Fifty Years of Loving, 0717 COBJ, Vol. 46 No. 7 Pg. 52
| Author | ERIK MOELLER, J. |
THE SIDEBAR
ERIK MOELLER, J.
Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter adored each other and wanted to be married.1 For them, it was as simple as that.2 But Richard’s white skin contrasted with Mildred’s brown skin, and the Racial Integrity Act in 1958 Virginia forbade the “intermarriage of white and colored persons.”3 So the couple drove to Washington, D.C. and legally married there.4 She took his name, and together they became Mr. and Mrs. Loving.
The newlyweds returned to the Virginia countryside they had called home since birth, framed their marriage certificate, and hung it on a wall near their bed.5 They had no idea the act of returning home would lead to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 landmark case that recognized a fundamental right to marry, invalidated anti-miscegenation laws, and transformed the couple into reluctant civil rights icons.6
Marking its 50th anniversary, Loving v. Virginia remains a cultural and legal cornerstone that continues to inform the nation’s concept of marriage, race, and justice.7
Soon after Richard and Mildred were married in 1958, police stormed the couple’s bedroom in the wee hours of the morning, rousted the Lovings from their bed, and placed them under arrest.8 Mildred pointed to the marriage certificate and said, “I’m his wife.”9 But the out-of-state marriage certificate only hurt their case, for Virginia law also prohibited an interracial couple from leaving the state for the purpose of marrying and then returning to Virginia to cohabit as husband and wife.10
Facing damning evidence and a sentence of up to five years in prison, the Lovings accepted a plea offer, pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to one year in jail.11 The judge, Leon Bazile, suspended the jail sentence on the condition the couple immediately leave Virginia and not return together for 25 years.12 They packed their bags, drove back to D.C., and moved in with Mildred’s cousin.13
The Lovings became frustrated with city life and pined for their home and family in Virginia. Acting on a suggestion, Mildred wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy explaining her situation. The Attorney General contacted the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which arranged a meeting with the Lovings.14
The Lovings and ACLU lawyers Philip Hirschkop and Bernard Cohen fled a motion in Judge Bazile’s court asking the court to vacate the conviction and set aside the sentence because the Racial Integrity Act violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.15 After more than a year of delay, the judge denied the motion and decreed:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with this 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.16
Hirschkop and Cohen were astounded by the judge’s ruling but were confident that Judge Bazile’s egregious racism grounded in religion would provide ample lift to access higher courts.17
The Lovings fared no better in the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,18 which reaffirmed its decision in Naim v. Naim, a 1955 case that found no words in the federal constitution denying “the power of the State to regulate the marriage relation so that it shall not have a mongrel breed of citizens.”19
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the Lovings’ case. When the time came for oral arguments before the tribunal, the Lovings chose not to attend. Instead, Richard instructed Cohen to “tell the court I love my wife and it is just unfair that I can’t live with her in Virginia.”20 Mr. Cohen complied.[21]
Perhaps Richard Loving’s simple message won the day. The nation’s highest court unanimously ruled that marriage is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial