H. Res. 431 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 11, 2007. 

Whereas the first anti-miscegenation law in the United States 

was enacted in Maryland in 1661; 

Whereas miscegenation was typically a felony under State 

laws prohibiting interracial marriage punishable by imprisonment or hard labor; 

Whereas in 1883, the Supreme Court held in Pace v. Alabama that anti-miscegenation laws were consistent with 

the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as 

long as the punishments given to both white and black 

violators are the same; 

Whereas in 1912, a constitutional amendment was proposed 

in the House of Representatives prohibiting interracial 

marriage ‘‘between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians’’; 

Whereas in 1923, the Supreme Court held in Meyer v. Nebraska that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees the right of an individual ‘‘to marry, establish a home and bring up children’’; 

Whereas in 1924, Virginia enacted the Racial Integrity Act 

of 1924, which required that a racial description of every 

person be recorded at birth and prevented marriage between ‘‘white persons’’ and non-white persons; 
2 

•HRES 431 EH 

Whereas in 1948, the California Supreme Court overturned 

the State’s anti-miscegenation statutes, thereby becoming 

the first State high court to declare a ban on interracial 

marriage unconstitutional and making California the first 

State to do so in the 20th century; 

Whereas the California Supreme Court stated in Perez v. 

Sharp that ‘‘a member of any of these races may find 

himself barred from marrying the person of his choice 

and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human 

beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that 

would make them as interchangeable as trains’’; 

Whereas by 1948, 38 States still forbade interracial marriage, and 6 did so by State constitutional provision; 

Whereas in June of 1958, 2 residents of the Commonwealth 

of Virginia—Mildred Jeter, a black/Native American 

woman, and Richard Perry Loving, a Caucasian man— 

were married in Washington, DC; 

Whereas upon their return to Virginia, Richard Perry Loving 

and Mildred Jeter Loving were charged with violating 

Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statutes, a felonious crime; 

Whereas the Lovings subsequently pleaded guilty and were 

sentenced to 1 year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave 

the State of Virginia; 

Whereas Leon Bazile, the trial judge of the case, proclaimed 

that ‘‘Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The 

fact that he separated the races shows that he did not 

intend for the races to mix.’’; 
3 

•HRES 431 EH 

Whereas the Lovings moved to the District of Columbia, and 

in 1963 they began a series of lawsuits challenging their 

convictions; 

Whereas the convictions were upheld by the State courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia; 

Whereas the Lovings appealed the decision to the Supreme 

Court of the United States on the ground that the Virginia anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment 

and were therefore unconstitutional; 

Whereas in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari 

to Loving v. Virginia and readily overturned the Lovings’ 

convictions; 

Whereas in the unanimous opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote: ‘‘Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of 

man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. . . . To deny this fundamental freedom on so 

unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s 

citizens of liberty without due process of law.’’; 

Whereas the opinion also stated that ‘‘the Fourteenth 

Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry 

not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. 

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.’’; 

Whereas in 1967, 16 States still had law prohibiting interracial marriage, including Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, 

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Mis-
4 

•HRES 431 EH 

souri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia; 

Whereas Loving v. Virginia struck down the remaining antimiscegenation laws nationwide; 

Whereas in 2000, Alabama became the last State to remove 

its anti-miscegenation laws from its statutes; 

Whereas according to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1970 to 

2000 the percentage of interracial marriages has increased from 1 percent of all marriages to more than 5 

percent; 

Whereas the number of children living in interracial families 

has quadrupled between 1970 to 2000, going from 

900,000 to more than 3 million; and 

Whereas June 12th has been proclaimed ‘‘Loving Day’’ by 

cities and towns across the country in commemoration of 

Loving v. Virginia: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) observes the 40th Anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia; and 

(2) commemorates the legacy of Loving v. Virginia 

in ending the ban on interracial marriage in the United 

States and in recognizing that marriage is one of the 

‘‘basic civil rights of man’’ at the heart of the 14th 

Amendment protections. 

Attest: 

Clerk.