Loving v. Virginia was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that legalized interracial marriage nationwide. The plaintiffs, in this case, were a white man and an African American woman named Richard and Mildred Loving. According to the laws of Virginia, the couple’s marriage should not have occurred. The Lovings filed an appeal with the Virginia Supreme Court, which ruled that laws prohibiting interracial marriage are unconstitutional (Livingstone & Brown, 2017). This decision is frequently seen as a pivotal moment in the struggle to overthrow Jim Crow laws in the southern states and local statutes that authorized racial segregation. This case study example was chosen as it illustrates the difficulties that arise when interracial marriages occur in various States, particularly in the United States.
The Loving lawsuit challenged decades of anti-miscegenation legislation in the United States. Miscegenation word refers to marriage relations between blacks and whites. Earlier efforts to combat marriage restrictions centered on race were, for the most part, unsuccessful. Pace v. Alabama in 1883 was among the first instances. In that decision, the Supreme Court found that anti-miscegenation legislation in Alabama was constitutional since it penalized blacks and whites fairly.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court determined in 1888 that states had powers to govern marriage. In the mid-1950s, more than fifty percent of U.S. states still maintained laws prohibiting white-black marriage (Livingstone & Brown, 2017). In Virginia, marriages between races were forbidden. Those who violated the legislation faced anything from one to five years in prison (Livingstone & Brown, 2017).
The primary players in Loving v. Virginia were Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter. Mildred had a heritage that was a combination of African-American and Native American, while Richard worked as a construction worker and was white. They had known one other for a long time before falling in love. In June of 1958, they went to Washington, District of Columbia, where they could legally be married, and then they returned to Virginia (Livingstone & Brown, 2017). A few weeks later, the local sheriff awakened the Lovings from their sleep at two in the morning and arrested them for the crime. At that time, the State of Virginia considered interracial marriage a criminal act. In the subsequent year, the pair pled guilty and were found guilty and sentenced to one year in jail. Still, the Court ruled they would avoid serving their term if only they left Virginia and never returned together for 25 years after the punishment was imposed.
The Loving family relocated to Washington, District of Columbia. The couple had three children there: a girl and two boys, but they yearned to return to their hometown, where they had spent their formative years. Robert F. Kennedy, the United States Attorney General, acts as a secondary player in this case. In 1963, Mildred asked for assistance in a letter that she addressed to Robert F. Kennedy, the Attorney General of the United States (Small, 2018). Kennedy recommended the Lovings to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a prominent civil rights group. Eventually, through Kennedy’s assistance, this organization agreed to take the Lovings’ legal claim.
In November 1963, the Lovings started their legal campaign by requesting that their conviction and sentencing be overturned. During the hearings before the Court, the deputy attorney general for Virginia upheld the State’s anti-miscegenation statute. The ACLU attorneys act as the secondary players in the case during the court hearing. The ACLU attorneys contended that the Virginia statute was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, which gives all individuals due process and equal treatment under the law. Philip Hirschkop, among the ACLU’s attorneys, said interracial marriage legislation in Virginia and similar regulations were founded on white supremacy and racism (Small, 2018). He contended that they were not welfare statutes and health. The Supreme Court ruled on June 12, 1967, where the judges ruled unanimously that Virginia’s interracial marital legislation violates the 14th Amendment (Small, 2018). Chief Justice Warren stated, “Under our Constitution, the right to marry or not marry someone of a different race rest with the person and cannot be impeded by the state” (Small, 2018). Philip Hirschkop, among other ACLU attorneys, was ultimately victorious as the ruling was made that Virginia’s interracial marital legislation violated the 14th Amendment. In addition to overturning the Lovings’ 1958 criminal conviction, the historic decision invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage in Virginia and 16 other states.
The best change theory for this situation is the heliotropic hypothesis. This theory contends that social structures transform toward the most favorable self-images they hold. These pictures are not usually conscious because the participants of this social scheme may not be able to discuss them. However, such images do exist, and the more they assert the group, the more strongly they bind the group to a structure of being recommended by the concept the group has. According to the theory, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Loving case reflected a favorable attitude toward fighting for the rights of marginalized groups, particularly whites (Small, 2018). The case Loving vs. Virginia may apply globally since marriages between people of different races has become the norm in an evolving world. In addition, this lawsuit significantly impacts instances involving same-sex marriages; thus, its presentation is unbiased toward all types of marriage.
In Loving vs. Virginia, the State argued that its anti-miscegenation statutes were lawful because they applied equally to all races. Many contend that same-sex marriage laws are legal because they prohibit men from marrying other men and women from marrying women. Those advocating for same-sex marriages reference the Loving vs. Virginia case to claim that marriage is a fundamental right and that unlawful marriage law discriminates based on race and other qualities, including sex.
It is important that the Loving vs. Virginia case be recognized for its role in promoting multiracial partnerships, which have improved the well-being of a great number of communities and brought happiness to many families. The result of this is that the audience is left with an awareness of the applicability of this case to personal relationships and interactions between the government and those governed. A commitment to love inspires individuals to reject the supremacist and eugenic tendencies of the past and work toward the creation of a society that is more diverse, egalitarian, and welcoming of those who are different. Therefore, this encapsulates the heart of love in a single sentence.
The case result supported the plaintiffs’ decision because limiting the right to marry purely based on race amounted to a violation of the due process of law. The Court further determined that such a restriction on fundamental marital rights based on race violates the principle of equal security under the law. In its decision, the Court recognized the privilege to marry as one of the fundamental human freedoms necessary to the quest for joy by free individuals. It was emphasized that deprivation of the privilege to marry founded on racial classifications is an unconstitutional loss of liberty by the State. Thus, by holding Virginia’s anti-miscegenation legislation unlawful, the Supreme Court overturned interracial marriage bans and struck a significant blow to segregation.
References
Livingstone, G., & Brown, A. (2017). Intermarriage in the U.S.: 50 years after loving V. Virginia. Pew Research Center. Web.
Small, C. (2018). Interracial Marriage: Loving v. Virginia. Cavendish Square Publishing, LLC.