Transcript “I Do,” “I Do,” “Oh, No You Don’t!” Is Marriage a Civil Right and Who has the Right to Decide? Jean Larsen Trisha Singer Rockford, Illinois Loving.

“I Do,” “I Do,” “Oh, No You
Don’t!”
Is Marriage a Civil Right and Who has the
Right to Decide?
Jean Larsen
Trisha Singer
Rockford, Illinois
Loving v Virginia
By Jean Larsen
Flinn Middle School
What is Miscegenation?
Miscegenation: noun marriage or cohabitation
between two people of different races,
especially, in the U.S., between a black and a
white person.
interbreeding between members of different
races.
the mixing or a mixture of races by
interbreeding.
Origin:
irregular < Latin miscē ( re ) to mix + gen ( us )
race, stock, species + -ation; allegedly coined by
U.S. journalist David Goodman Croly (1829–89)
in a pamphlet published anonymously in 1864
Source: www.dictionary.com
Source: The Cleveland Gazette, circa12/09/1899 http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/query/r?ammem/aaeo:@field(DOCID+@lit(o19223))
Mildred and Richard Loving
June 12, 2007
• Marked the 40th anniversary of the end of
anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia and 12
other states at that time.
• The story unfolds in the context of the
beginning of the Vietnam War, counter culture
of the 1960s and the Civil Rights struggle
which resulted in large shifts in American
society.
Back ground
• Richard Loving, white
and Mildred Jeter,
African American and
Rappahannock Native
American grew up
together in Caroline
County, Virginia.
• They fell in love and
went to Washington, DC
where interracial
marriage was legal in
June of 1958.
Caroline County, VA July 11, 1958 late
at night…
• Sheriff Brooks and two officers came into their
bedroom located in the home of Mildred’s
parents to arrest them.
• “I woke up and these guys were standing
around the bed. I sat up. It was dark. They had
flashlights. They told us to get up, get dressed.
I couldn’t believe they were taking us to jail.”
Mildred Loving
• “The Loving's have the right to go to sleep at
night knowing that if should they not wake in
the morning, their children would have the right
to inherit from them. They have the right to be
secure in knowing that, if they go to sleep and
do not wake in the morning, that one of them, a
survivor of them, has the right to Social Security
benefits. All of these are denied to them, and
they will not be denied to them if the whole
anti-miscegenistic scheme of Virginia... [is] found
unconstitutional.“ Bernard Cohen, ACLU
attorney.
The couple were not of the same race,
therefore they had broken the law.
• Richard was held for one night.
• Mildred was kept for several days.
Encountering a series of laws against
black-white marriages in Virginia.
•
•
•
•
1878 law defined black as ¼
1910 1/16
1924 “one drop” rule
1878 moving out of Virginia to marry and then
immediately returning to the state and
claiming to be married
• 1958 At this time ant-miscegenation laws
were being repealed by some states, but not
in Virginia.
Sentencing
• January 6,1959 Mildred and Richard plead
guilty and are sentenced to one year in jail.
• They received a suspended sentence if they
would
– Leave Caroline County and Virginia
– Not return together for 25 years
– After 25 years they would still face prosecution
Back and forth
• The Lovings moved back to Washington, DC
• Mildred returned to Caroline County to give
birth to their three children.
• “I wanted to come home. My family was here
and my husband’s family was here. Moreover,
she said, I hated to live in he city.”
• 1963 Mildred wrote to Robert F. Kennedy,
Attorney General. I told of our situation” and
asked if there was any way he could help us.”
Return to Court
• American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU lawyer
Bernard Cohen took the case, later joined by
Philip Hirschop.
• November 1963 the case was filed to set aside
the judgment
• January 1965 Judge Bazile presided at the
hearing to have his previous judgment set
aside.
Judge Bazile
• The Loving marriage was void in Virginia
• If they stayed that would face repeated
prosecutions
• Quoting a Virginia High Court case Naim V
Naim marriage was “a subject which belongs
to the exclusive control of the States”
• The U.S. Supreme court had not overruled the
1955 decision.
Judge Bazile
• In conclusion the judge wrote:
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.
Virginia Supreme Court
• March 7, 1966 a unanimous court declared,
“We find no sound judicial reason … to depart
from our holding in the Naim case”…
• The law against interracial marriage was as
sound as it was in the 1880s
The Supreme Court decides to hear
the case
“the miscegenation issue… was let open in
discrimination based on race must be examined
carefully…
December 12,1966 the court agreed to hear the
case.
Two sides
Loving
• Evidence from Brown v Board
of Education separate is not
equal
• 14th Amendment
• Privacy issues
• Right to happiness, the right
to marry
Virginia
• 10th Amendment
• State’s authority to regulate
marriage
• Questions the reach of the
14th Amendment
• Federal case upholding bans
on interracial marriage
Free Now
• The Supreme Court rule unanimously that
race could not be a factor in determining
marriage laws.
Credits
1. 388 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF
VIRGINIA Syllabus
2. Tell the Court I Love My Wife . Peter Wallenstein.
Palgrave.2002.New York.
3. From Jim Crow to Civil Rights. Klarman Michael. Oxford University
Press.2004.New York.
Anti-Miscegenation Laws &
Age Restriction
Trisha Singer
Kennedy Middle School
Why Marriage Law?
“As a social institution,
marriage links individuals
desire to social
respectability to
responsibility, marriage has
the extraordinary power to
neutralize some social
relationships, and to
stigmatize others as
unnatural.”
–Peggy Pascoe
Race
• Beginning in the colonies these laws were
used to protect the white race and keep it
pure.
• The theme of white racial purity is consistent.
• These early laws set the social and legal
precedent and solidified the cultural beliefs
that allowed 1896’s Plessy v. Ferguson
decision of “separate but equal” as well as the
Jim Crow laws.
Early Origins
• Virginia, 1662: This law written to address the issue surrounding
children of slavemasters and slave women. They defined slavery
as a condition inherited from mothers and prohibited marriage
or bastardry between "any Christian and a negro man or
woman.“
• Massachusetts, 1705: Law passed to ban marriage between
whites and blacks as well as Native Americans.
• Mississippi, 1822: Law stated that marriage can only be
solemnized "between any free white persons with in the state."
Therefore forbidding everyone else from marrying at all.
• Alabama, 1852: This code prohibited "the establishment of
relationships giving the appearance of marriage between whites
and blacks"
Native American Tribes
• 1824, the Chickasaw & Cherokee Nations banned intermarriage between
“negro slaves and Indians or whites.”
• 1825, the Chickasaw passed a law that stated and “white” man who fathered
children with “Indian” women to leave their property to the children if they
subsequently left the Nation & another that said “any of our children” who
take a negro as a husband or wife forfeit all right to property.
• 1839, the Cherokee Nation broadened its bans to prohibit marriage
“between a free male or female citizen with any person of color.”
• 1858, the Cherokee Nation passed additional laws that forbade “all persons
other than negro from cohabitating with a negro or negroes.” This even
included fines to be used to pay the informant to the authorities.
– These groups were seen as other or non-white by the mainstream American
culture. Why then do you feel they discriminated so easily against blacks?
– The legacy of slavery within Native American tribes is not well know, however
these laws all came out of the same tradition of slavery as many other
miscegenation laws .
Miscegenation indorsed by the Republican Party,
1864 (8 pages total)
This pamphlet
attempts to use
the party
member’s word’s
from speeches
and debates to
prove that they
are actually promiscegenation
and for black
rights.
Source: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/rbaapcbib:@field(NUMBER+@od1(rbaapc+19400))
The Miscegenation Ball, 1864
This lithograph
is another way
that their
opponents
attempted to
humiliate the
republican
party and prove
that they were
“negro-lovers”.
The members
are shown here
enjoying the
company of
black women.
Source: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2008661682/
Primary Source Analysis Tool
– This form can be adapted
for each specific
application or kept
generic.
– For primary grades It can
be changed to simply ask
for sensory input.
– For secondary grades
specific probing questions
can be asked to help focus
the inquiry.
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/usingpri
marysources/resources/Primary_S
ource_Analysis_Tool.pdf
New Mexico
• Ban in effect from 1857- 1866.
• During WWII it was the location of many interracial marriages
between Filipino men drafted into the army and white
women. This was assisted by a catholic military chaplain,
Father Noury. He assisted these couples to get loans to travel
to NM from CA in order to marry. He did this specifically to
ensure their families could receive support.
– Why do you think that New Mexico did not follow other states in reinstituting
anti-miscegenation laws?
– What special circumstances allowed for New Mexico to be so far ahead of the
rest of the country?
– There were several other states that also repealed their laws early or never
issued any bans. What could be some reasons for this?
Miscegenation Laws, 1865
Miscegenation Laws, 1875
Miscegenation Laws, 1900
Miscegenation Laws, 1869
Miscegenation Laws, 1939
View of Chinese Immigration
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/cic:@field(DOCID+@lit(brk7639))
Miscegenation laws, 1880
Racial Coverage of Miscegenation
Laws, 1939
Attempts to Pass Miscegenation Laws,
1913
Attempts to Pass Miscegenation Laws,
1927
Repeals, 1951-1965
Marriage Age Requirements
Without consent
With parental or
judicial consent
New Hampshire
• A female can marry with judicial and parental
consent at age 13.
• A male can marry with judicial and parental
consent at age 14.
• Same sex couples must be 18.
– Reasons for this difference?
• No reason for it without pregnancy as a concern.
• Still limiting rights of same sex couples.
Teaching Themes
• Marriage as a contract
• High/Low- Cultural and regional differences
between states
• State’s rights issue to make and enforce their
own laws
Teaching Themes: WHY?
Historically age of first marriage is increasing in the United States. What does this
mean for the future of age restrictions to marriage?
Credits
1. Definition of miscegenation found at www.dictionary.com
2. Pascoe, P. (2009). What comes naturally: Miscegenation and the making of
race in america. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Multiple documents found at www.loc.gov individual sources found on slides.
DOMA
Defense of Marriage Act
May 23,1996 DOMA started its way through Congress
in 1996 there was no state approved same-sex marriage.
In September 1996 President Bill Clinton signed DOMA
into law. Votes indicated that it would have become law
even if he had vetoed it.
In support of DOMA
• DOMA validates states’ rights to define
marriage
• DOMA validates traditional recognition of
marriage between one man and one woman
1996 Clinton and DOMA
• September, 1996 President Bill Clinton signed DOMA
into law. The bill was supported by 535 members of
Congress.
• Clinton stated that the Act confirmed the right of
states to determine the issues of same-sex marriage.
• The Act clarified the terms “marriage” and “spouse”
for federal purposes.
• Clinton stated that he opposed same-sex marriage,
but discrimination, violence or intimidation violated
equal protection under the law.
Federal Purposes
• There are over 1,000 federal statues and
programs tied to marriage.
• The tax code dominates the use of the word
marriage.
• Social Security and inheritance have significant
standing as do federal benefits and family
structure when referring to marriage rights.
• Health care decisions, death benefits, rites of
burial, adoption, and child custody are all
affected by the term marriage.
DOMA in 2011
• President Obama and Attorney Eric Holder
announced that they could no longer defend
DOMA in certain court cases.
• Speaker John Boehner hired outside lawyers
to defend DOMA at taxpayer’s expense.
Supreme Court
March 27, 2013
The U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing two cases.
Edith Windsor legally married in Canada in 2007 to her same-sex
partner, Thea Spyer. Ms. Spyer passed away leaving her estate to
Ms. Windsor.
Ms. Windsor then owed $400,000 in estate taxes, which she
would not have to pay had federal law recognized her marriage.
Ms. Windsor argued court that Section 3 of DOMA was
unconstitutional .
The Second Circuit court agreed.
Supreme Court
March 27, 2013
• The second case to be ruled on will determine in California’s
proposition 8 which changes the state constitution is in
alignment with the U.S. Constitution.
• The federal Government says that California couples have the
same rights through civil unions, but it doesn’t allow couples
to get married. Because same-sex couples are being treated
differently they are not being treated equally as required by
the Constitution.
Sources
• Amy Howe, Court to consider same-sex marriage cases: In Plain English,
SCOTUS BLOG (Nov. 29, 2012, 8:39 PM),
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/court-to-consider-same-sexmarriage-cases-in-plain-english/
• Amy Howe, In Proposition 8 case, the federal government weighs in: In
Plain English, SCOTUS BLOG (Feb. 28, 2013, 6:26 PM),
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/in-proposition-8-case-the-federalgovernment-weighs-in-in-plain-english/
• It’s time to overturn DOMA By Bill Clinton, March 07, 2013, Washington
Post
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/republicans-doma
• http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us/supreme-court-agrees-to-heartwo-cases-on-gay-marriage.html?_r=0