The final test arrived in May , when Cohen and Hirschkop filed an appeal to the U. Supreme Court. In , the Supreme Court of California ruled in the Perez v. Sharp case that banning inter-racial marriages was in fact unconstitutional. California was the first state to ban anti-miscegenation law, and the Lovings cited this for their case.
Cohen and Hirschkop argued that the anti-miscegenation laws violated due process and equal protection because racial segregation was at its heart. On June 12, , the Supreme Court voted unanimously in favor of the Lovings.
Their 14th Amendment rights were indeed violated, including the right to due process and equal protection under the law. The reported number of inter-racial marriages in the American South increased steadily in the years after Loving v. Virginia , and the decision is routinely cited as a landmark court case in the fight for racial equality in the United States. From to I was a court reporter and legal assistant in the U.
Marine Corps stationed most of the time overseas on Okinawa, Taiwan and Japan. This many years later, my memory is a little hazy on some details. My recollection at this time is that there were approximately 13 or 14 states that had laws regarding interracial marriage. There were two classes of such laws.
One was called passive. The other classes was active such as we see in in the Loving case wherein all such marriages, including cohabitation were actually criminal offenses and could and were prosecuted.
It was interesting. Every state with such laws forbad intermarriage between whites and Indians. Brown v. Board of Education, U. See also Strauder v. West Virginia, U. We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished.
McLaughlin v. Florida, U. Alabama, U. In that case, the Court upheld a conviction under an Alabama statute forbidding adultery or fornication between a white person and a Negro which imposed a greater penalty than that of a statute proscribing similar conduct by members of the same race. The Court reasoned that the statute could not be said to discriminate against Negroes because the punishment for each participant in the offense was the same.
Florida, supra, at As we there demonstrated, the Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. Kraemer, U. Wilmington Parking Authority, U. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races.
United States, U. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they. There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.
The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. 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.
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Skinner v. See also Maynard v. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously to overturn their conviction and strike down the Virginia law. Upcoming Events Explore our upcoming webinars, events and programs. View All Events. Invest In Our Future The most effective way to secure a freer America with more opportunity for all is through engaging, educating, and empowering our youth. Support now Make your investment into the leaders of tomorrow through the Bill of Rights Institute today!
Make a Donation. Learn More. About BRI The Bill of Rights Institute engages, educates, and empowers individuals with a passion for the freedom and opportunity that exist in a free society. Resources Loving v. Virginia decision support freedom of conscience?
0コメント