Loving Vs Virginia Case Study

Loving v. The Commonwealth of Virginia was a case that redefined marriage in the 20th century by extending the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to include and protect freedom to marry through the declaration that “marriage is a basic civil right (Loving v. Virginia).” The case involves the marriage of Richard Loving, a white male, and Mildred Loving nee Jeter, an African American woman, who were both from various parts of Caroline County, VA. The pair met at a music venue where Mildred’s brother’s band was performing (Report on Loving Case, 2009). They were instantly smitten and by 1957 their oldest son Sydney was born. They exchanged vows just a year after his birth; however, this wedding violated Virginia state codes as it was

Immediately following their arrest they were thrown in jail with $1000 bond each, Richard was released the following day, but it was harder for Mildred to obtain bail money due to her ethnicity. At their hearing Judge Bazile presided and is quoted as saying, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. [...] The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” He sentenced to leave Virginia for twenty five years and to never return to the state together, visitation or otherwise, if they did not abide by his ruling they would spend a year in jail as mandated by Virginia law (Report on Loving Case,

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 (Loving v. Virginia).” Many previous rulings of the court aided in the ruling in the Loving case. One such case was McLaughlin v. Florida which was used to reinforce the idea that race classifications cannot affect the criminality of an act or the severity of the punishment and was the basis of Justice Stewart’s concurring opinion about the Loving case (Loving v. Virginia). Likewise Hirabayashi v. United States was utilized to state that distinctions between citizens due to ancestry is unjust. The ruling of Brown v. Board was used to apply the sentiment that separate but equal is never equal even when it comes to marriage (Loving v. Virginia). Maynard v. Hill was used to argue that while marriage is under the social jurisdiction of State police this is not so when the regulation goes against that of the U.S. Constitution (Loving v. Virginia). The prosecution attempted to state that this case was not applicable due to the fourteenth amendment excluding marriage from its limitations but the Supreme Court refuted this notion (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014). Lastly, the ruling of Pace v. Alabama, which established