Preview

Loving v. Virginia

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
330 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Loving v. Virginia
Loving v. Virginia

You can't choose who you love and you can't control how you feel towards someone based exclusively on race. A person's skin color shouldn't influence how they are treated or who they are required to marry. Before 1967, marrying outside of one's own race was unheard of in the United States. This issue may seem foreign to us because it is now one of the many freedoms we have, but these freedoms were not easy to obtain. The unjust anti-miscegenation laws were finally defeated by the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia and people were free to love as they wished. Loving v. Virginia had a huge impact on the US by protecting the freedom to marry regardless of race.

Anti-miscegenation laws have been around in the US since the late 17th century. One of the laws put into action to discourage the act of miscegenation was The Racial Integrity Act of 1924 which stated that every person is required to have a full racial description report when they were born. There were only two groups that a child could be placed in: white people and colored people. This law made it clear that it was illegal for these two races to marry.

In 1958, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, got married in the District of Columbia in an attempt to avoid Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws, and then returned to their home in Caroline County, Virginia. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, which was also effective in 16 other states.
One night, the newlyweds were awakened in their home by three intruders demanding to know who they were and why they were in bed together. Mildred answered that she was Richard’s wife and Mr. Loving pointed to the marriage certificate hanging on the wall.

The leader of the intruders, Sheriff R. Brooks, said that this was not good. He arrested the young couple and they were each sentenced to a year in jail.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In the 1920s, American stardom was on the rise. With the birth of the movie “star”, the public was more focused than ever on Hollywood. The crowds rejoiced when actors and actresses made blockbuster movies, but came down with harsh criticism if this perfect image was shattered. This is evident in the case of Virginia Rappe, a popular silent film actress who died in the days following a party with the biggest star at the time, Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle. The case was based on the assumption that her death, caused by a ruptured bladder, was due to being raped by Arbuckle. This case was filled with many conflicting testimonies along with the influence of the press making the persecution of Arbuckle impossible.…

    • 590 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Virginia on April 7th 2003 a divided United States Supreme Court opened the possibility of constitutionally restricting certain types of hate speech. The court was to hear a case that spoke to one specific Virginia state statute that prohibited cross burning with the intent to intimidate, and also rendered that any such burning shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group. This court would see this statute being used between two separate cases. The first case was against Barry Black; in August of 1998 Black led a Ku Klux Klan rally at which the conclusion resulted in the burning of a cross on private property with the permission of the owner. Black was charged under the state statute, “Burning a cross with the intent to intimidate.” [347] The jury was instructed in accordance with the Model Jury Instruction that the burning of the cross by itself is sufficient evidence from which you may infer the required intent. [364] In May 1998 Richard Elliot and Jonathan O’Mara attempted to burn a cross on the lawn of Elliot’s neighbor and were charged in accordance under the cross-burning statute. After all of the respondents were convicted, they appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia arguing that the cross-burning statute is unconstitutional. The Virginia Supreme court reversed all the convictions holding that the Virginia cross-burning statute is analytically indistinguishable from the ordinance found…

    • 884 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Loving v Virginia a married couple from Washington D.C. moved to Virginia where they were then subject to Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute. Anti-miscegenation laws prohibit the marrying of different races with another. In Virginia, this statute prohibited the marriage between whites and any other race. Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, were married in Washington D.C. They then moved to the state of Virginia where they faced criminal charges. Both of them pled guilty and were sentenced to one year imprisonment but the sentence would be waved for 25 years if they moved out of state and didn’t return.…

    • 600 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Jim Crow Laws is a list of laws that were used in previous years in different parts of the United States of America. The law above was from the state of Georgia and it forbid marriage between races. Similar laws existed in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s. White and black folks were separated in courtrooms, churches, and were not allowed to marry. Those who married and had mixed children were often seen as “in betweens” (Lee, 1960).…

    • 319 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia were Richard and Mildred Loving, who were represented by the ACLU in the Supreme Court. The Plaintiff argued the prohibition of interracial marriage was unconstitutional and anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment explains, “No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law.” As declared by the Constitution and Maynard v. Hill case, marriage is a civil right for citizens of the United States and the decision of whether one decides to marry a colored person or not cannot be infringed by any state. Denying anyone their given right to marry without due process of the…

    • 274 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Was there ever a period in history where interracial marriages and sex among people of different races was considered illegal? As absurd as this idea sounds, the answer is yes. Astonishingly, less than 40 years ago marrying someone of a different race was considered illegal. Black people could not be with white people- it just couldn’t happen. These statutes date back to colonial times, around the 1600s, which at this time helped to maintain the racial caste system and expand slavery. Two particular landmark cases convey the importance of Anti-Miscegenation Statutes in the United States: Pace v. Alabama (1883) & Loving v. Virginia (1967). The 1883 case upholds the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation statutes whereas the 1967 case affirms that these statutes are repugnant and unconstitutional. It is important to review these two cases in depth in terms of their facts, issues at hand, and their rulings. Pace v. Alabama & Loving v. Virginia have their differences and similarities but can be considered influential on Brown v. Board of Education and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOM).…

    • 1365 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter were both born and raised in Virginia. Mildred was African American, and Richard was Caucasian. On June 2, 1958 they decided to get married in Washington D.C., yet under the Virginia law. People did not approve of this decision because of their race. During the time of their case, integration was not completely accepted by others. Of course they were severely judged and put down, and the couple was bashed on by most of the surrounding people. They stuck through the battle though because they truly loved each other, and few people understood that, as anyone could conclude from the interviews within the documentary. Since their marriage was not legally accepted, they…

    • 796 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Virginia V Black

    • 423 Words
    • 2 Pages

    B) The first amendment permits a State to ban “True threats” which encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or groups of individuals. The speaker need not actually intent to carry out the threat. Intimidation is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.…

    • 423 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    During the 18th and 19th century, racism was very actively ruining innocent people’s life. It stopped the America from moving forward, because it was stuck on the color of a man’s skin. With that being the case, many interracial families were not accepted by the law or the eyes of the man. Though interracial marriage became legal in 1967, many men and women who tried to pursue a relationship with another race were taunted, mistreated, and often killed. Within the 21st century, minds that were once afraid of a man’s skin now slowly started to welcome different race marriage within the family. This being the case, the offsprings of the interracial parents did not have to be afraid of being proud of their heritage, instead they started to be able to embrace it.…

    • 1047 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    America’s first biracial child was born in 1620 before anti miscegenation laws were created to prevent African Americans from getting romantically involved with Whites. Negative attitudes towards interracial relationships were fueled by racial discrimination and the devotion to keep each race pure. In today's evolving society interracial relationships are still discouraged, especially between Whites and Blacks (Childs, 2005) due to parental approval and racism. Interracial unions are believed to be evidence of a cultural development resulting from America’s practices of racial boundaries in social interaction (King & Bratter, 2007). In today’s society it is influential to increase contact amongst different races and cultures…

    • 2051 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In some places, there is no choice of who you can date or marry. For example, if you were from a family of strict Asian descent and you wanted to date outside your race you probably would be forbidden by your parents to do so. Usually their customs is to date and have an arranged marriage with their own ethnicity. I understand the fact that some countries follow a certain custom, but there should always be a freedom of choice in who you want to date. Also, some towns in the Deep South wouldn’t even dare to date the opposite race because there is still racism and terrorism going on. Those places are still to this day segregated by race in every way so they believe it’s best to keep blacks with blacks and whites with whites. However, in the past most black people believed that they should couple in their own ethnicity to keep pure black families and strong black couples alive. There is nothing wrong with that choice either because there…

    • 851 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Interracial marriage is a controversial topic, but it really doesn’t need to be. Marriage, although not directly mentioned in the Constitution, is viewed as a basic Constitutional right, and should be allowed for any two persons, no matter what they look like or where they came from. In fact, scientific studies have proven that race shouldn’t be an issue at all. Some might argue that, in the scriptures, God separated the different races, but they forget that he created them all together in the beginning. While some people believe that interracial marriage should not be allowed, the choice to marry who you want is a basic constitutional right, and science has proven that genetically, race does not actually exist.…

    • 565 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Mesmeric Revelation

    • 463 Words
    • 2 Pages

    With the enactment of apartheid laws in 1948, racial discrimination was institutionalized. Race laws touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and the sanctioning of ``white-only'' jobs. In 1950, the Population Registration Act required that all South Africans be racially classified into one of three categories: white, black (African), or colored (of mixed decent). The coloured category included major subgroups of Indians and Asians. Classification into these categories was based on appearance, social acceptance, and descent. For example, a white person was defined as ``in appearance obviously a white person or generally accepted as a white person.'' A person could not be considered white if…

    • 463 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Crow Laws. The Jim Crow Laws made it so that blacks couldn't marry a white person,…

    • 463 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    This case note will examine the 1967 landmark Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia. The Loving v. Virginia case touched on constitutional principles including equality, federalism, and liberty. Just over 30 years ago, it was a crime for interracial couples in Virginia to marry, or to live as husband and wife. Prior to the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, many states had laws that banned the intermarriage of whites with black or other minorities. The United States has a long history of the existence of anti-miscegenation laws that forbid interracial marriage. The case presents the constitutional question whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The right that is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, contains the right to be treated the same, legally, as others in the same situation. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws . The equal protection jurisprudence in the United States has evolved greatly. Well-known cases covering the Equal Protection Clause are Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, considering the de-segregation of public schools and Korematsu v. United States in 1944, when the Court first articulated a strict scrutiny standard for laws based on race-based distinctions. This strict scrutiny standard was applied again in the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967. In 1967, the Supreme Court’s had to decide if these anti-miscegenation statutes were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared, in a unanimous decision, Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial…

    • 1579 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays