“Loving v. Virginia”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),^[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which struck down all state laws banning interracial marriage as violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.{{sfnp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§ 18.28(a), pp. 80–81}} The case was brought by Mildred Loving ({{nee|Jeter}}), a woman of color, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which criminalized marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored".

The Lovings appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which upheld it. They then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear their case and granted certiorari. On June 12, 1967, the Court issued a unanimous decision in their favor and overturned their convictions. The Court struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law, thereby overruling the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. Virginia had argued that its law was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the punishment was the same regardless of the offender's race, and thus it "equally burdened" both whites and non-whites.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2015|p=729}} The Court found that the law nonetheless violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was based solely on "distinctions drawn according to race" and outlawed conduct—namely, getting married—that was otherwise generally accepted and which citizens were free to do.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2015|p=729}} Additionally, the Court ruled that the freedom to marry was a constitutionally protected fundamental liberty, and therefore the government's deprivation of it on an arbitrary basis such as race was violation of the Due Process Clause.

The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S. and is remembered annually on Loving Day. It has been the subject of several songs and three movies, including the 2016 film Loving. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.^[2]

Background

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States

A major concern was how to draw the line between black and white in a society in which white men had many children with black slave women.{{Citation needed|date=April 2017}} On the one hand, a person's reputation as black or white was usually decisive in practical matters. On the other hand, most laws used a "one drop of blood" rule, which meant that one black ancestor made a person black in the view of the law.^[4]

Plaintiffs

Mildred Delores Loving (née Jeter; July 22, 1939 – May 2, 2008) was the daughter of Musial (Byrd) Jeter and Theoliver Jeter.^[6] Mildred's racial identity has been a point of confusion. She has been noted as self-identifying as Indian-Rappahannock,^[7] but was also reported as being of Cherokee, Portuguese, and African American ancestry.^[8]^[9] During the trial, it seemed clear that she identified herself as black, especially as far as her own lawyer was concerned. However, upon her arrest, the police report identifies her as "Indian". She said in a 2004 interview, "I have no black ancestry. I am Indian-Rappahannock." A possible contributing factor is that it was seen at the time of her arrest as advantageous to be "anything but black". There was an ingrained history in the state of the denial of African ancestry.^[7] Additionally, the frequent racial mixing of Central Point, where she lived, could have contributed to this fluid racial identity.^[10] Mildred was known as a quiet and humble woman.^[11] She was born and raised in the same rural Virginia community as her husband, Richard.^[12]

Richard Perry Loving (October 29, 1933 – June 29, 1975) was a white man, and the son of Lola (Allen) Loving and Twillie Loving. He was a construction worker. The 1830 census marks Lewis Loving, Richard's paternal ancestor, as having owned seven slaves. Richard's grandfather, T.P. Farmer, fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War.^[13]

Their families both lived in Caroline County, Virginia. The county adhered to strict Jim Crow segregation laws but Central Point had been a visible mixed-race community since the 19th century.^[10] Richard's father worked for one of the wealthiest black men in the county for 25 years. Richard's closest companions were black, including those he drag-raced with and Mildred's older brothers. The couple met in high school and fell in love. Richard moved into the Jeter household when Mildred became pregnant.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}

After the Supreme Court case, the couple moved back to Central Point, where Richard built them a house. The couple had three children: Donald, Peggy, and Sidney.^[14] Richard Loving died aged 41 in 1975, when a drunk driver struck his car in Caroline County, Virginia.^[15] Mildred Loving lost her right eye in the same accident. She died of pneumonia on May 2, 2008, in her home in Central Point, aged 68.^[16]

Criminal proceedings

At the age of 18, Mildred became pregnant. In June 1958, the couple traveled to Washington, D.C. to marry, thereby evading Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which made marriage between whites and non-whites a crime.^[17] They returned to the small town of Central Point, Virginia. Based on an anonymous tip,^[18] local police raided their home in the early morning hours of July 11, 1958,^[19] hoping to find them having sex, given that interracial sex was then also illegal in Virginia. When the officers found the Lovings sleeping in their bed, Mildred pointed out their marriage certificate on the bedroom wall. They were told the certificate was not valid in the Commonwealth.

The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.

On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pled guilty to "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth". They were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended on condition that the couple leave Virginia and not return together for at least 25 years. After their conviction, the couple moved to the District of Columbia.^[20]

Appellate proceedings

In 1964, frustrated by their inability to travel together to visit their families in Virginia, as well as their social isolation and financial difficulties in Washington, Mildred Loving wrote in protest to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.^[21] Kennedy referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).^[18] The ACLU assigned volunteer cooperating attorneys Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop, who filed a motion on behalf of the Lovings in the Virginia Caroline County Circuit Court, that requested the court to vacate the criminal judgments and set aside the Lovings' sentences on the grounds that the Virginia miscegenation statutes ran counter to the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

On October 28, 1964, after waiting almost a year for a response to their motion, the ACLU attorneys brought a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This prompted the county court judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, to issue a ruling on the long-pending motion to vacate. Echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, the local court wrote:

On January 22, 1965, a three-judge district court panel postponed decision on the federal class-action case while the Lovings appealed Judge Bazile's decision on constitutional grounds to the Virginia Supreme Court. Justice Harry L. Carrico (later Chief Justice of the Court) wrote an opinion for the court upholding the constitutionality of the anti-miscegenation statutes. While he upheld their criminal convictions, he directed that their sentence be modified.^[23] Carrico cited as authority the Virginia Supreme Court's decision in Naim v. Naim (1955) and argued that the Lovings' case was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for the crime of miscegenation, an argument similar to that made by the United States Supreme Court in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama.^[24]

The Lovings, still supported by the ACLU, appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, where Virginia was represented by Robert McIlwaine of the state's attorney general's office. The Lovings did not attend the oral arguments in Washington,^[25] but one of their lawyers, Bernard S. Cohen, conveyed the message he had been given by Richard Loving: "Mr. Cohen, tell the Court I love my wife, and it is just unfair that I can't live with her in Virginia."^[26]

Precedents

Before Loving v. Virginia, there had been several cases on the subject of interracial sexual relations. Within the state of Virginia, on Oct. 3, 1878, in Kinney v. The Commonwealth, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that the marriage legalized in Washington, D.C. between Andrew Kinney, a black man, and Mahala Miller, a white woman, was "invalid" in Virginia.^[27] In the national case of Pace v. Alabama (1883), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the conviction of an Alabama couple for interracial sex, affirmed on appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.^[28] Interracial marital sex was deemed a felony, whereas extramarital sex ("adultery or fornication") was only a misdemeanor. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex was not a violation of the equal protection clause because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex. The court did not need to affirm the constitutionality of the ban on interracial marriage that was also part of Alabama's anti-miscegenation law, since the plaintiff, Mr. Pace, had chosen not to appeal that section of the law. After Pace v. Alabama, the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws banning marriage and sex between whites and non-whites remained unchallenged until the 1920s.

In Kirby v. Kirby (1921), Mr. Kirby asked the state of Arizona for an annulment of his marriage. He charged that his marriage was invalid because his wife was of "negro" descent, thus violating the state's anti-miscegenation law. The Arizona Supreme Court judged Mrs. Kirby's race by observing her physical characteristics and determined that she was of mixed race, therefore granting Mr. Kirby's annulment.^[29]

In the Monks case (Estate of Monks, 4. Civ. 2835, Records of California Court of Appeals, Fourth district), the Superior Court of San Diego County in 1939 decided to invalidate the marriage of Marie Antoinette and Allan Monks because she was deemed to have "one eighth negro blood". The court case involved a legal challenge over the conflicting wills that had been left by the late Allan Monks; an old one in favor of a friend named Ida Lee, and a newer one in favor of his wife. Lee's lawyers charged that the marriage of the Monkses, which had taken place in Arizona, was invalid under Arizona state law because Marie Antoinette was "a Negro" and Alan had been white. Despite conflicting testimony by various expert witnesses, the judge defined Mrs. Monks' race by relying on the anatomical "expertise" of a surgeon. The judge ignored the arguments of an anthropologist and a biologist that it was impossible to tell a person's race from physical characteristics.^[30]

Monks then challenged the Arizona anti-miscegenation law itself, taking her case to the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District. Monks' lawyers pointed out that the anti-miscegenation law effectively prohibited Monks as a mixed-race person from marrying anyone: "As such, she is prohibited from marrying a negro or any descendant of a negro, a Mongolian or an Indian, a Malay or a Hindu, or any descendants of any of them. Likewise ... as a descendant of a negro she is prohibited from marrying a Caucasian or a descendant of a Caucasian. ..." The Arizona anti-miscegenation statute thus prohibited Monks from contracting a valid marriage in Arizona, and was therefore an unconstitutional constraint on her liberty. However, the court dismissed this argument as inapplicable, because the case presented involved not two mixed-race spouses but a mixed-race and a white spouse: "Under the facts presented the appellant does not have the benefit of assailing the validity of the statute."^[31] Dismissing Monks' appeal in 1942, the United States Supreme Court refused to reopen the issue.

The turning point came with Perez v. Sharp (1948), also known as Perez v. Lippold. In Perez, the Supreme Court of California recognized that bans on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

Decision

On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision that overturned the Lovings' Virginia criminal convictions and struck down anti-miscegenation laws that forbade marriage between people of different races. The Court's opinion was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, and all the justices joined it. The Court began by explicitly rejecting Virginia's argument that the anti-miscegenation statute in the Racial Integrity Act did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution because the punishment for violating the statute was the same regardless of the offender's race, and therefore "equally burdened" both whites and non-whites: "[W]e reject the notion that the mere 'equal application' of a statute concerning racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations."^[32] The Court ruled that because the races of the people involved were the only factors determining whether or not they broke the law, the law was therefore a violation of the Equal Protection Clause:{{sfnp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§ 18.28(a), pp. 80–81}}

After ruling that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection Clause, the Court concluded its opinion with a short section ruling that it also violated the Due Process Clause, because it deprived its people of a constitutionally protected right without due process of law.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2015|p=832}} It held that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right, and therefore that depriving Americans of this liberty on an arbitrary basis such as race was unconstitutional:{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2015|pp=832–33}}

Implications of the decision

For interracial marriage

Despite the Supreme Court's decision, anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states, although the decision had made them unenforceable. Local judges in Alabama continued to enforce that state's anti-miscegenation statute until the Nixon administration obtained a ruling from a U.S. District Court in United States v. Brittain in 1970.^[33]^[34] In 2000, Alabama became the last state to adapt its laws to the Supreme Court's decision, when 60% of voters endorsed a ballot initiative that removed anti-miscegenation language from the state constitution.^[35]

After Loving v. Virginia, the number of interracial marriages continued to increase across the United States^[36] and in the South. In Georgia, for instance, the number of interracial marriages increased from 21 in 1967 to 115 in 1970.^[37] At the national level, 0.4% of marriages were interracial in 1960, 2.0% in 1980,^[38] 12% in 2013,^[39] and 16% in 2015, almost 50 years after Loving.^[40]

For same-sex marriage

In Hernandez v. Robles (2006), the majority opinion of the New York Court of Appeals—that state's highest court—declined to rely on the Loving case when deciding whether a right to same-sex marriage existed, holding that "the historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case."^[42] In the 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, overturning California's Proposition 8 which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples, Judge Vaughn R. Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender".^[43] On narrower grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.^[44]^[45]

In June 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving, Mildred Loving issued the following statement:

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. 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.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.^[46]^[47]^[48]}}

Up until 2014, five U.S. Courts of Appeals considered the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. In doing so they interpreted or used the Loving ruling differently:

In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which decided the issue, the Supreme Court invoked Loving, among other cases, as precedent for its holding that states are required to allow same-sex marriages under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.^[2] The court's decision in Obergefell cited Loving nearly a dozen times, and was based on the same principles – equality and an unenumerated right to marriage. During oral argument, the eventual author of the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, noted that the ruling holding racial segregation unconstitutional and the ruling holding bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and Loving v. Virginia in 1967, respectively), were made about 13 years apart, much like the ruling holding bans on same-sex sexual activity unconstitutional and the eventual ruling holding bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional (Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, respectively).^[56]

Remembrance and representation in popular culture

In the United States, June 12, the date of the decision, has become known as Loving Day, an annual unofficial celebration of interracial marriages. In 2014, Mildred Loving was honored as one of the Library of Virginia's "Virginia Women in History".^[57] In 2017, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources dedicated a state historical marker, which tells the story of the Lovings, outside the Patrick Henry Building in Richmond – the former site of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.^[58]

In music, Nanci Griffith's 2009 album The Loving Kind is named for the Lovings and includes a song about them. Satirist Roy Zimmerman's 2009 song The Summer of Loving^[68] is about the Lovings and their 1967 case, making reference to the hippies' "Summer of Love" of that same year.

A 2015 novel by the French journalist Gilles Biassette, L'amour des Loving ("The Love of the Lovings", {{ISBN|978-2917559598}}), recounts the life of the Lovings and their case.^[69] A photo-essay about the couple by Grey Villet, created just before the case, was republished in 2017.^[70]

References

Citations

1. ^{{ussc|name=Loving v. Virginia|volume=388|page=1|pin=|year=1967}}.
2. ^¹{{ussc|name=Obergefell v. Hodges|volume=576|year=2015|docket=14-556}}.
3. ^{{cite journal |last1=Wallenstein |first1=Peter |title=Reconstruction, Segregation, and Miscegenation: Interracial Marriage and the Law in the Lower South, 1865–1900 |journal=American Nineteenth Century History |volume=6 |date=16 Aug 2006 |pages=57–76 |doi=10.1080/14664650500121827 |quote="On the eve of Congressional Reconstruction, all seven states of the Lower South had laws against interracial marriage. During the Republican interlude that began in 1867–68, six of the seven states (all but Georgia) suspended those laws, whether through judicial invalidation or legislative repeal. Yet by 1894 all six had restored such bans."}}
4. ^Peter Wallenstein, "Reconstruction, Segregation, and Miscegenation: Interracial Marriage and the Law in the Lower South, 1865–1900." American Nineteenth Century History 6#1 (2005): 57–76.
5. ^Loving, 388 U.S. at 6.
6. ^Mildred Loving obituary {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161027192630/http://www.memorialobituaries.com/memorials/memorials_print.cgi?memid=191270 |date=2016-10-27 }} accessed 10/26/2016
7. ^¹{{Cite web|url=http://time.com/4362508/loving-v-virginia-personas/|title=What You Didn't Know About Loving v. Virginia|website=Time|access-date=2017-02-22|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170215022952/http://time.com/4362508/loving-v-virginia-personas/|archivedate=2017-02-15|df=}}
8. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.charlielawing.com/modhist_lovingv.virginia.pdf|title=Loving v. Virginia and the Hegemony of "Race"|last=Lawing|first=Charles B.|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070704053526/http://www.charlielawing.com/modhist_lovingv.virginia.pdf|archivedate=July 4, 2007|accessdate=December 10, 2017}}
9. ^{{cite news|url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-10-loving_N.htm|title=Pioneer of interracial marriage looks back|last=Walker|first=Dionne|date=2007-06-10|newspaper=Associated Press|accessdate=2015-04-27}}
10. ^¹{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/opinion/14wed4.html|title=Opinion {{!}} Loving v. Virginia and the Secret History of Race|last=Staples|first=Brent|date=2008-05-14|work=The New York Times|access-date=2018-04-08|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}
11. ^{{Cite journal|last=Rathbone|first=Mark|date=April 2009|title=Mildred Loving|url=|journal=General OneFile|volume=|pages=32+|via=}}
12. ^{{Cite journal|last=Lavender|first=Abraham|date=2014|title=Loving, Richard (1933–1975), and Mildred Loving (1939–2008)|url=|journal=Culture Wars in America: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices, Edited by Roger Chapman and James Ciment, 2nd Ed.|volume=|pages=|via=}}
13. ^{{Cite web|url=http://time.com/4552130/loving-movie-racial-passing-history/|title=The White and Black Worlds of 'Loving v. Virginia'|website=Time|language=en|access-date=2018-04-08}}
14. ^{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06loving.html|title=Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage Dies at 68|author=Douglas Martin|date=May 6, 2008|accessdate=November 22, 2016|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170701043346/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06loving.html|archivedate=July 1, 2017|deadurl=no|publisher=The New York Times|quote=The Lovings' son Donald died in 2000. In addition to her daughter, Peggy Fortune, who lives in Milford, Va., Mrs. Loving is survived by her son, Sidney, of Tappahannock, Va.; eight grandchildren; and 11 great-grandchildren.|df=}}
15. ^{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1975/07/01/archives/richard-p-loving-in-land-mark-suit-figure-in-high-court-ruling-on.html|title=RICHARD P. LOVING; IN LAND MARK SUIT; Figure in High Court Ruling on Miscegenation Dies|date=July 1, 1975|work=The New York Times|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140426211818/http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10D13FD3B58157493C3A9178CD85F418785F9|archivedate=April 26, 2014|deadurl=no|df=}}
16. ^{{Cite journal|last=|first=|date=Summer 2008|title=died: Mildred Jeter Loving (1939–2008)|url=|journal=The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education|volume=60|pages=83|via=}}
17. ^{{Cite web|title = Racial Integrity Laws (1924–1930)|url = http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Racial_Integrity_Laws_of_the_1920s|website = www.encyclopediavirginia.org|accessdate = 2015-11-04|deadurl = no|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20151115151130/http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/racial_integrity_laws_of_the_1920s|archivedate = 2015-11-15|df = }}
18. ^¹Martin, Douglas. [https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06loving.html "Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage, Dies at 68"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161201080047/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06loving.html |date=2016-12-01 }}, New York Times, May 6, 2008.
19. ^{{cite web| url =http://www.biography.com/people/mildred-loving-5884| title =Mildred Loving - Civil Rights Activist - Biography.com| last1 =| first1 =| author-link1 =| last2 =| first2 =| author-link2 =| date =| year =| website =Biography.com| publisher =A&E Television Networks, LLC| access-date =2017-02-20| subscription =| deadurl =no| archiveurl =https://web.archive.org/web/20170211080301/http://www.biography.com/people/mildred-loving-5884| archivedate =2017-02-11| df =}}
20. ^Loving, 388 U.S. at 3 ("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 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 ... After their convictions, the Lovings took up residence in the District of Columbia.")
21. ^[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remember-jan-june08-loving_05-06 "Mildred Loving, Key Figure in Civil Rights Era, Dies"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170613230048/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remember-jan-june08-loving_05-06/ |date=2017-06-13 }}, PBS Online News Hour, May 6, 2008
22. ^{{Cite web|title=Opinion of Judge Bazile in Commonwealth v. Loving (January 22, 1965)|url=http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Opinion_of_Judge_Leon_M_Bazile_January_22_1965|website=www.encyclopediavirginia.org|accessdate=2016-11-27|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20161128135102/http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Opinion_of_Judge_Leon_M_Bazile_January_22_1965|archivedate=November 28, 2016|df=}}
23. ^{{Cite web|title = Loving v. Commonwealth (March 7, 1966)|url = http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_Commonwealth_March_7_1966|website = www.encyclopediavirginia.org|accessdate = 2015-11-04|deadurl = no|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20150910095234/http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_Commonwealth_March_7_1966|archivedate = September 10, 2015|df = }}
24. ^{{cite court |litigants=Loving v. Commonwealth |vol=206 |reporter=Va. |opinion=924 |pinpoint= |court= |date=1966 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/supreme-court/1966/6163-1.html |accessdate=2018-07-26 |quote=}}
25. ^Kate Sheppard, [https://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/02/the-loving-story-documentary-hbo {{"'}}The Loving Story': How an Interracial Couple Changed a Nation"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170220203224/https://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/02/the-loving-story-documentary-hbo |date=2017-02-20 }}, Mother Jones, Feb 13, 2012.
26. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395|title=Loving v. Virginia oral argument transcript|accessdate=November 27, 2016|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20161115152456/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395|archivedate=November 15, 2016|df=}} Also quoted in Loving v. Virginia (1967) {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121214144034/http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_Virginia_1967 |date=2012-12-14 }}, Encyclopedia Virginia
27. ^{{cite news|last1=Brown|first1=DeNeen|title=Before Loving v. Virginia, another interracial couple fought in court for their marriage|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/06/11/before-loving-v-virginia-another-interracial-couple-fought-in-court-for-their-marriage/|accessdate=11 June 2017|publisher=The Washington Post|date=11 June 2017|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170611132258/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/06/11/before-loving-v-virginia-another-interracial-couple-fought-in-court-for-their-marriage/|archivedate=11 June 2017|df=}}
28. ^{{ussc|name=Pace v. Alabama|volume=106|page=583|year=1883}}.
29. ^{{harvnb|Pascoe|1996|pp=49–51}}
30. ^{{harvnb|Pascoe |1996|p=56}}
31. ^{{harvnb|Pascoe |1996|p=60}}
32. ^{{harvp|Chemerinsky|2015|p=729}}, quoting Loving, 388 U.S. at 8.
33. ^{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Brittain |vol=319 |reporter=F. Supp. |opinion=1058 |pinpoint= |court=N.D. Ala. |date=1970 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/319/1058/2134867/ |accessdate=2018-07-26 |quote=}}
34. ^{{cite news|last1=Rosenthal|first1=Jack|title=Government Seeks to Allow A Mixed Marriage in Alabama|url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1970/12/04/355155472.pdf|accessdate=January 25, 2015|work=New York Times|date=December 4, 1970}}
35. ^{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/12/weekinreview/november-5-11-marry-at-will.html |title=November 5–11; Marry at Will |work=New York Times |date=November 12, 2000 |accessdate=May 27, 2009 |quote=The margin by which the measure passed was itself a statement. A clear majority, 60 percent, voted to remove the miscegenation statute from the state constitution, but 40 percent of Alabamans – nearly 526,000 people – voted to keep it. |first=Somini |last=Sengupta |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090821110359/http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/12/weekinreview/november-5-11-marry-at-will.html |archivedate=August 21, 2009 |df= }}
36. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18090277/ns/us_news-life/t/after-years-interracial-marriage-flourishing/ |title=Interracial marriage flourishes in U.S. |publisher=MSNBC |date=April 15, 2007 |accessdate=December 13, 2012 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121213011735/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18090277/ns/us_news-life/t/after-years-interracial-marriage-flourishing/ |archivedate=December 13, 2012 |df= }}
37. ^Aldridge, The Changing Nature of Interracial Marriage in Georgia: A Research Note, 1973
38. ^{{cite web| url =https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/interractab1.txt| title =Table 1. Race of Wife by Race of Husband: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1991, and 1992| last1 =| first1 =| author-link1 =| last2 =| first2 =| author-link2 =| date =1994-07-05| website =census.gov| publisher =U.S. Bureau of the Census| access-date =2017-02-20| subscription =| deadurl =no| archiveurl =https://web.archive.org/web/20170304155503/https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/interractab1.txt| archivedate =2017-03-04| df =}}
39. ^{{cite web|title=Interracial marriage: Who is 'marrying out'?|url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/12/interracial-marriage-who-is-marrying-out/|publisher=Pew Research Center|accessdate=11 August 2016|date=12 June 2015|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160812004242/http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/12/interracial-marriage-who-is-marrying-out/|archivedate=12 August 2016|df=}}
40. ^{{cite web|title=Intermarriage across the U.S. by metro area|url=http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/interactives/intermarriage-across-the-u-s-by-metro-area/|website=Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project|accessdate=11 June 2017|date=18 May 2017|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170606132122/http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/interactives/intermarriage-across-the-u-s-by-metro-area/|archivedate=6 June 2017|df=}}
41. ^{{cite web |last=Trei |first=Lisa |url=http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2007/pr-rosenfeld-061307.html |title=Loving v. Virginia provides roadmap for same-sex marriage advocates |publisher=News.stanford.edu |date=June 13, 2007 |accessdate=December 13, 2012 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121213011039/http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2007/pr-rosenfeld-061307.html |archivedate=December 13, 2012 |df= }}
42. ^{{cite court |litigants=Hernandez v. Robles |vol=855 |reporter=N.E.3d |opinion=1 |pinpoint= |court=N.Y. |date=2006 |url=http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05239.htm |accessdate=2018-07-26 |quote=}}
43. ^{{cite court |litigants=Perry v. Schwarzenegger |vol=704 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=921 |pinpoint= |court=N.D. Cal. |date=2010 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20101015624 |accessdate=2018-07-26 |quote=}}
44. ^{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html |first1=Adam |last1=Nagoruney |date=February 7, 2012 |title=Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California |publisher=New York Times |accessdate=February 8, 2012 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120211122706/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html |archivedate=February 11, 2012 |df= }}
45. ^{{cite court |litigants=Perry v. Brown |vol=671 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1052 |pinpoint= |court=9th Cir. |date=2012 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120207000t |accessdate=2018-07-26 |quote=}}
46. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/mildred-loving-endorses-marriage-equality-for-same-sex-couples/|title=Mildred Loving Endorses Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples|publisher=American Constitution Society|date=June 15, 2007|accessdate=July 24, 2018}}
47. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/06/mildred-loving-40-years-later/227582/|title=Mildred Loving, 40 Years Later|publisher=The Atlantic|author=Douglas Martin|date=June 18, 2007|accessdate=March 11, 2015}}
48. ^{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06loving.html|title=Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage, Dies at 68|newspaper=New York Times|author=Douglas Martin|date=May 6, 2008|accessdate=July 14, 2018}}
49. ^{{ussc|name=Zablocki v. Redhail|volume=434|page=374|pin=|year=1978}}.
50. ^{{ussc|name=Turner v. Safley|volume=482|page=78|pin=|year=1987}}.
51. ^{{cite court |litigants=Bostic v. Shaefer |vol=760 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=352 |pinpoint=376 |court=4th Cir. |date=2014 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140728145 |accessdate=2018-07-26 |quote=Perhaps most notably, in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court invalidated a Virginia law that prohibited white individuals from marrying individuals of other races. The Court explained that '[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men' and that no valid basis justified the Virginia law's infringement of that right. [citations omitted]}}
52. ^{{cite court |litigants=Kitchen v. Herbert |vol=755 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1193 |pinpoint= |court=10th Cir. |date=2014 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140625074 |accessdate=2018-07-26 |quote=}}
53. ^{{cite court |litigants=Baskin v. Bogan |vol=766 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=648 |pinpoint= |court=7th Cir. |date=2014 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140904126 |accessdate=2018-07-26 |quote=}}
54. ^{{cite court |litigants=Latta v. Otter |vol=771 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=456 |pinpoint=474 |court= |date=2014 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20141007102 |accessdate=2018-07-26 |quote=}}
55. ^{{cite court |litigants=DeBoer v. Snyder |vol=772 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=388 |pinpoint=411 |court=6th Cir. |date=2014 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20141106144 |accessdate=2018-07-26 |quote=Matters do not change because Loving v. Virginia held that 'marriage' amounts to a fundamental right. ... In referring to 'marriage' rather than "opposite-sex marriage," Loving confirmed only that 'opposite-sex marriage' would have been considered redundant, not that marriage included same-sex couples. Loving did not change the definition. [citations omitted]}}
56. ^{{cite news|last1=Amar|first1=Akhil Reed|title=Anthony Kennedy and the Ghost of Earl Warren|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/06/obergefell_v_hodges_anthony_kennedy_continues_the_legacy_of_earl_warren.html|accessdate=6 July 2015|work=Slate|date=6 July 2015|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150707032841/http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/06/obergefell_v_hodges_anthony_kennedy_continues_the_legacy_of_earl_warren.html|archivedate=7 July 2015|df=}}
57. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/vawomen/2014/honoree.htm?bio=Loving|title=Virginia Women in History: Mildred Delores Jeter Loving|publisher=Library of Virginia|accessdate=4 March 2015|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150321185328/http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/vawomen/2014/honoree.htm?bio=Loving|archivedate=21 March 2015|df=}}
58. ^{{cite news|title=Virginia to honor interracial marriage with state historical marker|url=http://wtvr.com/2017/06/08/interracial-marriage-historical-marker/|accessdate=11 June 2017|work=WTVR.com|date=8 June 2017|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170608185356/http://wtvr.com/2017/06/08/interracial-marriage-historical-marker/|archivedate=8 June 2017|df=}}
59. ^*{{IMDb title|id=0117098|title=Mr. & Mrs. Loving}}
60. ^{{cite news|author=Dionne Walker|publisher=USAToday.com|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-10-loving_N.htm|title=Pioneer of interracial marriage looks back|date=June 10, 2007|accessdate=May 8, 2008|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080509035254/http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-10-loving_N.htm|archivedate=May 9, 2008|df=}}
61. ^{{cite news | title=40 years of interracial marriage: Mildred Loving reflects on breaking the color barrier | agency=Associated Press | work=International Herald-Tribune | date=June 9, 2007 | accessdate=April 28, 2008 | url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/10/america/NA-FEA-GEN-US-Loving-Anniversary.php | deadurl=no | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080508202344/http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/10/america/NA-FEA-GEN-US-Loving-Anniversary.php | archivedate=May 8, 2008 | df= }}
62. ^{{cite news|url=http://tv.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/arts/television/the-loving-story-an-hbo-documentary.html|title=Scenes From a Marriage That Segregationists Tried to Break Up|first=Alessandra|last=Stanley|date=February 13, 2012|work=New York Times|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120214075848/http://tv.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/arts/television/the-loving-story-an-hbo-documentary.html|archivedate=February 14, 2012|df=}}
63. ^The Loving Story {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120612142413/http://icarusfilms.com/new2012/ls.html |date=2012-06-12 }}, accessed March 25, 2015
64. ^72nd Annual Peabody Awards {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140911220051/http://www.peabodyawards.com/award-profile/the-loving-story |date=2014-09-11 }}, May 2013.
65. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.topic.com/the-loving-generation |title=The Loving Generation |publisher=Topic.com |accessdate=February 18, 2018 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180217162449/https://www.topic.com/the-loving-generation |archivedate=February 17, 2018 |df= }}
66. ^{{Cite news|url=https://www.theroot.com/the-loving-generation-explores-the-lives-of-biracial-ch-1822767412|title=The Loving Generation Explores the Lives of Biracial Children Born After Mixed-Race Marriages Were Legalized|last=Branigin|first=Anne|date=February 10, 2018|work=The Root|access-date=February 15, 2018|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180216030806/https://www.theroot.com/the-loving-generation-explores-the-lives-of-biracial-ch-1822767412|archivedate=February 16, 2018|df=}}
67. ^{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/opinion/sunday/black-with-some-white-privilege.html|title=Black With (Some) White Privilege|last=Holmes|first=Anna|authorlink=Anna Holmes|date=February 10, 2018|work=The New York Times|access-date=February 15, 2018|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180214184644/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/opinion/sunday/black-with-some-white-privilege.html|archivedate=February 14, 2018|df=}}
68. ^https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQWrasoNS24
69. ^{{cite news|last1=Mahuzier|first1=Marc|title=L'amour en noir et blanc|url=http://www.ouest-france.fr/lamour-en-noir-et-blanc-3498156|accessdate=22 June 2015|work=Ouest-France|date=21 June 2015|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924160041/http://www.ouest-france.fr/lamour-en-noir-et-blanc-3498156|archivedate=24 September 2015|df=}}
70. ^{{cite book|last1=Villet|first1=Barbara|last2=Villet|first2=Grey|title=The Lovings: An Intimate Portrait|date=February 14, 2017|publisher=Princeton Architectural Press|isbn=978-1616895563}}