dismissing Monks' appeal in 1942, the United States Supreme Court refused to reopen the issue.

The turning point came with Perez v. Sharp (1948), also known as Perez v. Lippold. In Perez, the Supreme Court of California recognized that bans on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

Supreme Court decision
Chief Justice Earl Warren, the author of the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia

On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision that overturned the Lovings' Virginia criminal convictions and struck down anti-miscegenation laws that forbade marriage between people of different races.

The Court's opinion was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, and all the justices joined it.[note 2] The opinion first addressed whether Virginia's Racial Integrity Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which reads:

Nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

— U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, section 1.

Virginia had argued that its anti-miscegenation law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it "equally burdened" both whites and non-whites, since the punishment for violating the statute was the same regardless of the offender's race. For example, a white person who married a black person received the same punishment as black person who married a white person. The Court had accepted this "equal burden" argument 84 years earlier in its 1883 decision Pace v. Alabama, but in Loving it rejected it and overruled Pace, saying: "We reject the notion that the mere 'equal application' of a statute concerning racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations."[29] The Court ruled that because the races of the people involved were the only factors determining whether or not they broke the law, the law was therefore a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.[30]

There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. ... There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

— Loving, 388 U.S. at 11–12.[4]

The Court then ended its opinion with a short section holding that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law also violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, because it deprived its people of a constitutionally protected right without due process of law.[31] It ruled that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right, and therefore that depriving Americans of this liberty on an arbitrary basis such as race was unconstitutional.[31]

     ... The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
     Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

— Loving, 388 U.S. at 12 (case citations omitted).[32]

Effects

For interracial marriage

Despite the Supreme Court's decision, anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states, although the decision had made them unenforceable. Local judges in Alabama continued to enforce that state's anti-miscegenation statute until the Nixon administration obtained a ruling from a U.S. District Court in United States v. Brittain in 1970.[33][34] In 2000, Alabama became the last state to adapt its laws to the Supreme Court's decision, when 60% of voters endorsed a ballot initiative that removed anti-miscegenation language from the state constitution.[35]

After Loving v. Virginia, the number of interracial marriages continued to increase across the United States[36] and in the South. In Georgia, for instance, the number of interracial marriages increased from 21 in 1967 to 115 in 1970.[37] At the national level, 0.4% of marriages were interracial in 1960, 2.0% in 1980,[38] 12% in 2013,[39] and 16% in 2015, almost 50 years after Loving.[40]

For same-sex marriage

Loving v. Virginia was discussed in the context of the public debate about same-sex marriage in the United States.[41]

In Hernandez v. Robles (2006), the majority opinion of the New York Court of Appeals—that state's highest court—declined to rely on the Loving case when deciding whether a right to same-sex marriage existed, holding that "the historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case."[42] In the 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, overturning California's Proposition 8 which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples, Judge Vaughn R. Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender".[43] On narrower grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[44][45]

In June 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving, Mildred Loving issued the following statement:

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

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.[46][47][48]

Up until 2014, five U.S. Courts of Appeals considered the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. In doing so they interpreted or used the Loving ruling differently:

  • The Fourth and Tenth Circuits used Loving along with other cases like Zablocki v. Redhail[49] and Turner v. Safley[50] to demonstrate that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a "fundamental right to marry" that a state cannot restrict unless it meets the court's "heightened scrutiny" standard. Using that standard, both courts struck down state bans on same-sex marriage.[51][52]
  • Two other courts of appeals, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, struck down state bans on the basis of a different line of argument. Instead of "fundamental rights" analysis, they reviewed bans on same-sex marriage as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The former cited Loving to demonstrate that the Supreme Court did not accept tradition as a justification for limiting access to marriage.[53] The latter cited Loving as quoted in United States v. Windsor on the question of federalism: "state laws defining or regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons".[54]
  • The only Court of Appeals to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage, the Sixth Circuit, said that when the Loving decision discussed marriage it was referring only to marriage between persons of the opposite sex.[55]

In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court invoked Loving, among other cases, as precedent for its holding that states are required to allow same-sex marriages under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.[3] The court's decision in Obergefell cited Loving nearly a dozen times, and was based on the same principles – equality and an unenumerated right to marriage. During oral argument, the eventual author of the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, noted that the ruling holding racial segregation unconstitutional and the ruling holding bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and Loving v. Virginia in 1967, respectively) were made about 13 years apart, much like the ruling holding bans on same-sex sexual activity unconstitutional and the eventual ruling holding bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional (Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, respectively).[56]

Graves of the Lovings in the St. Stephen's Baptist Church cemetery, Central Point

In the United States, June 12, the date of the decision, has become known as Loving Day, an annual unofficial celebration of interracial marriages. In 2014, Mildred Loving was honored as one of the Library of Virginia's "Virginia Women in History".[57] In 2017, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources dedicated a state historical marker, which tells the story of the Lovings, outside the Patrick Henry Building in Richmond – the former site of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.[58]

The story of the Lovings became the basis of several films:

In music, Nanci Griffith's 2009 album The Loving Kind is named for the Lovings and includes a song about them. Satirist Roy Zimmerman's 2009 song The Summer of Loving is about the Lovings and their 1967 case.[68] The title is a reference to the Summer of Love.

A 2015 novel by the French journalist Gilles Biassette, L'amour des Loving ("The Love of the Lovings", ISBN 978-2917559598), recounts the life of the Lovings and their case.[69] A photo-essay about the couple by Grey Villet, created just before the case, was republished in 2017.[70]

gollark: I'd assume that if that were practical there would already be lots around.
gollark: I think there's one which was meant as a nasal spray.
gollark: So a ballistic vaccine launcher of some kind? Interesting.
gollark: That's a nice infographic. I like the hexagons.
gollark: (my internet connection is very unstable right now, I'm having to type very slowly on my phone)

References

Informational notes

  1. Mildred Loving's precise racial background remains unclear. Most sources describe her as black, but she denied being black and often stated she was Native American. See the "Plaintiffs" section for details.
  2. The decision also includes a very short concurring opinion—only two sentences long—written by Justice Potter Stewart. Stewart took the position that no state criminal law can be valid "which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor," a standard which reflects Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissent in 1896's Plessy v. Ferguson.[28]

Citations

  1. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
  2. Nowak & Rotunda (2012), § 18.28(a), pp. 80–81.
  3. Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
  4. Chemerinsky (2019), § 9.3.1, p. 757.
  5. Wallenstein, Peter (16 Aug 2006). "Reconstruction, Segregation, and Miscegenation: Interracial Marriage and the Law in the Lower South, 1865–1900". American Nineteenth Century History. 6: 57–76. doi:10.1080/14664650500121827. On the eve of Congressional Reconstruction, all seven states of the Lower South had laws against interracial marriage. During the Republican interlude that began in 1867–68, six of the seven states (all but Georgia) suspended those laws, whether through judicial invalidation or legislative repeal. Yet by 1894 all six had restored such bans.
  6. Peter Wallenstein, "Reconstruction, Segregation, and Miscegenation: Interracial Marriage and the Law in the Lower South, 1865–1900." American Nineteenth Century History 6#1 (2005): 57–76.
  7. Loving, 388 U.S. at 6.
  8. Mildred Loving obituary Archived 2016-10-27 at the Wayback Machine accessed 10/26/2016
  9. "What You Didn't Know About Loving v. Virginia". Time. Archived from the original on 2017-02-15. Retrieved 2017-02-22.
  10. Lawing, Charles B. "Loving v. Virginia and the Hegemony of "Race"" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 4, 2007. Retrieved December 10, 2017.
  11. Walker, Dionne (2007-06-10). "Pioneer of interracial marriage looks back". Associated Press. Retrieved 2015-04-27.
  12. Staples, Brent (2008-05-14). "Opinion | Loving v. Virginia and the Secret History of Race". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-04-08.
  13. "Racial Integrity Laws (1924–1930)". www.encyclopediavirginia.org. Archived from the original on 2015-11-15. Retrieved 2015-11-04.
  14. "Mildred Loving - Civil Rights Activist - Biography.com". Biography.com. A&E Television Networks, LLC. Archived from the original on 2017-02-11. Retrieved 2017-02-20.
  15. Loving, 388 U.S. at 3 ("On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years ... After their convictions, the Lovings took up residence in the District of Columbia.")
  16. "Mildred Loving, Key Figure in Civil Rights Era, Dies" Archived 2017-06-13 at the Wayback Machine, PBS Online News Hour, May 6, 2008
  17. Martin, Douglas. "Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage, Dies at 68" Archived 2016-12-01 at the Wayback Machine, New York Times, May 6, 2008.
  18. "Opinion of Judge Bazile in Commonwealth v. Loving (January 22, 1965)". www.encyclopediavirginia.org. Archived from the original on November 28, 2016. Retrieved 2016-11-27.
  19. "Loving v. Commonwealth (March 7, 1966)". www.encyclopediavirginia.org. Archived from the original on September 10, 2015. Retrieved 2015-11-04.
  20. Loving v. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 924 (1966).
  21. Kate Sheppard, "'The Loving Story': How an Interracial Couple Changed a Nation" Archived 2017-02-20 at the Wayback Machine, Mother Jones, Feb 13, 2012.
  22. "Loving v. Virginia oral argument transcript". Archived from the original on November 15, 2016. Retrieved November 27, 2016. Also quoted in Loving v. Virginia (1967) Archived 2012-12-14 at the Wayback Machine, Encyclopedia Virginia
  23. Brown, DeNeen (June 11, 2017). "Before Loving v. Virginia, another interracial couple fought in court for their marriage". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 11 June 2017. Retrieved 11 June 2017.
  24. Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883)
  25. Pascoe 1996, pp. 49–51
  26. Pascoe 1996, p. 56
  27. Pascoe 1996, p. 60
  28. Schoff, Rebecca (2009). "Note: Deciding on Doctrine: Anti-Miscegnation Statutes and the Development of Equal Protection Analysis". Virginia Law Review. 95 (3): 627–65..
  29. Chemerinsky (2019), § 9.3.1, p. 757, quoting Loving, 388 U.S. at 8.
  30. Nowak & Rotunda (2012), § 18.28(a), pp. 80–81.
  31. Chemerinsky (2019), § 10.2.1, p. 863.
  32. Quoted in Chemerinsky (2019), § 10.2.1, p. 863.
  33. United States v. Brittain, 319 F. Supp. 1058 (N.D. Ala. 1970).
  34. Rosenthal, Jack (December 4, 1970). "Government Seeks to Allow A Mixed Marriage in Alabama" (PDF). New York Times. Retrieved January 25, 2015.
  35. Sengupta, Somini (November 12, 2000). "November 5–11; Marry at Will". New York Times. Archived from the original on August 21, 2009. Retrieved May 27, 2009. The margin by which the measure passed was itself a statement. A clear majority, 60 percent, voted to remove the miscegenation statute from the state constitution, but 40 percent of Alabamans – nearly 526,000 people – voted to keep it.
  36. "Interracial marriage flourishes in U.S." NBC News. April 15, 2007. Retrieved December 13, 2012.
  37. Aldridge, The Changing Nature of Interracial Marriage in Georgia: A Research Note, 1973
  38. "Table 1. Race of Wife by Race of Husband: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1991, and 1992". census.gov. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1994-07-05. Archived from the original on 2017-03-04. Retrieved 2017-02-20.
  39. "Interracial marriage: Who is 'marrying out'?". Pew Research Center. 12 June 2015. Archived from the original on 12 August 2016. Retrieved 11 August 2016.
  40. "Intermarriage across the U.S. by metro area". Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project. 18 May 2017. Archived from the original on 6 June 2017. Retrieved 11 June 2017.
  41. Trei, Lisa (June 13, 2007). "Loving v. Virginia provides roadmap for same-sex marriage advocates". News.stanford.edu. Archived from the original on December 13, 2012. Retrieved December 13, 2012.
  42. Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.3d 1 (N.Y. 2006).
  43. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
  44. Nagoruney, Adam (February 7, 2012). "Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California". New York Times. Archived from the original on February 11, 2012. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  45. Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012).
  46. "Mildred Loving Endorses Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples". American Constitution Society. June 15, 2007. Retrieved July 24, 2018.
  47. Douglas Martin (June 18, 2007). "Mildred Loving, 40 Years Later". The Atlantic. Retrieved March 11, 2015.
  48. Douglas Martin (May 6, 2008). "Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage, Dies at 68". New York Times. Retrieved July 14, 2018.
  49. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)
  50. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)
  51. Bostic v. Shaefer, 760 F.3d 352, 376 (4th Cir. 2014) ("In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court invalidated a Virginia law that prohibited white individuals from marrying individuals of other races. The Court explained that '[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men' and that no valid basis justified the Virginia law's infringement of that right. [citations omitted]").
  52. Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014).
  53. Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014).
  54. Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 456, 474 (2014).
  55. DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388, 411 (6th Cir. 2014) ("Matters do not change because Loving v. Virginia held that 'marriage' amounts to a fundamental right. ... In referring to 'marriage' rather than "opposite-sex marriage", Loving confirmed only that 'opposite-sex marriage' would have been considered redundant, not that marriage included same-sex couples. Loving did not change the definition. [citations omitted]").
  56. Amar, Akhil Reed (6 July 2015). "Anthony Kennedy and the Ghost of Earl Warren". Slate. Archived from the original on 7 July 2015. Retrieved 6 July 2015.
  57. "Virginia Women in History: Mildred Delores Jeter Loving". Library of Virginia. Archived from the original on 21 March 2015. Retrieved 4 March 2015.
  58. "Virginia to honor interracial marriage with state historical marker". WTVR.com. 8 June 2017. Archived from the original on 8 June 2017. Retrieved 11 June 2017.
  60. Dionne Walker (June 10, 2007). "Pioneer of interracial marriage looks back". USAToday.com. Archived from the original on May 9, 2008. Retrieved May 8, 2008.
  61. "40 years of interracial marriage: Mildred Loving reflects on breaking the color barrier". International Herald-Tribune. Associated Press. June 9, 2007. Archived from the original on May 8, 2008. Retrieved April 28, 2008.
  62. Stanley, Alessandra (February 13, 2012). "Scenes From a Marriage That Segregationists Tried to Break Up". New York Times. Archived from the original on February 14, 2012.
  63. The Loving Story Archived 2012-06-12 at the Wayback Machine, accessed March 25, 2015
  64. 72nd Annual Peabody Awards Archived 2014-09-11 at the Wayback Machine, May 2013.
  65. "The Loving Generation". Topic.com. Archived from the original on February 17, 2018. Retrieved February 18, 2018.
  66. Branigin, Anne (February 10, 2018). "The Loving Generation Explores the Lives of Biracial Children Born After Mixed-Race Marriages Were Legalized". The Root. Archived from the original on February 16, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2018.
  67. Holmes, Anna (February 10, 2018). "Black With (Some) White Privilege". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 14, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2018.
  68. Altman, Ross (12 July 2017). "Roy Zimmerman: Rezist". FolkWorks. Retrieved 18 June 2020.
  69. Mahuzier, Marc (21 June 2015). "L'amour en noir et blanc". Ouest-France. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 22 June 2015.
  70. Villet, Barbara; Villet, Grey (February 14, 2017). The Lovings: An Intimate Portrait. Princeton Architectural Press. ISBN 978-1616895563.

Bibliography

  • Chemerinsky, Erwin (2019). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (6th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. ISBN 978-1-4548-9574-9.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Nowak, John E.; Rotunda, Ronald D. (2012). Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure (5th ed.). Eagan, Minnesota: West Thomson/Reuters. OCLC 798148265.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)

Further reading

Links with the text of the court's decision
    This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.