Title: The Challenges of Crafting a Loving v.

Virginia Research Paper

Crafting a research paper on the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia poses a unique set of challenges
for students. This historic legal battle, which ultimately led to the Supreme Court striking down state
laws prohibiting interracial marriage, demands meticulous research, in-depth analysis, and a
comprehensive understanding of the legal and societal contexts.

One of the primary challenges students face is navigating through the extensive legal documentation
surrounding the case. The intricate details of court proceedings, legal arguments, and historical
background can be overwhelming, requiring a keen eye for detail and an ability to synthesize
complex information.

Moreover, the topic demands a nuanced exploration of the societal norms and prejudices prevalent
during the 1960s. Understanding the social climate that necessitated such a legal challenge is crucial
for providing context to the legal arguments presented in the case.

The process of gathering relevant primary and secondary sources is another obstacle students
encounter. This includes sifting through legal documents, historical records, scholarly articles, and
other resources to ensure a comprehensive and well-rounded exploration of the subject matter.

Crafting a thesis statement that encapsulates the essence of the research and forms a solid foundation
for the paper is yet another challenge. Balancing the legal aspects with the social implications of the
case requires a thoughtful and nuanced approach to ensure the thesis is both compelling and well-
supported.

In light of these challenges, students may find it beneficial to seek assistance from professional
writing services like ⇒ BuyPapers.club ⇔. By entrusting their Loving v. Virginia research paper to
experts in the field, students can ensure a high-quality, well-researched, and impeccably written
paper that meets the academic standards expected in such a complex topic.

⇒ BuyPapers.club ⇔ offers a dedicated team of experienced writers with expertise in legal

research and historical analysis. Their commitment to delivering top-notch papers allows students to
overcome the hurdles associated with crafting a thesis on Loving v. Virginia, ensuring a
comprehensive and well-argued exploration of this pivotal moment in legal history. Save time,
reduce stress, and ensure academic success by considering ⇒ BuyPapers.club ⇔ for your research
paper needs.
Same-sex marriages, meanwhile, became more disputed, with gay rights activists attempting to use
Loving v. On November 6, 1963, they filed a motion in the state trial court to vacate the judgment
and set aside the sentence on the ground that the statutes which they had violated were repugnant to
the Fourteenth Amendment. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were
sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the. Citations: 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct.
1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1082. Mildred Loving, born on July 22, 1939, also in
Central Point, was part African American and part Indian. (Later in her life she identified only as
Indian.) After traveling to Washington, D.C., to obtain a legal marriage on June 2, 1958, they
returned to Virginia, where mixed-race unions were against the law. From 1865 to 1870, more than
twenty-four interracial marriages were reported in the Richmond Enquirer alone. Cohen, Alexandria,
Va., for appellants. R. D. McIlwaine, III, Richmond, Va., for appellee. William M. Marutani,
Philadelphia, Pa., for Japanese American Citizens League, as amicus curiae, by special leave of
Court. American Civil Liberties Union Records: Subgroup 2, Project Files Series (MC001.02.02),
Box 672, Folder 8. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their
marriage.'. This is a fantastic, quick read for your class and can generate a fantastic class discussion.
The games are invaluable for applying the concepts we learn in class. The law arose from a eugenics
and racist propaganda movement aimed at keeping Whites and Blacks segregated. While much of
Downpour’s content is DRM free, and allows for usage across platforms, select products on
Downpour are required by publishers to have DRM protected files. On January 6, 199, the Lovings
pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge
suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and
not return to Virginia together for 25 years. This many years later, my memory is a little hazy on
some details. It really sparked their interests and curiosity around civil rights! — Torrey A. Virginia
case, is now in expanded release in U.S. theaters. The fact that he separated the races shows that he
did not intend for the races to mix.” Bazile’s decision was both appealable and, from the perspective
of the Lovings’ lawyers, helpfully inflammatory. They chose to relocate to Washington, D.C. In
1963, frustrated that they were still banned from their home, they sued the state of Virginia.
Application for Marriage License All of this was background to the General Assembly’s passage, on
March 20, 1924, of the Act to Preserve Racial Integrity. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings
returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. Records suggest that
officials in the 1920s influenced policy such that Indigenous people were codified as Black. At the
October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court Page 388 U. S. 3 of Caroline County, a grand jury issued
an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. They could
go to prison for a year or leave Virginia. June 20, 1963 Richard and Mildred Loving write to the
National Capitol Area branch of the American Civil Liberties Union seeking legal help. Virginia On
June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Richard and Mildred Loving,
striking down Virginia’s law as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Virginia case by
combining these resources with the materials available here. The laws were as varied as the states
that had them. The terms of their sentence allowed them to travel to Virginia separately, and Mildred
Loving returned to Central Point for the births of their children Donald and Peggy. (She had already
given birth to a son, Sidney C. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a
grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial
marriages.
Alabama, ruling in 1883 that Alabama’s antimiscegenation laws, because they punished Black and
white partners equally, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Lovings, however, appealed
to the U.S. Supreme Court, and this time the court agreed to hear the case. The games are invaluable
for applying the concepts we learn in class. Jeter, in 1957, although there is some dispute about his
birthdate.) Attorney General Robert F. An editable Google Doc version plus a complete answer key
are both included for your convenience. Jim Crow laws throughout the American South banned
inter-racial marriages alongside state laws defining Black ancestry. Virginia, the Virginia Supreme
Court of Appeals upholds the state's antimiscegenation laws. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) For Later 0
ratings 0% found this document useful (0 votes) 113 views 9 pages Loving v. Students learn about
the impact of the Court’s decision, and how it was a stepping-stone to the Civil War. Although the
U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, it did consider Pace v. The county operated under
strict Jim Crow laws, but Central Point was seen as a cordial, mixed-race community. Report this
Document Download now Save Save Loving v. It was this law that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling
said denied Virginians’ “fundamental freedom” to marry. Loving v. Virginia is a landmark case, both
in the history of race relations in the United States and in the ongoing political and cultural dispute
over the proper definition of marriage. The appellants, Richard and Mildred Loving, of Caroline
County, had married in Washington, D.C., in June 1958 and then returned to Virginia, where they
were arrested. Citations: 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1082. In
Kinney v. Virginia, decided on October 3, 1878, the court upheld Virginia’s laws prohibiting
interracial marriage and affirmed the priority of Virginia law over that of the District of Columbia or
any other outside jurisdiction. On July 11, 1958, Caroline County issued an arrest warrant for
Richard Loving for violating the RIA. Coinciding with these codes were anti-miscegenation laws
preventing inter-racial marriages. Please include what you were doing when this page came up and
the Cloudflare Ray ID found at the bottom of this page. Virginia case by combining these resources
with the materials available here. June 20, 1963 Richard and Mildred Loving write to the National
Capitol Area branch of the American Civil Liberties Union seeking legal help. Mildred Loving
survived the crash and died of pneumonia at her home on May 2, 2008. On January 22, 1965, the
state trial judge denied the motion to vacate the sentences, and the Lovings perfected an appeal to
the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Rated 5 out of 5 Used this with 8th graders during a
civics unit. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital
abode in Caroline County. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of
their marriage.'. Records suggest that officials in the 1920s influenced policy such that Indigenous
people were codified as Black. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court Page 388 U. S. 3 of
Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's
ban on interracial marriages. The Lovings then moved on to petition the Virginia Supreme Court,
where their motion was denied and returned to the appellate courts. The police arrested them for
violating Virginia’s miscegenation law.
Upload Read for free FAQ and support Language (EN) Sign in Skip carousel Carousel Previous
Carousel Next What is Scribd. The courts have preferred reading the case strictly in terms of race,
although in 2007 the group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, or GLAD, released a
statement that attributed to Mildred Loving support for same-sex marriage. Virginia case, is now in
expanded release in U.S. theaters. The ruling struck down not only the Virginia law, but also any
other remaining state laws banning interracial marriage. Mildred Loving survived the crash and died
of pneumonia at her home on May 2, 2008. Why do you think the Supreme Court ruled in favor of
the Lovings in 1967. They could go to prison for a year or leave Virginia. Virginia (Full Text) - 388
U.S. 1 (1967) - Justia U.S Uploaded by siyag 0 ratings 0% found this document useful (0 votes) 192
views 13 pages AI-enhanced title Document Information click to expand document information how
ideas on racism evolve Original Title Loving v. For an optimal experience, please switch to the latest
version of Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Apple Safari or Mozilla Firefox. The easy-to-
understand, single page story accurately relates the story of the Lovings as well as giving your
students the background and the history of such cases since then. Upload Read for free FAQ and
support Language (EN) Sign in Skip carousel Carousel Previous Carousel Next What is Scribd. After
they married, the Lovings settled in Central Point, Virginia. And but for the i nterference wi th his
arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. Listeners hear the love Millie and Richard
maintain for each other in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, join in their frustration at the
slow pace of justice, and rejoice at their final triumph.” — AudioFile. Shortly after their marriage,
the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. The Lovings
then moved on to petition the Virginia Supreme Court, where their motion was denied and returned
to the appellate courts. During that era part of my duties was to advise Marines who wanted to marry
Japanese or other “indigenous personnel” as the military described citizens of those countries, of the
laws of their home state regarding laws of miscegenation as racially mixed marriages were
delineated. Judge Leon M. Bazile In October 1958 the circuit court of Caroline County issued an
indictment indicating that their marriage was in violation of state law. For this reason, Mildred, a
black woman who was also of Rappahannock and Cherokee Indian descent, and Richard, a white
man, were married in Washington, D.C. instead of their native Virginia, where both of their families
had resided for generations. Virginia court case regarding interracial marriage in the US. Visit our
website for information on related resources and virtual events. Chief Justice Earl Warren authorized
the court’s opinion, stating. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) For Later 0 ratings 0% found this document
useful (0 votes) 113 views 9 pages Loving v. In 1959 they were expelled from the state of Virginia
for violating the state law that forbids interracial marriage. He stated in an opinion that: 3 'Almighty
God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them o n separate co
ntinents. Kennedy, asking him to intervene on her and her husband’s behalf. “I wasn’t in anything
concerning civil rights,” Loving later told an interviewer. “I was, well, we were trying to get back to
Virginia. They were unaware that they would soon find themselves involved in one of the most
significant legal battles of the civil rights movement. January 6, 1959 Judge Leon Bazile accepts
Mildred and Richard Loving's guilty pleas and agrees to suspend their one-year jail sentences on the
condition that they leave the state of Virginia and promise not to return as a couple for twenty-five
years. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop filed on behalf of the Lovings, they asserted that Virginia’s
statutes prohibiting interracial marriage violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment. That was our goal, to get back home.” Kennedy referred Loving to the
National Capitol Area branch of the ACLU, which in June 1963 assigned Bernard S.
They are charged with violating the state law that forbids interracial marriage. He also asks that the
two one-year suspended sentences be set aside. Virginia, the group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and
Defenders, or GLAD, releases a statement that attributes to Mildred Loving support for same-sex
marriage. The Lovings, however, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and this time the court agreed
to hear the case. After they married, the Lovings settled in Central Point, Virginia. In order to better
regulate the interactions between whites and nonwhites, the General Assembly sought to clearly
define what made people Black, white, and Indian. October 1958 The circuit court of Caroline
County issues an indictment against Mildred and Richard Loving stating that they are in violation of
the state law that forbids interracial marriage. Virginia, marriage, supreme court, United States
Supreme Court. Mildred, Richard, and their children lived happily together in Virginia until
Richard’s death in a car accident in 1975. In 1848, the General Assembly increased that penalty to a
maximum of twelve months in prison, again just for the white partner. For an optimal experience,
please switch to the latest version of Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Apple Safari or Mozilla
Firefox. Alabama, ruling in 1883 that Alabama’s antimiscegenation laws, because they punished
Black and white partners equally, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Legal Background The
General Assembly passed its first law regulating interracial marriages in 1691. Students learn about
the 6th Amendment right to a lawyer, why the right is important, and how the right led to the
existence of public defenders. In Maynard v. Hill (1888), the U.S. Supreme Court established that
the jurisdiction of marriage belonged to states, meaning that no state was required to accept a
marriage affirmed in another state. Application for Marriage License All of this was background to
the General Assembly’s passage, on March 20, 1924, of the Act to Preserve Racial Integrity. January
6, 1959 Judge Leon Bazile accepts Mildred and Richard Loving's guilty pleas and agrees to suspend
their one-year jail sentences on the condition that they leave the state of Virginia and promise not to
return as a couple for twenty-five years. For the next several years, the Lovings and their lawyers
battled in court. On November 6, 1963, they filed a motion in the state trial court to vacate the
judgment and set aside the sentence on the ground that the statutes which they had violated were
repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Citations: 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010,
1967 U.S. LEXIS 1082. That was our goal, to get back home.” Kennedy referred Loving to the
National Capitol Area branch of the ACLU, which in June 1963 assigned Bernard S. Students learn
about the First Amendment right to free speech, the Fourth Amendment protection from
unreasonable searches, national security, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). They
chose to relocate to Washington, D.C. In 1963, frustrated that they were still banned from their
home, they sued the state of Virginia. Also included are 8 critical thinking, reading comprehension
questions that students can answer for homework or in class after the reading. The motion not having
been decided by October 28, 1964, the Lovings instituted a class action in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia requesting that a three-judge court be convened to declare
the Virginia antimiscegenation statutes unconstitutional and to enjoin state officials from enforcing
their convictions. On February 11, 1965, the three-judge District Court continued the case to allow
the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the highest state court. 5 The Supreme Court of
Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the antimiscegenation statutes and, after modifying the
sentence, affirmed the convictions. Richard and Mildred Loving had been publicity-averse through
the entire appeals process, living secretly on a farm in King and Queen County. The decision
impacted not only the laws in Virginia, but also the laws in all other states that prohibited interracial
marriage at the time of the ruling. Hill, Virginia ought to be required to acknowledge a legal marriage
from another state. In Naim v. Naim, decided on June 13, 1955, the Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals granted the annulment and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Records
suggest that officials in the 1920s influenced policy such that Indigenous people were codified as
Black.
An 1866 revision used the same percentage, but this time made no distinction between “mulatto”
and “negro”: all nonwhites were now either “colored” or Indian. They could go to prison for a year
or leave Virginia. Students learn about the impact of the Court’s decision, and how it was a
stepping-stone to the Civil War. This many years later, my memory is a little hazy on some details.
Students learn about the First Amendment right of free speech, and explore the many different ways
the Supreme Court has interpreted it. American Civil Liberties Union Records: Subgroup 2, Legal
Case Files Series (MC001.02.04), Box 1508. January 6, 1959 Judge Leon Bazile accepts Mildred and
Richard Loving's guilty pleas and agrees to suspend their one-year jail sentences on the condition
that they leave the state of Virginia and promise not to return as a couple for twenty-five years. In
Maynard v. Hill (1888), the U.S. Supreme Court established that the jurisdiction of marriage
belonged to states, meaning that no state was required to accept a marriage affirmed in another state.
Virginia (Full Text) - 388 U.S. 1 (1967) - Justia U.S Uploaded by siyag AI-enhanced title how ideas
on racism evolve Full description Save Save Loving v. Why do you think the Supreme Court ruled in
favor of the Lovings in 1967. On November 6, 1963, they filed a motion in the state trial court to
vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the ground that the statutes which they had
violated were repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. They were unaware that they would soon
find themselves involved in one of the most significant legal battles of the civil rights movement. In
June, 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white
man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings
pleaded not guilty and waived a jury trial; however, at the end of arguments, they changed their
pleas to guilty. June 1963 Richard and Mildred Loving engage Bernard S. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1
(1967) Uploaded by Scribd Government Docs 0 ratings 0% found this document useful (0 votes)
113 views 9 pages Document Information click to expand document information Filed: 1967-06-12.
Race on Trial: Law and Justice in American History. However, because Judge Bazile had issued a
suspended sentence, he retained jurisdiction over the case, allowing Bernard Cohen to file a motion,
on November 6, 1963, to vacate the conviction and set aside the sentence. Shortly after their
marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At
the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court Page 388 U. S. 3 of Caroline County, a grand jury
issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. Two
attorneys, Bernard Cohen and Philip Hirschkop, volunteered to take their case and petitioned the
county circuit court to drop the sentence on the basis of the 14th Amendment. It's a perfect addition
to your Civil Rights Movement unit. Virginia case by combining these resources with the materials
available here. Please include what you were doing when this page came up and the Cloudflare Ray
ID found at the bottom of this page. June 26, 1952 A Chinese-born man, Han Say Naim, marries
Ruby Elaine Lamberth, a white woman from Virginia, in North Carolina with the purpose of evading
Virginia's antimiscegenation laws. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rules that Virginia's
antimiscegenation statutes violate the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. States defined those
with Black heritage by searching for Black ancestors; if one person was identified in their family
history as Black, then all descendants were labeled the same during litigation. Their troubles began
not long after returning home. Jim Crow laws throughout the American South banned inter-racial
marriages alongside state laws defining Black ancestry. Students will be amazed that both husband
and wife were arrested simply for being an interracial couple in Virginia in 1958.
Mildred, Richard, and their children lived happily together in Virginia until Richard’s death in a car
accident in 1975. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced
to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the. However, because Judge Bazile had issued
a suspended sentence, he retained jurisdiction over the case, allowing Bernard Cohen to file a
motion, on November 6, 1963, to vacate the conviction and set aside the sentence. The courts have
preferred reading the case strictly in terms of race, although in 2007 the group Gay and Lesbian
Advocates and Defenders, or GLAD, released a statement that attributed to Mildred Loving support
for same-sex marriage. Virginia, and the decision is routinely cited as a landmark court case in the
fight for racial equality in the United States. In June, 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter,
a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia
pursuant to its laws. Records suggest that officials in the 1920s influenced policy such that
Indigenous people were codified as Black. Upload Read for free FAQ and support Language (EN)
Sign in Skip carousel Carousel Previous Carousel Next What is Scribd. They are suspected of
violating the state law that forbids interracial marriage. ca. July 13, 1958 Central Point sheriff
Garnett Brooks arrests Richard and Mildred Loving at the home of Mildred Loving's parents.
Students learn how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination, and
then they identify religious discrimination in multiple workplace scenarios. The Historic New Orleans
Collection, acc. no. 1985.212. Virginia On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in
favor of Richard and Mildred Loving, striking down Virginia’s law as a violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment. On February 1 1, 1965, the three-judge District Court continued the case to allow the
Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the highest state court. June 20, 1963 Richard and
Mildred Loving write to the National Capitol Area branch of the American Civil Liberties Union
seeking legal help. Cohen, representing Richard and Mildred Loving, files a motion in the Caroline
County Circuit Court to vacate their 1959 conviction for violating the state law that forbids
interracial marriage. The Lovings declined their attorneys’ invitation to attend the hearing. At the
same time, the court set aside the original conviction, finding a sentence that required the defendants
to leave the state “unreasonable.” The court also chided the trial judge for sentencing the Lovings to
one year in jail, suspended, when the Code of Virginia required that they be sentenced to the
penitentiary. Students then identify other cases in which the Supreme Court extended important
rights of the accused to the state level. An 1860 law defined a “mulatto” or a “negro” as any man or
woman with one-fourth or more African American ancestry. These laws did not prevent interracial
marriages in Virginia; to the contrary, they were instituted because such marriages were a persistent
reality. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.' 4 After
their convictions, the Lovings took up residence in the District of Columbia. The appellants, Richard
and Mildred Loving, of Caroline County, had married in Washington, D.C., in June 1958 and then
returned to Virginia, where they were arrested. In this way, any acknowledgement of Indigenous
people was systematically erased in Virginia law. Visit our website for information on related
resources and virtual events. American Civil Liberties Union Records: Subgroup 2, Project Files
Series (MC001.02.02), Box 672, Folder 8. That was our goal, to get back home.” Kennedy referred
Loving to the National Capitol Area branch of the ACLU, which in June 1963 assigned Bernard S.
Initially, both Mildred and Richard were sentenced to one year in prison, but the sentences were
suspended on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return together for twenty-five years. In
Kinney v. Virginia, decided on October 3, 1878, the court upheld Virginia’s laws prohibiting
interracial marriage and affirmed the priority of Virginia law over that of the District of Columbia or
any other outside jurisdiction. Kennedy, asking him to intervene on her and her husband’s behalf. “I
wasn’t in anything concerning civil rights,” Loving later told an interviewer. “I was, well, we were
trying to get back to Virginia. Kennedy Addressing Crowd In 1963, at the suggestion of her cousin,
Mildred Loving wrote a letter to the U.S. attorney general, Robert F.
Cohen, representing Richard and Mildred Loving, files a motion in the Caroline County Circuit
Court to vacate their 1959 conviction for violating the state law that forbids interracial marriage.
Visit our website for information on related resources and virtual events. They could go to prison for
a year or leave Virginia. Students compare campaign tactics, and evaluate the cost and effectiveness
of reaching a large audience. In June, 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro
woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its
laws. For the next several years, the Lovings and their lawyers battled in court. Virginia law required
that any appeal be made within sixty days of a judgment, but the Loving conviction already was
more than four years old. Newbeck, Phyl. Virginia Hasn’t Always Been for Lovers: Interracial
Marriage Bans and the Case of Richard and Mildred Loving. Initially, both Mildred and Richard
were sentenced to one year in prison, but the sentences were suspended on the condition that they
leave Virginia and not return together for twenty-five years. Why do you think the Supreme Court
ruled in favor of the Lovings in 1967. What does this tell you about race and the law in America.
Upload Read for free FAQ and support Language (EN) Sign in Skip carousel Carousel Previous
Carousel Next What is Scribd. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court Page 388 U. S. 3 of
Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's
ban on interracial marriages. Although the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, it did
consider Pace v. In 1848, the General Assembly increased that penalty to a maximum of twelve
months in prison, again just for the white partner. Richard Loving is buried in Saint Stephen's Baptist
Church Cemetery in Central Point. Virginia case, is now in expanded release in U.S. theaters. When
Mildred and Richard Loving were married in June 1958, twenty-four states still had anti-
miscegenation laws. Wallenstein, Peter. Tell the Court I Love My Wife: Race, Marriage, and
Law—An American History. Upload Read for free FAQ and support Language (EN) Sign in Skip
carousel Carousel Previous Carousel Next What is Scribd. The same applies to the term
“miscegenation” which I always found to be an ugly word in the English language. That was our
goal, to get back home.” Kennedy referred Loving to the National Capitol Area branch of the
ACLU, which in June 1963 assigned Bernard S. It is clear that she, like many Americans who did
not fit into the racial binary, struggled to define herself in the legal system and in society. The easy-
to-understand, single page story accurately relates the story of the Lovings as well as giving your
students the background and the history of such cases since then. This many years later, my memory
is a little hazy on some details. An 1866 revision used the same percentage, but this time made no
distinction between “mulatto” and “negro”: all nonwhites were now either “colored” or Indian. The
action you just performed triggered the security solution. Citations: 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L.
Ed. 2d 1010, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1082. And but for the i nterference wi th his arrangement there
would be no cause for such marriages. Although it did not ban such unions outright, the law required
that the white partner leave Virginia within three months. Chief Justice Earl Warren authorized the
court’s opinion, stating.