«

»

this is how equality wins


“[O]n June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, ‘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,’ a ‘basic civil right.’”

As late as 1967, it was illegal for people of different races to marry or have intimate relations in some US states. Laws prohibiting “interracial relations” are called anti-miscegenation laws (or sometimes just miscegenation laws).

The anti-miscegenation laws originated in the British colonies of Virginia and Maryland and were originally meant to prohibit marriage between white people and slaves/indentured servants. However, laws were eventually enacted that prohibited interracial marriage solely on the basis of race and not on one’s condition of servitude – prohibiting marriage between “free” men and women of varying melanin content.

The constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama. The Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution because, according to the court, both races were treated equally, with both white people and black people being punished in equal measure for breaking the law against interracial marriage and interracial sex.

From the late 1800s through the 1900s, congressional lawmakers proposed making a constitutional amendment to prohibit interracial marriage. Rep. Roddenberry of Georgia: “Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy…” Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502-503.

We are hearing similar calls for a constitutional ban on marriage between people of the same gender.

Rep. Pence of Indiana, in 2004: “President George W. Bush called on
this Congress to adopt a constitutional amendment defining marriage historically and culturally as it has ever been, as the union between a man and a woman, …preventing the courts from changing that ‘most enduring of human institutions.’ …[M]arriage is the glue of the family and the safest harbor for children. Congress should heed President Bush’s courageous moral leadership, pass the marriage amendment, and affirm the confidence of the American people in our ability to defend their most cherished of institutions.” Congressional Record, February 24, 2004, page H518.

Loving for All

By Mildred Loving*

Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007,
The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn’t to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn’t allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “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.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn’t have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “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,” a “basic civil right.”

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.



posted on Friday, November 14th, 2008 at 11:23 am and is filed under US consitutiton, US supreme court, anti-miscegenation, legislation, marriage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

contribute to the discussion

you must be logged in to post a comment.

Archive Category