Changes

Laws against interracial marriage were still in effect in sixteen US states as recently as 1967. Similar laws in other states had been repealed by then.

Laws against interracial marriage were still in effect in sixteen US states as recently as 1967. Similar laws in other states had been repealed by then.

Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958. He was a white man, and she was a woman of mixed black and [[American Indian]] heritage. They got married in Washington D.C. because in their home state of Virginia the law still forbade interracial marriages, known in those days as 'miscegenation'. After their marriage, they lived together in Caroline County, Virginia. In 1959 they were found guilty of violating the law and both were sentenced to one year in jail, although they were promised a suspended sentence if they left the state and did not return for 25 years. <ref> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html </ref>

Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958. He was a white man, and she was a woman of mixed black and [[American Indian]] heritage. They got married in Washington D.C. because in their home state of Virginia the law still forbade interracial marriages, known in those days as 'miscegenation'. After their marriage, they lived together in Caroline County, Virginia. In 1959 they were found guilty of violating the law and both were sentenced to one year in jail, although they were promised a suspended sentence if they left the state and did not return for 25 years.<ref>http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html</ref>

Mr. and Mrs. Loving returned to Washington D.C. and in 1963 they brought a lawsuit that challenged the constitutional basis of Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the law in March 1966, but in June 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled it unconstitutional. Because of this, all the states which still had such laws could not enforce them.

Mr. and Mrs. Loving returned to Washington D.C. and in 1963 they brought a lawsuit that challenged the constitutional basis of Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the law in March 1966, but in June 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled it unconstitutional. Because of this, all the states which still had such laws could not enforce them.

== Significance of the Case ==

== Significance of the Case ==

The case is partly significant because it is about how the United States defined people in terms of their race. The Virginia law, as well as prohibiting marriages between people of different races, also categorized multiracial people according to a set of arbitrary definitions of their 'race'. A white person was defined as someone who had only "Caucasian blood", excepting only people who had no more than one great-grandparent Native American ancestry and no other non-white ancestry. This exception was to make allowance for a long-established group of descendants of John Rolfe and Pocahontas. A person was defined as  black if they had any "negro" ancestry, as the people of that time expressed it. A person with at least one Native American grandparent, or one Native American grandparent and one "Negro" great-grandparent and who was also a member of an Indian tribe, was defined as "American Indian". <ref> http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp </ref>

The case is partly significant because it is about how the United States defined people in terms of their race. The Virginia law, as well as prohibiting marriages between people of different races, also categorized multiracial people according to a set of arbitrary definitions of their 'race'. A white person was defined as someone who had only "Caucasian blood", excepting only people who had no more than one great-grandparent Native American ancestry and no other non-white ancestry. This exception was to make allowance for a long-established group of descendants of John Rolfe and Pocahontas. A person was defined as  black if they had any "negro" ancestry, as the people of that time expressed it. A person with at least one Native American grandparent, or one Native American grandparent and one "Negro" great-grandparent and who was also a member of an Indian tribe, was defined as "American Indian".<ref>http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp</ref>

The case is also significant because it is about how the United States defined marriage. Before 1967, a legal marriage could not be contracted in states with anti-miscegenation laws if the partners were of different races. Thus the case redefined what constituted a marriage. Some proponents of [[gay rights]] have cited this case in support of a right to marriage <ref> Coolidge, David O, Playing the Loving Card: Same-Sex Marriage and the Politics of Analogy, BYU Journal of Public Law, 1998, 12 BYU.</ref> <ref>Pamela S. Karlan, "Loving ''Lawrence''", Stanford Law School.</ref>, although opponents argue that this is not viable as the 'Loving' marriage was still between a man and a woman.

The case is also significant because it is about how the United States defined marriage. Before 1967, a legal marriage could not be contracted in states with anti-miscegenation laws if the partners were of different races. Thus the case redefined what constituted a marriage. Some proponents of [[gay rights]] have cited this case in support of a right to marriage,<ref>Coolidge, David O, Playing the Loving Card: Same-Sex Marriage and the Politics of Analogy, BYU Journal of Public Law, 1998, 12 BYU.</ref><ref>Pamela S. Karlan, "Loving ''Lawrence''", Stanford Law School.</ref> although opponents argue that this is not viable as the 'Loving' marriage was still between a man and a woman.

Here is an alternate view from a Catholic writer:

Here is an alternate view from a Catholic writer:

==Quotations==

==Quotations==

''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.''-- Letter by Mildred Loving, December, 2007.<ref>[http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/06/mildred-lovings-statement.html Mildred Loving's Statement]</ref>

''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.''—Letter by Mildred Loving, December, 2007.<ref>[http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/06/mildred-lovings-statement.html Mildred Loving's Statement]</ref>

==References==

==References==