Loving V. Virginia (388 U.S. 1)Essay Preview: Loving V. Virginia (388 U.S. 1)Report this essayOn 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 states anti-miscegenation statute.
Mr. and Mrs. Loving were residents of the small town of Central point, Virginia. They were family friends who had dated each other since he was seventeen and she a teenager. When they learned that marriage was illegal for them in Virginia, they simply drove over the Washington, D.C. for the ceremony. They returned to Virginia and were arrested the following month for violating the anti-miscegenation statute, which was declared in the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. Commonwealths Attorney Bernard Mahon obtained the warrant for Richard Loving and “Mildred Jeter”. Mildreds maiden name was on the warrant because in Virginia a marriage between a white and black was considered void. In October 1958, the indictments of Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter were bought before the court and on January 6, 1959, Richard and Mildred pled not guilty to the charges. Changing their pleas to guilty and waiving their right to a jury trial due to fear and optimism for a favorable punishment, the Lovings took the plea bargain. The Circuit Court judge that was presiding over the case, Judge Leon M. Bazile, did not see favor on them and sentenced them to one year in jail. Yet, at the same time in agreement with the plea bargain, Judge Bazile suspended the sentence for 25 years provided that the Lovings would leave the state of Virginia immediately and not return together for the whole period. There was a catch, for when the 25 year period ends they would still face the prosecution of the court if they ever returned. He concluded his decision with this quote:
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 case for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did intend for the races to mix.
Later, in a plea to the supreme court of appeals in Virginia as to the constitutionality of these provisions in the decision, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to The Equal Protection Clause stating that:
The definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes to the same degree. Thus, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.
The court also referred to its 1955 decision in “Naim v. Naim” as stating the reasons supporting the validity of the anti-miscegenation laws. In Naim, the state court concluded that the States legitimate purposes were “to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,” and to prevent “the corruption of blood,” “a mongrel breed of citizens,” and “the obliteration of racial pride,” obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment.
The statements related to the courts attempt to “preserve the racial integrity of its citizens” would have been ludicrous any place but was especially laughable in Caroline County, and in the Lovings hometown of Central Point, which had been an epicenter of race mixing for at least 200 years. White families and their fair-skinned black relatives lived so close together that they bumped into each other on the street. Mixed-race people were initially treated as a “new people” who existed in the space between white and black and deserved a status which was in general higher then blacks but was not as high as whites. This special status began to dry up just before the Civil War and evaporated when slavery ended and free blacks competed with whites for jobs and political power.
The struggle for acceptance for interracial couples was fought in both courts and public opinion. In 1948 in the California Supreme Court in the case of Perez v. Lippold (AKA Perez v. Sharp) became the first state court in the nation to strike down laws prohibiting interracial marriage nearly 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court did so. The Supreme Court of California ruled that that states ban on interracial marriage violated the federal constitutions Equal Protection Clause. During the 1960s, the civil rights movement helped reverse many of the legal barriers against miscegenation. The Warren Court, through its 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, was actively striving to end discrimination against blacks. The court continued to strike down legal segregation throughout the 1950s and 1960s. In a series of short opinions, the court outlawed segregation in buses, parks, public golf courses, and other places. In each case, the court cited the Brown opinion. So when the case of McLaughlin v. Florida appeared on the table in 1964, the Court was again ready to deal with the question of racial classification. In McLaughlin, the Court ruled as invalid a Florida statute that allowed more severe penalties for cohabitation and adultery by interracial couples than same-race pairs. Justice Potter Stewart in a concurring opinion concluded, “It is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor”. Yet it seems that to the public these monumental Supreme Court decisions served no purpose, for in a 1958 Gallup poll it was discovered that 94 percent of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage.
Its only the courts decisions that truly mattered to Mildred, which is why in 1963 (four years in their exile) Mildred wrote the U.S. Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy, for help and advice. She had heard about a bill that was being proposed in Congress (Civil Rights Act of 1964) and wanted to see if that bill would assist them in anyway. Mr. Kennedy responded back informing Mrs. loving that the federal government could not do anything for them; however, he suggested that they contact the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for assistance. Jumping to the opportunity, Mildred contacted the ACLU and informed them of their situation. One of the ACLU members who happened to be a lawyer, Bernard S. Cohen, was very intrigued with
It appears that the ACLU was the first to sign a settlement that would help Mildred. Mr. Kushner was able to get it out of the government and into the hands of their lawyer, William E. H. Cohen, then of the American Civil Liberties Union of California, and gave Mildred a copy of the settlement. This agreement is so important and so long dated that it would not have affected Mildred at all. He also helped in setting up the “Petition for Relief” campaign as an advocate in their case. This petition is made during an election season, where a significant section of the people of the state of California vote at an early election time. When you watch the video with Mrs. Loving, let us note that the government has a responsibility to protect the voters, not the state, and in keeping that promise it is trying to help, by building on Mrs. Loving’s plea to help Mildred, a very important issue. In addition in the middle of this campaign, the ACLU tried, through the same lawyer who was helping Mildred, a small campaign of legal action by her supporters that was used as evidence in the courts about the laws of the U.S. and the other countries in which she traveled. The American Civil Liberties Union appealed after hearing that Mr. Cohen had been convicted of violating California’s Voting Rights Act. In his opening remarks, a white judge named John A. Kennedy said that the government was not required to act because Mildred is in solitary confinement because the U.S. has to do everything possible to save her. The judge said, ‘I do not think you can live in a state where you can’t prove that you live under an order of the Supreme Court.’ He pointed out that the order was in effect in 1952. His remark was met with protests and legal actions by the ACLU and other activists on both sides of the aisle. The next day Mr. Kennedy’s press release announcing that in the United States of America, “every person is a citizen of the Union of States and a citizen of the People of the State of California,” was greeted by anger between the ACLU supporters and the government. Mr. Kennedy has had an excellent relationship with the people of California. I have learned from the lawyers and public officials of this country in the years since that last trial, that when you’re not on the frontline of a struggle for freedom the people of California will be as important as the people in Washington D.C.
The ACLU is a progressive organization that advocates and protects the rights of everyone. Its goal is to help protect the rights and the lives of all Californians based on the Constitution. When we ask for help for Mr. Kushner and his wife, we can speak to them clearly, and they speak for us. Mrs. Loving and Mildred are married and all of us