Loving v. Virginia - A Legislative and Social Innovation
Loving v. Virginia was a legislative as well as a social innovation. From the legislative aspect, for as long as mixed-race relationships have existed, there have been laws penalizing interracial marriages in the United States. After three centuries of denying mixed-race couples the right to marry, Loving v. Virginia was the first case to federally declare the unconstitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws and recognize the legality of interracial marriages. Loving v. Virginia was the last of the landmark Civil Rights cases, but it marked the beginning of social change and innovation in the way society viewed race in America.
Following the ruling of Loving v. Virginia, the Multicultural Movement emerged in the United States with the formation of multicultural organizations such as I-Pride and the Association of MultiEthnic Americans. The term "multi-racial" was a phenomenon that occurred as a result of the Loving case. Prior to 1967, there were only two categories in regards to race in the terms of the law- white or "colored." With the passing of Loving v. Virginia, the last of racial barriers came down; no longer was race an indicator of inferiority or superiority. People began to identify with their mixed heritage, many, including the Peggy Loving, the Lovings' daughter began referring to themselves as "multi-racial" Americans. |
Since 1967, the United States has seen a dramatic increase in mixed-race couples. According to data released by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2005, there are currently 2.3 million interracial couples living in the United States (approximately 3.8% of all married couples). In comparison, there were only 0.3 million interracial couples in 1970 (approximately 0.7% of all married couples), a staggering 667% increase in the past 40 years (MSNBC Media).
What the Experts Say
When asked to comment about the interracial couples constituting only 3.8% of all married couples in the U.S.
Phyl Newbeck:
|
"I think there's something instilled in people that causes people to marry someone who's like you. Other people are different in some way, and they're nice to know, but if you're going to marry and raise a family, you want someone who shares your values, even though values have have nothing to do with color of your skin. Even the most open-minded progressive people might, when it comes to that subject, choose to marry someone of their own race, because they're thinking of kids, and they want their kids to be raised the way they were raised perhaps. However, I would have thought there would be more [interracial marriages] at this point."
|
When asked about his inspiration for the holiday
"The idea came from a few different sources. One of the main influences was the holiday Jun-Jun. It's something that's popular in the African American community and it's celebrated on June 19th, and it's supposedly when the last slaves learned that they were free. If you think back to when slavery was abolished- there was no Internet, no telephone, no nothing to send out the message other than horseback. So people knew on the Eastern coast much sooner than those in Texas. Now in Texas, June 19th is supposedly the day the last slaves knew that they were free, and this was holiday created by the African American community, and it's celebrated by literally hundreds of thousands of people. So after I learned about this, I thought about combining it with the idea of creating a narrative-- it's good to have stories particularly with younger people; everyone knows the story of Rosa Parks on the bus; it's time to learn about the story of Richard and Mildred Loving getting arrested in their bed in Virginia. So it's a combination of creating a narrative like Rosa Parks, the idea of a grass-roots holiday like Jun-Jun, and the idea of things like Martin Luther King Day and Black History month. It's the opportunity of having something that's reoccurring to reach people and keep the story alive."
Elise Lemire:
Author of "Miscegenation": Making Race in America
Author of "Miscegenation": Making Race in America
Commenting on her own interracial marriage to an African American man
"I met my husband in the early 90s, and I grew up in a very wealthy, white suburb. My own parents had been kicked out of their families because they had married across the religious divide-- my father was raised Catholic, my mother was raised Protestant-- so when my father told his parents he was marrying a Protestant, they disowned him, and that was it. So I was raised with the idea that whoever I brought home would be fine. When I called my parents and said-- I met someone and I'm totally in love with this man-- this was it, it was totally love at first sight-- my parents hung up the phone!"
|
Commenting on the 1864 pamphlet that coined the term "miscegenation"
"The fact that the pamphlet coined "miscegenation" so quickly, within a year, quickly replacing the word amalgamation, which had been used for nearly two centuries, meant it had a huge impact. I think that's because of where print culture and capitalism was, it didn't take long for a piece appearing in New York City to spread across the country. Because of print capitalism at the time, it could be largely influential, but it could only be influential if it was appealing to people. I think what we're seeing here is, the term spread quickly through the pamphlet and through the reprinting, but that wouldn't have happened if it weren't filling a need in the culture, and what the culture seems to me, in the wake of the Emancipation Proclamation, was a word that made interracial coupling into a scientific phenomenon, something that was happening at a biological level, because then I think they could fully naturalize the idea that only intra-racial sexuality is acceptable and natural."
|
Alice: "You talk about how "multi-racial" was a phenomenon that occurred after the Loving case. Can you elaborate on that?"
Dr. Wallenstein: "If you use the Virginia story as typical somehow, between 1924 to 1967, you were either white or "colored." If a white person and a "colored" person, no matter what their identity, whether it be Chinese or African American, no matter who, if they had a child-- the child would automatically be what?"
Alice: "Colored."
Dr. Wallenstein: "Exactly. So there's no such place to be to call yourself "multi-racial." You're either one or the other, and if you're white-- then that's settled, and if you're not-- then it doesn't mater who you are. And I think that has a lot to do with exactly why no one called themselves "multi-racial." Peggy Loving, for example, thought what her parents' case allowed her to do was permit her to marry a mixed-race person. Well they permitted her to be mixed-race herself, but the fact is that neither one of them would have been perceived as mixed-race under the law. They would have both been "colored"-- no matter if they called themselves Indian or black, and Peggy called herself Indian. What the case did was permit her to call herself whatever she wanted. She could be black, she could be Indian, she could be multi, she could be whatever, and she could marry anyone she wanted."
Dr. Wallenstein: "If you use the Virginia story as typical somehow, between 1924 to 1967, you were either white or "colored." If a white person and a "colored" person, no matter what their identity, whether it be Chinese or African American, no matter who, if they had a child-- the child would automatically be what?"
Alice: "Colored."
Dr. Wallenstein: "Exactly. So there's no such place to be to call yourself "multi-racial." You're either one or the other, and if you're white-- then that's settled, and if you're not-- then it doesn't mater who you are. And I think that has a lot to do with exactly why no one called themselves "multi-racial." Peggy Loving, for example, thought what her parents' case allowed her to do was permit her to marry a mixed-race person. Well they permitted her to be mixed-race herself, but the fact is that neither one of them would have been perceived as mixed-race under the law. They would have both been "colored"-- no matter if they called themselves Indian or black, and Peggy called herself Indian. What the case did was permit her to call herself whatever she wanted. She could be black, she could be Indian, she could be multi, she could be whatever, and she could marry anyone she wanted."
"Love triumphs all," was not always a reality for interracial couples, but nowadays, everyone has the freedom to marry whom they choose, regardless of race. The case of Loving v. Virginia has helped pave the path for recognizing the rights of all people. In the last forty years, the Loving decision has come to be a cornerstone victory for interracial couples and their mixed-race children as well as a beacon for members of the gay, lesbian, and transgendered community who are struggling for their own marriage rights.