{"id":6572,"date":"2007-06-11T10:00:24","date_gmt":"2007-06-11T10:00:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/multiracial.com\/?p=6572"},"modified":"2017-04-02T10:23:55","modified_gmt":"2017-04-02T10:23:55","slug":"recognizing-40th-anniversary-loving-v-virginia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/2007\/06\/11\/recognizing-40th-anniversary-loving-v-virginia\/","title":{"rendered":"Recognizing 40th Anniversary of Loving v. Virginia Legalizing Interracial Marriage"},"content":{"rendered":"
[Pages H6187-H6189<\/a>]\r\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office\r\n [www.gpo.gov]\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n     RECOGNIZING 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF LOVING V. VIRGINIA LEGALIZING \r\n                          INTERRACIAL<\/mark> MARRIAGE\r\n\r\n  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to \r\nthe resolution (H. Res. 431<\/a>) recognizing the 40th anniversary of Loving \r\nv. Virginia legalizing interracial<\/mark> marriage within the United States.\r\n  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.\r\n  The text of the resolution is as follows:\r\n\r\n                              H. Res. 431<\/a>\r\n\r\n       Whereas the first anti-miscegenation law in the United \r\n     States was enacted in Maryland in 1661;\r\n       Whereas miscegenation was typically a felony under State \r\n     laws prohibiting interracial<\/mark> marriage punishable by \r\n     imprisonment or hard labor;\r\n       Whereas in 1883, the Supreme Court held in Pace v. Alabama \r\n     that anti-miscegenation laws were consistent with the equal \r\n     protection clause of the 14th Amendment as long as the \r\n     punishments given to both white and black violators are the \r\n     same;\r\n       Whereas in 1912, a constitutional amendment was proposed in \r\n     the House of Representatives prohibiting interracial<\/mark> marriage \r\n     ``between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians'';\r\n       Whereas in 1923, the Supreme Court held in Meyer v. \r\n     Nebraska that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment \r\n     guarantees the right of an individual ``to marry, establish a \r\n     home and bring up children'';\r\n       Whereas in 1924, Virginia enacted the Racial Integrity Act \r\n     of 1924, which required that a racial description of every \r\n     person be recorded at birth and prevented marriage between \r\n     ``white persons'' and non-white persons;\r\n       Whereas in 1948, the California Supreme Court overturned \r\n     the State's anti-miscegenation statutes, thereby becoming the \r\n     first State high court to declare a ban on interracial<\/mark> \r\n     marriage unconstitutional and making California the first \r\n     State to do so in the 20th century;\r\n       Whereas the California Supreme Court stated in Perez v. \r\n     Sharp that ``a member of any of these races may find himself \r\n     barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person \r\n     to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth \r\n     and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as \r\n     interchangeable as trains'';\r\n       Whereas by 1948, 38 States still forbade interracial<\/mark> \r\n     marriage, and 6 did so by State constitutional provision;\r\n       Whereas in June of 1958, 2 residents of the Commonwealth of \r\n     Virginia--Mildred Jeter, a black\/Native American woman, and \r\n     Richard Perry Loving, a Caucasian man--were married in \r\n     Washington, DC;\r\n\r\n[[Page H6188<\/a>]]\r\n\r\n       Whereas upon their return to Virginia, Richard Perry Loving \r\n     and Mildred Jeter Loving were charged with violating \r\n     Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes, a felonious crime;\r\n       Whereas the Lovings subsequently pleaded guilty and were \r\n     sentenced to 1 year in prison, with the sentence suspended \r\n     for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the State of \r\n     Virginia;\r\n       Whereas Leon Bazile, the trial judge of the case, \r\n     proclaimed that ``Almighty God created the races white, \r\n     black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate \r\n     continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement \r\n     there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he \r\n     separated the races shows that he did not intend for the \r\n     races to mix.'';\r\n       Whereas the Lovings moved to the District of Columbia, and \r\n     in 1963 they began a series of lawsuits challenging their \r\n     convictions;\r\n       Whereas the convictions were upheld by the State courts, \r\n     including the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia;\r\n       Whereas the Lovings appealed the decision to the Supreme \r\n     Court of the United States on the ground that the Virginia \r\n     anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection and Due \r\n     Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment and were therefore \r\n     unconstitutional;\r\n       Whereas in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari \r\n     to Loving v. Virginia and readily overturned the Lovings' \r\n     convictions;\r\n       Whereas in the unanimous opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren \r\n     wrote: ``Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' \r\n     fundamental to our very existence and survival. . . . To deny \r\n     this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the \r\n     racial classifications embodied in these statutes, \r\n     classifications so directly subversive of the principle of \r\n     equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely \r\n     to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due \r\n     process of law.'';\r\n       Whereas the opinion also stated that ``the Fourteenth \r\n     Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be \r\n     restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our \r\n     Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of \r\n     another race resides with the individual and cannot be \r\n     infringed by the State.'';\r\n       Whereas in 1967, 16 States still had law prohibiting \r\n     interracial<\/mark> marriage, including Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, \r\n     Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, \r\n     North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, \r\n     and West Virginia;\r\n       Whereas Loving v. Virginia struck down the remaining anti-\r\n     miscegenation laws nationwide;\r\n       Whereas in 2000, Alabama became the last State to remove \r\n     its anti-miscegenation laws from its statutes;\r\n       Whereas according to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1970 to \r\n     2000 the percentage of interracial<\/mark> marriages has increased \r\n     from 1 percent of all marriages to more than 5 percent;\r\n       Whereas the number of children living in interracial<\/mark> \r\n     families has quadrupled between 1970 to 2000, going from \r\n     900,000 to more than 3 million; and\r\n       Whereas June 12th has been proclaimed ``Loving Day'' by \r\n     cities and towns across the country in commemoration of \r\n     Loving v. Virginia: Now, therefore, be it\r\n       Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--\r\n       (1) observes the 40th Anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court \r\n     decision in Loving v. Virginia; and\r\n       (2) commemorates the legacy of Loving v. Virginia in ending \r\n     the ban on interracial<\/mark> marriage in the United States and in \r\n     recognizing that marriage is one of the ``basic civil rights \r\n     of man'' at the heart of the 14th Amendment protections.\r\n\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). Pursuant to the rule, the \r\ngentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the gentleman from Iowa \r\n(Mr. King) each will control 20 minutes.\r\n  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.\r\n\r\n\r\n                             General Leave\r\n\r\n  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members \r\nmay have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to \r\ninclude extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the \r\ngentlewoman from Wisconsin?\r\n  There was no objection.\r\n  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 431<\/a>, a \r\nresolution I introduced along with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. \r\nLewis), commemorating the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the \r\nlandmark Supreme Court decision legalizing interracial<\/mark> marriages within \r\nthe United States.\r\n  I thank Chairman Conyers for expedition consideration of this \r\nresolution so it could be brought to the floor before the actual date \r\nof the anniversary which is tomorrow, June 12.\r\n  In June of 1958, two residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, \r\nMildred Jeter, a black Native American woman, and Richard Perry Loving, \r\na Caucasian man, were married in Washington, D.C. Upon their return to \r\nVirginia, Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving were charged \r\nwith violating Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes, which made their \r\nmarriage a felony.\r\n\r\n                              {time}  1415\r\n\r\n  They challenged their convictions, culminating in the June 12, 1967, \r\nU.S. Supreme Court opinion in Loving v. Virginia, striking down the \r\nremaining anti-miscegenation laws that were still in effect in 16 \r\nStates.\r\n  In the unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court rejected bigotry against \r\ninterracial<\/mark> relations, recognizing an individual's right to marry under \r\nthe 14th amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote: ``Marriage is one \r\nof the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence \r\nand survival . . . To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable \r\na basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, \r\nclassifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at \r\nthe heart of the 14th amendment, is surely to deprive all the States' \r\ncitizens of liberty without due process of law.''\r\n  The opinion also stated that ``the 14th amendment requires that the \r\nfreedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial \r\ndiscriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not \r\nmarry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot \r\nbe infringed by the State.''\r\n  The Loving decision marked a critical step forward in our Nation's \r\nstruggle toward equal rights for all, particularly full marriage \r\nequality. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1970 to the year \r\n2000 the percentage of interracial<\/mark> marriages has increased from 1 \r\npercent of all marriages to more than 5 percent. The number of children \r\nliving in interracial<\/mark> families has quadrupled between 1970 and 2000, \r\ngoing from 900,000 to more than 3 million. Because of the decision's \r\nprofound impact in our society, numerous cities and towns across this \r\ncountry have already proclaimed June 12 Loving Day in commemoration of \r\nthis decision.\r\n  Indeed, the Supreme Court's opinion forcefully rejected the argument \r\nemployed by Leon Bazile, the trial judge of the case, who defended his \r\ndecision convicting the Lovings as part of God's plan. Unfortunately, \r\nafter 40 years, similar types of arguments are still being employed by \r\na few to deny full marriage equality to everyone.\r\n  In commemorating the legacy of Loving v. Virginia in ending the ban \r\non interracial<\/mark> marriage in the United States, H. Res. 431<\/a> reaffirms the \r\nLoving court's recognition that marriage is one of the ``basic civil \r\nrights of man'' at the heart of the 14th amendment protections.\r\n  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this timely resolution.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\r\n  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may \r\nconsume.\r\n  I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for presenting this \r\nresolution to this Congress, and I notice that many of the statements \r\nthat she has made have laid out I think the history of this Loving case \r\nvery well to the Congress, and so what I will seek to do is perhaps \r\njust add and fill in perhaps some of the blanks that may have been \r\nleft, although I'm not convinced that there are many.\r\n  And that is the emphasis on equal protection and due process clause \r\nof the 14th amendment. I think it was clear when a unanimous decision \r\nin the Supreme Court in the Loving case, and it isn't often that you \r\nsee an issue that has been traditionally rooted from the time of our \r\nFounders up until 1967, have a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, \r\neven though it met that resistance at every step of the way throughout \r\nthe entire appeals process until it got to the Supreme Court.\r\n  Today, it looks like a clear decision. It looks easy; it's simple. \r\nNone of us would have any trouble with this Loving decision; but, in \r\nfact, then it was a matter of an idea whose time had finally come.\r\n  But the Supreme Court laid out very clear language in their decision \r\nthat legislative classifications based on race\r\n\r\n[[Page H6189<\/a>]]\r\n\r\nwere ``odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the \r\ndoctrine of equality,'' and further condemned Virginia's interracial<\/mark> \r\nmarriage statute. And then the Court concluded: ``There can be no doubt \r\nthat restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial \r\nclassifications violates the central meaning of the equal protection \r\nclause.''\r\n  I just appreciate the privilege to emphasize those things, and then \r\nI'd like to add then some other thoughts to this record, Mr. Speaker, \r\nand that is that we rightfully celebrate the anniversary of the \r\nlandmark decision here today. The institution of marriage between one \r\nman and one woman is older than the Nation itself. It predates \r\ngovernment itself, and it also limits the power of government because \r\ntraditional families are the fundamental units of our society.\r\n  Through them, we pour through that crucible our values from a father \r\nand a mother into the children and the values of our patriotism, our \r\nfaith, our work ethic, our culture. The things we eat and the things we \r\ndo, every component of our culture and civilization is concentrated \r\nthrough those values of those children that we have and that we're so \r\nwell-blessed with; and without marriage, government would be bound to \r\nexpand to take its place and would try lamely to do so.\r\n  But marriage embraces only one principle, and that is the marriage of \r\na union between a man and a woman, and the further distinction of that \r\nand to have government draw a distinction between people based upon \r\ntheir ethnicity should be abhorrent to a free people.\r\n  And I stand here, Mr. Speaker, before you this afternoon, and I take \r\nthis position that I believe we are all created in God's image, and \r\nwhat He has created, I believe it's an insult to Him if we draw \r\ndistinctions between His creation. He has also seen to bless us with \r\nsome specific characteristics that help us identify one another. And \r\nbecause He has seen to bless us with those characteristics, and in this \r\ncase it was skin color, it doesn't mean it still isn't a reflection of \r\nGod's image.\r\n  And I recall stepping into a church in Port Gibson, Mississippi, the \r\nCatholic church there that was built in 1848 by the hands of some of \r\nthe family of Jim Bowie, and the priest in that church was Father Tony \r\nPudenz, and he showed me in the church that this church that was built \r\nin 1848, the floor of the church was built for whites, the balcony was \r\nbuilt for blacks. And just a week before that, they had buried the \r\neditor of the newspaper who had in 1967 taken his white family from the \r\nfloor of the church and walked his five children and his wife up there \r\nwhere they sat in the balcony with the African Americans, thereby \r\nsending a statement where half of the congregation walked across the \r\nstreet to the Episcopal church where they go to church to this very \r\nday. But the balance of that congregation is an integrated \r\ncongregation.\r\n  And so I would say we can't be for equality if we're not in support \r\nof intermarriage. God has created us all equally, and based upon that, \r\nI support this resolution. I think it's appropriate that we bring it \r\ntoday.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.\r\n  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, the Loving v. Virginia decision was a \r\nmilestone in our continuing efforts to fulfill the original promises of \r\nour Constitution, fulfilling the blessings of liberty for all \r\nAmericans. It is highly fitting that we remember and honor the decision \r\non its 40th anniversary. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.\r\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.\r\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the \r\ngentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) that the House suspend the \r\nrules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 431<\/a>.\r\n  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the \r\nrules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.\r\n  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.\r\n\r\n                          ____________________\r\n\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/www.congress.gov\/crec\/2007\/06\/11\/CREC-2007-06-11-pt1-PgH6187.pdf<\/a>\r\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
[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...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4181,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[57],"tags":[154,118],"class_list":["post-6572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legislation","tag-interracial-relationships","tag-legislation"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p89tuq-1I0","jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Government-Congress.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6572","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6572"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6572\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6574,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6572\/revisions\/6574"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4181"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}