[Pages H6187-H6189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office
[www.gpo.gov]
RECOGNIZING 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF LOVING V. VIRGINIA LEGALIZING
INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 431) recognizing the 40th anniversary of Loving
v. Virginia legalizing interracial marriage within the United States.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 431
Whereas the first anti-miscegenation law in the United
States was enacted in Maryland in 1661;
Whereas miscegenation was typically a felony under State
laws prohibiting interracial marriage punishable by
imprisonment or hard labor;
Whereas in 1883, the Supreme Court held in Pace v. Alabama
that anti-miscegenation laws were consistent with the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment as long as the
punishments given to both white and black violators are the
same;
Whereas in 1912, a constitutional amendment was proposed in
the House of Representatives prohibiting interracial marriage
``between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians'';
Whereas in 1923, the Supreme Court held in Meyer v.
Nebraska that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment
guarantees the right of an individual ``to marry, establish a
home and bring up children'';
Whereas in 1924, Virginia enacted the Racial Integrity Act
of 1924, which required that a racial description of every
person be recorded at birth and prevented marriage between
``white persons'' and non-white persons;
Whereas in 1948, the California Supreme Court overturned
the State's anti-miscegenation statutes, thereby becoming the
first State high court to declare a ban on interracial
marriage unconstitutional and making California the first
State to do so in the 20th century;
Whereas the California Supreme Court stated in Perez v.
Sharp that ``a member of any of these races may find himself
barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person
to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth
and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as
interchangeable as trains'';
Whereas by 1948, 38 States still forbade interracial
marriage, and 6 did so by State constitutional provision;
Whereas in June of 1958, 2 residents of the Commonwealth of
Virginia--Mildred Jeter, a black/Native American woman, and
Richard Perry Loving, a Caucasian man--were married in
Washington, DC;
[[Page H6188]]
Whereas upon their return to Virginia, Richard Perry Loving
and Mildred Jeter Loving were charged with violating
Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes, a felonious crime;
Whereas the Lovings subsequently pleaded guilty and were
sentenced to 1 year in prison, with the sentence suspended
for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the State of
Virginia;
Whereas Leon Bazile, the trial judge of the case,
proclaimed that ``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.'';
Whereas the Lovings moved to the District of Columbia, and
in 1963 they began a series of lawsuits challenging their
convictions;
Whereas the convictions were upheld by the State courts,
including the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia;
Whereas the Lovings appealed the decision to the Supreme
Court of the United States on the ground that the Virginia
anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment and were therefore
unconstitutional;
Whereas in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari
to Loving v. Virginia and readily overturned the Lovings'
convictions;
Whereas in the unanimous opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren
wrote: ``Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,'
fundamental to our very existence and survival. . . . To deny
this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the
racial classifications embodied in these statutes,
classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely
to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due
process of law.'';
Whereas the opinion also stated that ``the Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be
restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our
Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of
another race resides with the individual and cannot be
infringed by the State.'';
Whereas in 1967, 16 States still had law prohibiting
interracial marriage, including Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
and West Virginia;
Whereas Loving v. Virginia struck down the remaining anti-
miscegenation laws nationwide;
Whereas in 2000, Alabama became the last State to remove
its anti-miscegenation laws from its statutes;
Whereas according to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1970 to
2000 the percentage of interracial marriages has increased
from 1 percent of all marriages to more than 5 percent;
Whereas the number of children living in interracial
families has quadrupled between 1970 to 2000, going from
900,000 to more than 3 million; and
Whereas June 12th has been proclaimed ``Loving Day'' by
cities and towns across the country in commemoration of
Loving v. Virginia: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) observes the 40th Anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Loving v. Virginia; and
(2) commemorates the legacy of Loving v. Virginia in ending
the ban on interracial marriage in the United States and in
recognizing that marriage is one of the ``basic civil rights
of man'' at the heart of the 14th Amendment protections.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 431, a
resolution I introduced along with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Lewis), commemorating the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the
landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing interracial marriages within
the United States.
I thank Chairman Conyers for expedition consideration of this
resolution so it could be brought to the floor before the actual date
of the anniversary which is tomorrow, June 12.
In June of 1958, two residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
Mildred Jeter, a black Native American woman, and Richard Perry Loving,
a Caucasian man, were married in Washington, D.C. Upon their return to
Virginia, Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving were charged
with violating Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes, which made their
marriage a felony.
{time} 1415
They challenged their convictions, culminating in the June 12, 1967,
U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Loving v. Virginia, striking down the
remaining anti-miscegenation laws that were still in effect in 16
States.
In the unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court rejected bigotry against
interracial relations, recognizing an individual's right to marry under
the 14th amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote: ``Marriage is one
of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence
and survival . . . To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable
a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes,
classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at
the heart of the 14th amendment, is surely to deprive all the States'
citizens of liberty without due process of law.''
The opinion also stated that ``the 14th amendment requires that the
freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial
discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not
marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot
be infringed by the State.''
The Loving decision marked a critical step forward in our Nation's
struggle toward equal rights for all, particularly full marriage
equality. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1970 to the year
2000 the percentage of interracial marriages has increased from 1
percent of all marriages to more than 5 percent. The number of children
living in interracial families has quadrupled between 1970 and 2000,
going from 900,000 to more than 3 million. Because of the decision's
profound impact in our society, numerous cities and towns across this
country have already proclaimed June 12 Loving Day in commemoration of
this decision.
Indeed, the Supreme Court's opinion forcefully rejected the argument
employed by Leon Bazile, the trial judge of the case, who defended his
decision convicting the Lovings as part of God's plan. Unfortunately,
after 40 years, similar types of arguments are still being employed by
a few to deny full marriage equality to everyone.
In commemorating the legacy of Loving v. Virginia in ending the ban
on interracial marriage in the United States, H. Res. 431 reaffirms the
Loving court's recognition that marriage is one of the ``basic civil
rights of man'' at the heart of the 14th amendment protections.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this timely resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for presenting this
resolution to this Congress, and I notice that many of the statements
that she has made have laid out I think the history of this Loving case
very well to the Congress, and so what I will seek to do is perhaps
just add and fill in perhaps some of the blanks that may have been
left, although I'm not convinced that there are many.
And that is the emphasis on equal protection and due process clause
of the 14th amendment. I think it was clear when a unanimous decision
in the Supreme Court in the Loving case, and it isn't often that you
see an issue that has been traditionally rooted from the time of our
Founders up until 1967, have a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court,
even though it met that resistance at every step of the way throughout
the entire appeals process until it got to the Supreme Court.
Today, it looks like a clear decision. It looks easy; it's simple.
None of us would have any trouble with this Loving decision; but, in
fact, then it was a matter of an idea whose time had finally come.
But the Supreme Court laid out very clear language in their decision
that legislative classifications based on race
[[Page H6189]]
were ``odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the
doctrine of equality,'' and further condemned Virginia's interracial
marriage statute. And then the Court concluded: ``There can be no doubt
that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial
classifications violates the central meaning of the equal protection
clause.''
I just appreciate the privilege to emphasize those things, and then
I'd like to add then some other thoughts to this record, Mr. Speaker,
and that is that we rightfully celebrate the anniversary of the
landmark decision here today. The institution of marriage between one
man and one woman is older than the Nation itself. It predates
government itself, and it also limits the power of government because
traditional families are the fundamental units of our society.
Through them, we pour through that crucible our values from a father
and a mother into the children and the values of our patriotism, our
faith, our work ethic, our culture. The things we eat and the things we
do, every component of our culture and civilization is concentrated
through those values of those children that we have and that we're so
well-blessed with; and without marriage, government would be bound to
expand to take its place and would try lamely to do so.
But marriage embraces only one principle, and that is the marriage of
a union between a man and a woman, and the further distinction of that
and to have government draw a distinction between people based upon
their ethnicity should be abhorrent to a free people.
And I stand here, Mr. Speaker, before you this afternoon, and I take
this position that I believe we are all created in God's image, and
what He has created, I believe it's an insult to Him if we draw
distinctions between His creation. He has also seen to bless us with
some specific characteristics that help us identify one another. And
because He has seen to bless us with those characteristics, and in this
case it was skin color, it doesn't mean it still isn't a reflection of
God's image.
And I recall stepping into a church in Port Gibson, Mississippi, the
Catholic church there that was built in 1848 by the hands of some of
the family of Jim Bowie, and the priest in that church was Father Tony
Pudenz, and he showed me in the church that this church that was built
in 1848, the floor of the church was built for whites, the balcony was
built for blacks. And just a week before that, they had buried the
editor of the newspaper who had in 1967 taken his white family from the
floor of the church and walked his five children and his wife up there
where they sat in the balcony with the African Americans, thereby
sending a statement where half of the congregation walked across the
street to the Episcopal church where they go to church to this very
day. But the balance of that congregation is an integrated
congregation.
And so I would say we can't be for equality if we're not in support
of intermarriage. God has created us all equally, and based upon that,
I support this resolution. I think it's appropriate that we bring it
today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, the Loving v. Virginia decision was a
milestone in our continuing efforts to fulfill the original promises of
our Constitution, fulfilling the blessings of liberty for all
Americans. It is highly fitting that we remember and honor the decision
on its 40th anniversary. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 431.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2007/06/11/CREC-2007-06-11-pt1-PgH6187.pdf
