•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 mar-
riage, 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 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.’’;
•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, 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-
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-
•HRES 431 EH 
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. Su-
preme 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.