•HRES 431 IH 
Whereas the Lovings subsequently pleaded guilty and were 
sentenced to 1 year in prison, with the sentence sus-
pended 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, yel-
low, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate con-
tinents. And but for the interference with his arrange-
ment 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.’’; 
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, in-
cluding 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 Vir-
ginia anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protec-
tion 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 War-
ren wrote: ‘‘Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of 
man,’ fundamental to our very existence and sur-
vival. . . . To deny this fundamental freedom on so 
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications em-
bodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subver-
sive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Four-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
20:13 May 26, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR431.IH
HR431
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
•HRES 431 IH 
teenth 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 indi-
vidual and cannot be infringed by the State.’’; 
Whereas in 1967, 16 States still had law prohibiting inter-
racial marriage, including Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, 
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Mis-
souri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Ten-
nessee, Texas, and West Virginia; 
Whereas Loving v. Virginia struck down the remaining anti- 
miscegenation 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 in-
creased 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 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
20:13 May 26, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR431.IH
HR431
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
•HRES 431 IH 
(2) commemorates the legacy of Loving v. Vir-
ginia 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. 
Æ 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
20:13 May 26, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR431.IH
HR431
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS